Oct 13, 2015

Nationalism vs. Globalism: Putin Takes on the West in Syria

via TradYouth

There are moments in politics where it becomes clear that one party has successfully outmaneuvered another and there is no example more clear in current geopolitics than Russian President Vladimir Putin putting both the West and Israel on their back-foot by the recent changes in Syria. For four years now, a “civil war” has raged in Syria, a continuation of the CIA- and Mossad-backed “revolutions” throughout the Middle East.

While America has been arming, both on purpose and on accident, Syrian rebel groups and fighters from the Islamic State, President Putin has been a staunch defender of the legitimate leader of Syria, President Bashar al-Assad. This conflict that has drawn in jihadist fighters from around the globe, Lebanese freedom fighters from Hezbollah, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Troops is now having what could be the final deciding piece put on the board, members of the Russian Federations military. With the push from Russia both in the air and on the ground in a short period of time it looks like Islamic State fighters could be sent scurrying back to Iraq and President Assad and his regime left in control.

The Syrian civil war is not a civil war in the technical sense because most of the fighters on one side are not even Syrian. While some Western minded fighters in the Free Syrian Army actually have been fighting to take Damascus and put in place a new form of government, the majority of the anti-Assad forces come from various jihadists sects around the world. While many of these fighters come from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia it is estimated that “nearly a fifth of fighters are residents or nationals of Western European countries.” Radical Islamist foreign fighters in Syria are estimated at a total thatnow exceeds 20,000” and is likely much higher.

To the members of the Islamic State the purpose of fighting Bashar al-Assad is not to depose him as a leader and create a new democratic or liberal Syria as #cuckservatives like Senator John McCain have said the rebels in Syria plan to do. The purpose of fighting as a member of ISIS is to create a global Islamic caliphate under their specific interpretation of Islam, subjugating fellow Muslims in the Middle East, Christians and all other religious faiths around the globe. ISIS is not an indicator of all Muslims though as shown by the fact that the majority of Bashar al-Assad’s army are Muslims and thousands of Muslims from Lebanon and Iran have joined the struggle against the Islamic State.

The number of Muslims joining against ISIS has also increased with the pronouncement by Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov “the Russian people have rallied around their leader Vladimir Putin … Long live our great motherland Russia! Long live our national leader Vladimir Putin! Allah-u Akbar!” While there are Chechen’s fighting on the side of ISIS, predominantly those who left the region two decades ago after the last conflict in Chechnya, it looks as if the majority of the Chechen Islamic forces now stand poised to defend Russia and to begin waging a war against ISIS as soon as they are called by President Putin as shown by a recent comment by a Russian official that noted Kadyrov’s militias “can be useful in Russia’s fight against ISIS.

ISIS in comparison to many Islamic fundamentalist groups however is not anti-Zionist, something that should be a giant red flag to anyone who thinks ISIS was not at least in the beginning just another creation of the CIA and Mossad to use local Arabs to achieve the geopolitical aims of Tel Aviv and Washington DC. While the persecution of Muslims and Christians alike continues in Palestine, ISIS commanders say that their first objective is to build “a firm base for an Islamic state in Iraq, and using it as a springboard to wage war in Syria and Lebanon” a war that will be waged primarily against fellow Muslims. ISIS is concerned with knocking out the Syrian and Lebanese governments, both of which are staunchly anti-Zionist and nationalistic.

One recent news article had the headlineISIS No Threat to Israel” which considering that if ISIS takes over Syria they will be a mere stones throw away from occupied Palestine should be a clear message that Israel is pulling the strings on ISIS if they have zero fear that ISIS will be a danger to the Zionist State. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir said in an interview that based on intelligence his nation had gathered that theCIA and the Mossad stand behind these organizations,” while Iran’s deputy foreign minister echoed the same sentiment. Israel has actively used its Air Force to attack Syrian government targets and effectively become the air force for ISIS fighters.

The Israeli role in using ISIS to destabilize Assad cannot be understood without looking at long term Israeli policy of undermining any nationalist Arab governments in the Middle East. Nationalist leaders might have the potential to challenge the Zionist entity so they have to be done away with. After a recent attack on Syrian government targets the Jerusalem Post reported the attacks were against “targets in Syria which were launched on Thursday and Friday were a means to rally American Jewish public opinion against the Iran nuclear agreement.” The work to destabilize Assad is just part of an overarching policy of stirring up terrorism and disunity in the Arab world so Israel can remain the most powerful force in the region.

Islamic State militants driving in American purchased vehicles... nothing to see here Americans, just your tax dollars at work
Islamic State militants driving in American
purchased vehicles… nothing to see here
Americans, just your tax dollars at work
A victory for Assad is a defeat for Israel and Western globalist imperialism, which is why President Putin supporting Assad is a geopolitical game changer to end a solid decade of Israel and the West knocking out political rivals to the Zionist agenda.

While Russia has long been supportive of Assad, President Putin is ramping up direct military support for the regime in the past few weeks. The support is impressive with the Times saying that “Russia rapidly increased its aerial attack capabilities in Syria over the weekend, U.S. officials told AFP Monday, including 28 combat planes that have been sighted at a new Russian airbase in the Syrian province of Latakia.

The fleet includes 12 SU-24 attack aircraft, 12 SU-25 ground attack aircraft and four Flanker fighter jets, the officials told the news agency on condition of anonymity. An influx of new weaponry was also reported separately by the New York Times and CNN. One of the officials told AFP of the additional presence of around 20 combat helicopters and said Russian forces are flying surveillance drones over the Middle Eastern nation’s airspace.” The Syrian military has long been lacking modern military aircraft to be able to identify and neutralize ISIS militants so this added bonus will likely be able to begin turning the tide in Syria in favor of President Assad. As soon as Russian planes were on the ground in Syria ISIS launched a mortar attack against the Russian embassy in Damascus, a sign that ISIS understands that the war is about to turn against them.
Terrorist groups, the only thing still with a "made in America" stamp on it
Terrorist groups, the only thing still
with a “made in America” stamp on it

The past four years of the Syrian civil war has had a seeming unending stream of Western money, military equipment and training being given to the Syrian rebels, almost all of whom have since defected to fight under the banner of ISIS. Just this past week it was found that “Syrian rebels trained by the United States gave some of their equipment to the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front in exchange for safe passage.” After spending tens of millions of dollars in training rebels the United States Army was forced to admit that “only a handful of the rebels are still fighting in Syria” with many of them like Major Anas Obaid taking their training directly into becoming fighters and commanders in ISIS.

The Daily Beast ran a story about Major Anas Obaid that saidThe commander of Division 30, one of the Syrian rebel groups from which the U.S. recruits, has allegedly defected from the train-and-equip program, according to a message he posted on social media, amid rumors (and denials) that he may have actually gone over to Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al Qaeda franchise in his war-ravaged country.” There are no moderate rebels left in Syria, the only two forces are those on the side of ISIS and those on the side of President Bashar al-Assad. So called “moderate rebels” are going over to fight for ISIS in droves leaving the only decision for the world to decide is if they are going to support ISIS or if they are going to stand with the legitimate leader of Syria.

Western politicians refuse to back Assad and say that they are going to open negotiations with ISIS, a terrorist group that has the openly stated goal of world conquest under an Islamic caliphate. You cannot negotiate with fanatics or extremists, you can either fight them and kill them all or the fanatics will fight until they are victorious. The West has trained, funded and backed ISIS for four years now, the only way that the Islamic State can be controlled and vanquished is through good old fashioned Russian firepower.

While the West is backing ISIS, Putin is putting his crack troops–Spetsnaz–into Syria to help destroy ISIS forces. While Russian air power is smashing ISIS targets, military reports tell us that,
“Spetsnaz and air-assault troops are not there to provide security to static objects, they are extremely aggressive and highly trained. They are there to mop up after air strikes, call in air strikes, go on extremely covert missions against rebels and ultimately wipe them out… they are there for one reason, to wipe out anyone threatening Assad. By any means.“
The ideologically devoted but untrained ISIS fighters are looking at the possibility of a total rout in Syria as their communications centers and headquarters are bombed by Russian jets and Spetsnaz forces clear out ISIS controlled areas on the ground, pushing ISIS likely back into American-occupied Iraq.

Spetsnaz is on the way to take out ISIS
Spetsnaz is on the way to take out ISIS
If the only choice in Syria is fighting terrorism or supporting it, Russia is leading the way in fighting the terrorist threat of the Islamic State. Even mainstream publications understand that under the umbrella of  fighting terrorism, Vladimir Putin is positioning himself and Russia as not only being the saviors of a free Syria, but the vanquishers of the Islamic State. The Financial Times reported thatRussia has over the past fortnight surprised the US, outmaneuvered regional players such as Turkey, and positioned itself as a decisive player in any postwar regional order. However, Israel, the pre-eminent military power in the Levant, has arguably emerged as the biggest loser from the Kremlin’s Syrian gambit.” The Russian support for Assad has stopped the Zionist war hawks plans for the region, at least for the time being.
While President Obama says he is fighting terrorism, he is actively supporting it by continuing to flood money, training and arms to Syrian rebels. President Obama also says that he is working to topple Assad, the only force in Syria stopping the advance of the Islamic State. In response to the United States policy of enabling terrorism, President Putin said to the United Nations “There’s no other solution to the Syrian crisis other than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism.” 

The battle lines are drawn now between Putin and the West.

America and Israel want to take down the Assad government and prop up ISIS for their geopolitical interests but Putin has properly identified that the Islamic State is a terrorist organization and must be dealt with as such. Putin has also said he would work with the USA to stop ISIS, putting the ball in Obama’s court and making the American President look like a fool when he rejects a unified global approach to stopping the Islamic State. Stopping ISIS goes against the globalist plan so Obama cannot actually do anything to beat back ISIS, giving Putin a clear space to support Assad, handle ISIS and increase the Russian presence in the Middle East as a stabilizing force.

President Putin clarified in an interview that “We have no obsession that Russia must be a superpower. The only thing we do is protecting our vital interests,” a further nail in the propaganda coffin to the West attempting to portray Putin stopping Islamic extremism as an attempt to rebuild the Soviet Union. Putin wants to stop the turmoil in the Middle East and support nationalism against the globalist hydra, a policy he has had now for many years.

The United States and Israel are also watching Iraq fall into the Russian sphere of influence due to the battle against ISIS. News reports confirm thatIraq will begin sharing ‘security and intelligence’ information with Russia, Syria and Iran to help combat the advances of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS,) the Iraqi military announced Sunday. A statement issued by the Iraqi Joint Operations Command said the countries will ‘help and cooperate in collecting information about the terrorist Daesh group,’ using the Arabic acronym for ISIS.”

After America toppled nationalist leader Saddam Hussein in 2003 the hope of the elites was to turn Iraq into an American puppet State. After over a decade of a failed project to dominate and remake Iraq (after spending hundreds of American lives, over a million Iraqi lives and over a trillion US taxpayer dollars), as soon as American troops are headed out the door the Iraqis are looking towards Russia to be a leader in the Middle East. Putin is positioned to roll back the American imperialist efforts of the early 2000’s and reestablish nationalist principles in the Middle East.

The downfall of international Jewry is always that it is too greedy and thinks that it cannot be outfoxed but it looks like President Putin is poised to radically shift geopolitics in favor of nationalism against the powers of globalism and Zionism. If Putin stays the course in Syria he has the potential to be one of the greatest leaders and Statesmen of the 21st century. An empowered Iran, a free Syria and a liberated Iraq puts the Zionists on the defensive and will better the lives of Arabs and non-Arabs alike.

Hats off to you President Putin and may God help Russia destroy the Islamic State and secure the principles of self determination for the people of not only the Middle East, but the world.

The Real Reason there Aren’t More Women in STEM Fields

via Chateau Heartiste


Could Mexico Become Somalia?

via American Renaissance

“When the history is written of the decade from 2006 to 2016 it will be recognized as the period during which the United States condemned its northern Mexican neighbors to a failed state and the Mexican economy to ruin.” So concludes Cameron Holmes, author of Organized Crime in Mexico. He believes that the Mexican drug combines have become so powerful they could push northern Mexico into complete lawlessness and destroy its economy. Holmes points out that Mexico is our third largest trade partner after Canada and China, and that if Mexico slides into chaos it will “threaten the economic well-being of North America.”

Cameron Holmes, who died in 2013, knew what he was talking about. He first worked as a ghetto policeman, then went to law school and spent the rest of his career as a prosecutor in Phoenix, Arizona’s, organized crime unit. After years of fighting Mexican crime syndicates, he came to believe that they are such a threat to our southern neighbor that, if only out of self-interest, we must do everything we can to shore up the Mexican authorities against destruction.

Not cartels

Holmes punctures several myths about Mexican crime networks. First, they are not “drug cartels.” A cartel is a group of producers who collude to set prices, whereas the Mexican syndicates are in brutally murderous competition. Holmes calls them CEs–“criminal enterprises”–which is the term used in American RICO statutes. Nor do they depend on drug income. Indeed, they threaten the state because their nature has changed:
Their power has increased for a number of reasons, including vertical integration of distribution networks in the United States, diversification into multi-crime enterprises, militarization of tactics and operations, the availability of mercenary gunmen, the availability of high-powered weapons, and international expansion. Corruption, the CEs’ diverse sources of criminal income, their intimidation through violence, and their active intelligence gathering have symbiotic effects. Together they create and maintain a web of power that is difficult to control, because each aspect makes addressing each of the others more difficult.
Holmes argues that it was diversification out of drug- and people-smuggling that made the CEs a direct threat to the state. When the only business was smuggling, criminals had a simple agreement with the authorities: We bribe you to look the other way. Mexicans thought getting drugs and people into the United States was a victimless crime. They like getting the remittances illegal immigrants send home, and they don’t care if Americans poison themselves taking Mexican drugs.

What finally drove the Mexican government to send the army against the CEs were crimes against Mexicans: kidnapping, mass extortion, truck hijacking, and even diversion of petroleum shipments–all combined with massive corruption of police and the judicial system. These are intolerable threats to any government. But once the authorities began to take action, the CEs made it clear they were beyond the reach of government.

That is the purpose of the horrible brutality we hear about so often: beheadings, video-taped chain-saw killings, bodies hung from bridges, heads pitched into night clubs like bowling balls. In 2011, one gang dumped 35 mutilated bodies, including 12 women, at a major underpass in the city of Veracruz–in rush hour, in broad daylight. Holmes says this sort of thing sends two messages: “[We] will show horrible cruelty to any who stand in their way,” and “government is powerless to do anything about it.”

Holmes adds that the most obvious and direct threat to the state is the increasingly common practice of “choosing local candidates by assassination.” This, along with the murder of police chiefs, creates zones of virtual impunity for CE operation, and killing journalists ensures a blackout on their activities. In 2010, for example, the daily in Juarez formally announced that it would no longer run any stories the CEs didn’t like.

The result is gang rule. CEs shake down civilians and legitimate businesses for regular protection payments known as “street taxes.” No one is spared. In Juarez, criminals burned down a kindergarten because the teachers weren’t paying enough protection money. “Street taxes” squeeze people to the point they can no longer pay legitimate taxes, which means government has less money for fighting crime.

Naturally, crime flourishes. There are an estimated 40,000 kidnappings and tens of thousands of truck hijackings in Mexico every year. Armed men also drive huge trucks up to grain elevators and spend the day stealing everything. They can take their time because they know the police won’t stop them. The police themselves practice their own extortion rackets, so people no longer even report crime.

Kidnapping

Eventually, it becomes rational for citizens to turn to the CEs rather than to the authorities for “justice.” Holmes quotes a study according to which an astonishing 23 percent of middle-class Mexicans asked CEs to help them sort out disagreements; in regions where the CEs were most powerful, the figure was 40 percent. Crime syndicates become de facto governments.

Violence

The willingness to use mass violence against the state–and against each other–is the hallmark of the modern Mexican CE. Violence is cheap because thousands of young Mexicans are eager to work as full-time kidnappers, extortionists, and assassins. Many are cocaine users who think they are invincible and who need money to support their habit. At $500 to $650 a month, their pay is much better than that of a soldier or policeman, so any corrupt policeman who is fired or let out of jail has an obvious second career. Holmes writes that a glut of gunmen has brought the price of a contract killing down from several thousand dollars to under a hundred. He points out that Mexico now has a generation of totally brutalized young men who can probably never be properly socialized.

Private armies mean new options for CEs:
With so many inexpensive young strangers available as gunmen, CE leaders are not as constrained as they had been about violent confrontations with rival gangs or with government authorities. When conflict meant that a king-pin’s own brothers, uncles, sons, nephews, cousins, and in-laws might die or be injured, naked aggression was not as attractive as a negotiated resolution or some other alternative.
The result: “Attacks that did not make strategic sense five years ago are much more attractive.” Also, high murder rates make it easy to camouflage an ordinary killing. If you want someone’s girlfriend you can get rid of him by chopping him in pieces and leaving him by the roadside. Everyone will think it was a drug-war killing.

In Mexico it is legal for private citizens to own guns, but ownership is carefully regulated. Illegal ownership is increasingly common. One survey found that in high-violence areas half of poor Mexicans owned a firearm.

The organization of crime

Mexican CEs all operate on the same general pattern. At the center is a leader who has established himself because of several qualities: a reputation for violence, a knack for criminal organizing, and a broad set of corruptible contacts in government and business. He must have a small group of insiders who are completely loyal to him, and he ensures loyalty two ways: By making sure they make a lot of money, and by torturing and mutilating waverers. The network is full of psychopaths who must be exterminated at the first sign of insubordination.

Anyone who knows enough about the inner workings of the CE to be useful is bound to the CE for life. His knowledge must stay within the syndicate. If he tries to leave, he will be killed and his family will be killed.

The different crime operations of the CE are grouped into “cells” that are isolated from each other as much as possible. The people running prostitutes don’t even know the kidnappers or hijackers.

Holmes notes that the large population of Mexican immigrants makes it easy for CEs to operate in the US. One of the most profitable changes that resulted from extending operations across the border has been vertical integration of drug distribution. Most of the profits in drug dealing are made close to street level. Holmes calculates the profits in the Colombian cocaine trade as follows: Andean growers: 1.5 percent; Colombian and Mexican transporters: 13 percent; Mexican and American wholesalers: 15 percent; Mexican and mid-level to final retailers: 70 percent. The CEs have gained billions in extra profits by controlling the trade right down to the barrio.

At the same time, Mexican-American street criminals are a useful minor league for CE recruitment. Many are American citizens, which makes it easy for them to cross the border or infiltrate American customs and police.

CEs use the Internet to sell genuine but bootlegged opioid pain killers to Americans. Once users are hooked they switch to CE-provided heroine, which is cheaper than legal drugs. The CEs are also expanding their drug trade around the world: Central and South America, China and Australia, and Europe.

Since the United States is the biggest drug market in the world, the CEs have had to figure out how to get their profits back to Mexico. Suitcases full of dollars are still smuggled across the border, but they are subject to confiscation at customs, and the smuggler might decide to disappear, along with the suitcase.

Not easily transported: $22 million in cash found during a cartel raid in Mexico.

Not easily transported: $22 million in cash found during a cartel raid in Mexico.
The latest trick, according to Holmes, is called “trade-based money laundering,” and it involves actual trade in Chinese goods. The US-based trader for the CE sends $400,000 in drug profits to China as a down payment on goods that wholesale for $500,000. The Chinese ship the goods to Mexico, and invoice the CE’s Mexican front company for the remaining $100,000. This means the CE now owns $500,000 worth of goods, for which the Mexican branch paid only $100,000. This means $400,000 has been cleverly laundered into Mexico from the United States via China.

The most common–and profitable–Chinese products used for money laundering are counterfeit software, drugs, videos, Gucci handbags, etc. The Chinese make 80 percent of the world’s fake goods and don’t care who their customers are. The stuff sells for a very high markup, which adds to CE profits and cuts into legitimate businesses. Holmes reports that the Zetas and La Familia have gone into the fake-goods business in such a big way that they put their own logos on products, and do not permit the sale of competing goods.

Another way to send drug profits back to Mexico is to over-invoice products exported to the United States. A $200,000 shipment of electronics from a Mexican assembly plant to the US is invoiced at $500,000. The extra $300,000 is repatriated drug profits.

Obviously, this kind of fiddle requires connections with semi-legitimate and even legitimate manufacturers, freight forwarders, insurers, etc. It may also require paying customs agents not to examine shipments with suspiciously high or low invoices. Mr. Holmes notes that as the CEs get acquainted with executives in legitimate companies, they learn whose families can pay the highest ransoms, and pass this information along to the kidnapping unit.

All aspects of CE power reinforce each other. Wealth from drugs and hijacking brings in enough money to corrupt the police. When the police look the other way, CEs can run city-side extortion rackets, and kill politicians and journalists who do not toe the line. Unchecked power–except when CEs compete for the same business–means yet more diversification into yet more criminal enterprises.

The result, as Holmes explains, is that honest citizens “are surrounded and immobilized by the illicit power web.” Instead of being suspicious when neighbors have unexplained wealth and reporting them to the police, Mexicans see such people as powerful potential allies. Ambitious parents want their daughters to marry crime bosses.

Once local governments are discredited they may never regain authority. Holmes believes that, at least in the northern states of Mexico, CEs could “strangle legitimate US-Mexico commerce” and establish vast areas of warlord rule, from which they could extend their influence ever deeper into the United States. He writes that American political leaders are “studiously ignoring the coming crisis in Mexico” for fear of offending Mexicans on both sides of the border.

Fighting back

Some outsiders think the CEs realize they could eventually destroy the Mexican economy and will be careful not to kill the host. Holmes says no. A CE always wants more revenue. The boss can satisfy the inner circle only by making more money for them, and they might strike out on their own or even depose him if he turned his back on potential profits. In any case, if one CE shows restraint, another will simply move in and scoop up the profits. If a CE could divert all of Mexico’s oil revenue it would–even though oil pays for 40 percent of the national budget and stealing it would wreck the economy.

CEs and corruption have scared away tourists–and revenue–from even the most famous resorts. The Wikitravel tourism site that is supposed to promote travel warns:
[D]rug-related violence has been increasing in Acapulco. Although this violence is not targeted at foreign residents or tourists, U.S. citizens in these areas should be vigilant in their personal safety. For the average tourist, the most frequent danger comes from local police. Bribery and extortion is at every corner.
Many people think that a quick way to defeat the CEs is to legalize drugs. Again, Holmes says no. Imagine an American company trying to get into the newly legalized cocaine market. It would have to buy its coca leaves from Andean producers, all of whom are controlled by CEs. It would have to use FDA-inspected plants, pay its workers health benefits, insure against overdose-related lawsuits, advertise, and pay excise taxes. It would be impossible for a legal provider to compete with CEs that don’t have to worry about any of that.

“No legal product can come within a multiple of ten of matching the real-world price of smuggled hard drugs,” Holmes writes. Even if a legal supplier miraculously managed to be competitive, addicts would rob and steal to support a legal habit just as they do to support an illegal one. Legalization would probably increase the numbers of users, so there would be even more street crime.

Some drugs, Holmes writes, are too horrible to legalize: “The doctrinaire position on universal legalization will always be confronted with sales of substances that are so horrible that no civil society could stand by while its members make money by selling these substances to other human beings.” He says methamphetamines cause such terrible damage to the body that they will never be legalized, thus leaving the field to the CEs.

Meth

Marijuana is a somewhat different story: It can be grown anywhere, is less destructive, and is so cheap you don’t have to be a criminal to support a habit. But here, too, the regulatory and other costs of legal production combined with high excise taxes would probably price legal suppliers out of the market. Even if they managed to get a piece of the high-end trade, legalization would probably expand the market so much that CE profits would grow.

Some users would grow their own, but Holmes points out that even though it’s easy and legal to grow your own tomatoes, hardly anyone does. Instead, they buy inexpensive, mass produced tomatoes that are available year ’round. Finally, underage users would probably be barred from buying legal marijuana, so the CEs would have that important market to themselves. In any case, marijuana accounts for only about 16 percent of the American illegal-drug market, so even if CEs were completely shut out of it, it would only dent their income.

Holmes writes that if it were possible actually to seal the border, that would cut CE profits significantly but not eliminate them. Mexicans grow a lot of marijuana in American national parks, and could move meth production north. There was a time when snuffing out US-bound smuggling might have throttled the CEs, but that wouldn’t work today. They have diversified into Mexico-based crime, and sell drugs all over the world. Whatever one thinks of legalization, Holmes reminds us that the Mafia had no trouble surviving the end of Prohibition.

So, how to fight the CEs? Holmes first points out that this is not a “war on drugs” that can be won by seizing more contraband. He sees it as a multi-faceted, international effort to keep a major economy from falling into the hands of pirates. Mexico needs better laws against organized crime, modeled on American RICO, wiretapping, and asset-forfeiture laws. It needs a better judicial system with better judges, but in the meantime it should simply send more criminals to the US for prosecution and prison. (Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s escape from a high-security Mexican prison in July underscores the weakness of the entire system. The Americans had offered to jail him, but the Mexicans insisted they could handle him.)

But Mexico doesn’t have the capacity to act alone. Holmes urges a “close partnership with the Mexican government,” though the UN might supervise joint US-Mexican raids so as to ease Mexican sensitivities about US “intervention.” He wants clear goals and a commitment of billions of dollars to achieve them.

Holmes points out that in any network, if you immobilize one essential part, the rest will stop functioning. Arresting street dealers is a never ending struggle because they are easily replaced. But if it were possible, for example, to keep the precursor chemicals for meth out of CE hands, the illicit trade would stop, even if manufacturing, smuggling, distribution, and money laundering were all running perfectly.

Holmes, who was an expert on financial crime, writes that the CEs’ weakest point is money transfer. He says the authorities catch an estimated 20 to 40 percent of the illegal drugs that cross borders but stop only about 0.2 percent of the payments. Mexico does not have good laws against illicit money transfer, and does not realize this could be a choke point.

He also notes that the people who handle such things as trade-based money laundering–shippers, insurers, brokers–are good targets for police action. First, they have special skills and cannot be easily replaced if they are jailed. Second, they are white-collar people with families. This means that if they are arrested, they are desperate to cooperate with the police if that means a shorter sentence. Third, they make credible witnesses at trial, unlike snarling, brutish people who sell drugs and kill people.

Holmes argues that a coordinated attack on money transfers would strangle the CEs. He writes that many have few cash reserves, and that if armies of killers suddenly stopped getting paid, they could turn on their bosses. A campaign like this would have to target all the CEs at the same time; otherwise, the strong would simply wipe out the weak.

It is hard for a non-expert to know if CEs could be put down that way, but another of Holmes’s ideas probably would not work. He thinks people could be made to understand that “Americans who choose involvement with Mexico-sourced illegal drugs are, quite simply, choosing to contribute to economic devastation for North America.” And he thinks drug users could be persuaded to care.

Holmes thinks Americans of drug-taking age are greenies who worry about carbon footprint, genetically modified crops, and “blood diamonds.” He thinks a graphically illustrated campaign with the slogan, “You get high, people die,” would shock users into at least switching to home-grown marijuana. A campaign like that would not work on blacks, or on degenerate white meth users, but college students might pay attention.

What future for Mexico?

Holmes’s predictions are sobering–but are they accurate? Could we really end up with a Mestizo Somalia? Holmes says Mexican politicians won’t admit the truth because it only underscores their incompetence, and American politicians are terrified of offending Mexicans. If Mexico blew up, Central America and Colombia would follow.

Even if there is a good chance of collapse, Congress won’t send billions of dollars south of the border. Americans already think Mexico is a huge financial drain, and most would probably want to build a nice wall and shut the place out. That would have consequences. Two-way trade with Mexico runs to about $500 billion a year, and American companies have further billions in Mexican assets. For strictly defensive reasons, if Mexico really is on the verge of collapse, and an expensive campaign against the CEs would prevent that, it’s probably a sensible economic bargain. If Mexico did become Somalia, boatloads of Mexicans would come swarming ashore just as Africans are in Europe.

Whatever happens, it is clear that Mexico has huge problems, and that immigrants–legal and illegal–bring Mexico’s problems here. The more Mexicans we send home and the fewer we let in the better.

Swedish Establishment Concludes that Swedes Don’t Actually Exist

via White GeNOcide Project

On October 12th, 800 Swedish politicians, business owners, trade unionists and other influential people attended a conference called “Sweden together“.

The conference, which was hosted and launched by Swedish Prime Minister, Stefan Löfvén, was rife with anti-White ideology, such as the statements in the above image.

The slide in the image above says:
1. Immigration is nothing new.
2. We are all a consequence of immigration.
3. There is no indigenous Swedish culture

This made people quite upset on social media.

Ingrid Lomfors is the woman standing at the podium in the picture, and she has a very conclusive past, which makes it obvious that she is anti-White to the core.

During the conference, Prime Minister Löfvén called on them to welcome fake refugees. He also offered “special entrance” into the “100 club“, a business club for businesses who give 100 fake refugees a job.

Companies that provide at least 100 new arrivals the opportunity to show what they can do in the labor market have a special entrance to the Employment Service and together tailor to initiatives which create opportunities for the companies to receive the new arrivals.

Notice how he calls them “new arrivals” – that’s now the politically correct way of saying illegal immigrants and fake refugees.

Going back to the anti-White rhetoric in the image, one thing worth pointing out is that they deny Swedes (and White people) exist, because then they cannot be accused of White Genocide against Swedish families.

Jill Soloway and the “Transgender” Agenda

via The Occidental Observer

Jill Soloway and son Isaac
In a recent article I explored the Jewish role in the hyper-sexualization of Western culture. I made the point that this phenomenon — the most obvious result of the Jewish takeover and virtual monopolization of the Western media and entertainment industries — represents the deliberate ethno-political application of psychoanalytic theory to a Western culture regarded as inherently authoritarian, fascistic and anti-Semitic due to its “repressive” sexual morality. This hyper-sexualization agenda, which has had disastrous social consequences for White people, operates in tandem with the Jewish-led “civil rights” movements which demand deference for non-Whites and sexual non-conformists — these serving as proxies for Jews as the prototypical outsiders in Western societies. With the legality of “gay marriage” seemingly secured (largely as a result of Jewish efforts) the focus of the “identity politics” agenda has now shifted to deconstructing traditional Western views about what it means to be a man or a woman.

As with the other “civil rights” movements dominated by Jews, the motivations underlying the  “transgender” rights movement are ultimately grounded in the subversive doctrines of the Frankfurt School — and in particular The Authoritarian Personality which found that those who ranked highly on the ethnocentrism scale (i.e., those more likely to harbor “anti-Semitic” views) tended to live in worlds with rigid gender boundaries, where attractiveness was grounded in traditional conceptions of masculinity and femininity, and where sexual mores were clearly delineated. Kevin MacDonald notes that “Jews, as a highly cohesive group, have an interest in advocating a completely atomistic, individualistic society in which ingroup-outgroup distinctions are not salient to gentiles.”[i] It is therefore in Jewish interests to subvert all non-Jewish social categories — whether these be based on race, religion or gender boundaries and roles. Hence their recent championing of the concept of “fluidity” which is the very antithesis of anything separate, homogeneous, or with clear boundaries. All cohesive (and evolutionarily adaptive) social categories that have characterized Western civilization have been subverted by Jewish activists. White masculinity has been a particular target. In his book Theorizing Masculinities the Jewish intellectual Michael Kaufman notes that:
If the hypotheses so patiently investigated by the Frankfurt School were right, this was a masculinity particularly involved in the maintenance of patriarchal ideology — marked by hatred for homosexuals and insistence on the subordination of women. But it was not the only show in town. The Authoritarian Personality analysed this character type in contrast to a “democratic character” that could resist the appeals of fascism. Inadvertently, therefore, the research documented different types of masculinity, distinguished along lines other than the normal-versus-pathological categories of clinical psychoanalysis.[ii]
tap

The position of the authors of The Authoritarian Personality associating traditional masculinity and rigid gender boundaries with “authoritarian personality traits” has since been taken up and elaborated by others. In her 2000 book Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel and Women’s Liberation, the Jewish feminist theorist Andrea Dworkin posited a direct causal link between “patriarchal Western social structure” and “anti-Semitism” — arguing that Jews and women play similar roles as scapegoats in a worldwide, timeless drama of colonization, oppression and brutality. Likewise, in their 2010 paper entitled “Gender, Sexuality, and the Authoritarian Personality” published in the Journal of Personality, the psychologists Peterson and Zurbriggen claim to “present new data and review old data from our laboratories that show the myriad ways in which authoritarianism is implicated in the important domain of gender roles.” The authors claim to “show that women and men high in authoritarianism live in rigidly gendered worlds where male and female roles are narrowly defined, attractiveness is based on traditional conceptions of masculinity and femininity, and conventional sexual mores are prescribed.”

It logically follows, if one takes these studies seriously, that those seeking to curb the incidence of “authoritarianism” in Western societies — including Jews seeking to suppress “anti-Semitism” — should attempt to break down traditional gender boundaries and sexual mores by subverting traditional conceptions of Western masculinity and femininity. This is exactly what we see from Jewish activists — from organizations like the ADL, to the legions of Jewish academics who are influential in the social science faculties of Western universities, to the Jewish constructors of culture that dominate Western media and entertainment industries. MacDonald notes that fundamentally the political agenda of The Authoritarian Personality, and those who espouse its doctrines, is “to undercut gentile family structure, but the ultimate aim is to subvert the entire social categorization scheme underlying society.”[iii] In essence, this agenda is all about tearing down and destroying the evolutionarily adaptive pillars of European civilization to make the world safe for Jews.

Jill Soloway: from Six Feet Under to Transparent

A conspicuous example of a Jewish activist and creator of popular culture who aggressively promotes the hyper-sexualization of culture, spurious notions of “gender fluidity,” and who fetishizes the “other” (i.e. everyone except White heterosexual males) is Jill Soloway who is the creator of the transgender-themed show Transparent. In a recent roundtable discussion she acknowledged that Jews in Hollywood are “recreating culture to defend ourselves post-Holocaust.” Soloway’s own work can certainly be viewed in this light. The Jewniverse website is aptly titles its review of Transparent “The New Trans TV Show That’s Good for the Jews.”

Soloway grew up in a secular Jewish home on the north side of Chicago in a home with parents “who prayed to the gods of Woody Allen and Sigmund Freud.” While they eschewed the rituals of traditional Judaism, something that was constantly stressed in the Soloway household was “the knowledge that horrible shit happens for no good reason, and it happens even worse to the Jews.” This Jewish victimology left an indelible mark on the young Soloway who noted in her memoir that: “My parents are the post-Holocaust generation. … My mom came from parents who ran from pogroms.”

Soloway’s mother, Elaine, is the author of a memoir of her childhood in Chicago’s Jewish ghetto in the 1940s, The Division Street Princess, and worked in leftwing Chicago politics as a communications director. Soloway’s father is a retired psychiatrist who, bizarrely, at the age of 73, came out as “transgender.” She now refers to her father as her “parent” and her “mapa” and with the plural pronoun “they.” This event was the genesis of her show Transparent.

As a child another “really huge influence” on Soloway was the Jewish children’s author Judy Blume. She claims “reading all her books as a young, kind of neurotic Jewish girl and seeing her kind of neurotic Jewish girls as protagonists allowed me to see myself as a protagonist… I love a kind of shambling outsider protagonist who always feels like they’re ‘other.’” Jill and her sister Faith attended an “all black” public school through to sixth grade before moving to a magnet high school. In an interview she claims this experience further “stoked her sense of always being an outsider.”

Graduating from the University of Wisconsin–Madison as a Communications Arts major, Soloway traces the roots of her radical feminism to her time at the university in the 1980s when she “took a bunch of women’s studies classes, and sort of got politicized.” It was at this time that she first felt the desire to take “feminism and Judaism — and try to translate them into the popular culture in a way that feels resonant with a non-feminist audience.” For Soloway, Judaism and feminism have “always gone together,” and notes that the radical Jewish feminist Andrea Dworkin “wrote that if you want to understand anti-Semitism, you have to understand misogyny — that the hatred of the Jew is really the hatred of the feminine. It’s a fear of the questions.” In Soloway’s mental universe, “anti-Semitism” has nothing to do with the behavior of Jews, but is a by-product in the pathological misogyny of White heterosexual men.

Before moving to Hollywood, Soloway and her lesbian activist sister Faith wrote plays, including The Real Brady Bunch, Not Without My Nipples and The Miss Vagina Pageant. Arriving in Hollywood in 1992, they quickly established a connection with the Jewish-controlled HBO where they pitched a pilot called Jewess Jones, about a female Jewish superhero, but it failed to get picked up. Faith subsequently moved to Boston where she has since written and performed in “schlock operas” such as “Miss Folk America,” “Jesus Has Two Mommies,” and “Faith Soloway’s Lesbian Cinema Schlock Treatment.”

Jill and Faith Soloway with their “mapa”
Jill and Faith Soloway with their “mapa”
Jill stayed in Hollywood and kept submitting pilots while working on a string of sitcoms and reality shows. Inevitably, Jewish ethnic networking was decisive in her ascent through the Hollywood system. In 2006 she penned a dirty story called “Courtney Cox’s Asshole” which was published in a literary journal edited by the Jewish poet, novelist, and NPR commentator Andrei Codrescu. This story caught the eye of the director of HBO’s Six Feet Under who hired her as a producer on the show. This, in turn, led to work as a producer on Showtime’s United States of Tara (five out of the seven producers of which were Jews) and How to Make It in America (created and produced by the Jewish writer and producer Ian Edelman). All three of these shows are “about “dysfunctional families — whose work is unusually frank about gender and sexuality.” The Jewish Journal notes that Soloway “has quite the reputation for writing about Jews and sex.”

While working on these shows, Soloway kept trying to get her own television series going.  It was the experience of being passed over by HBO in favor of fellow Hollywood Jewess Lena Dunham’s series Girls by that prompted her to study Dunham’s work. Girls is an incredibly degenerate show which glamorizes homosexuality, having multiple sex partners and abortion. There is an arc in the second season in which the main character (played by Dunham) dates a conservative White man, only to break up with him because his views are “immoral.” It was seeing and admiring Dunham’s work that prompted Soloway to undertake a six-week filmmaking workshop with the Jewish director and producer Joan Scheckel (who is now a consulting producer on Transparent). Soloway has called Scheckel as a “director’s guru” who convinced her that she already had years of experience being at the center of a group of people and calling the shots. She notes that: “Being a mom, being a Jewish woman control freak, means we’re all just directing all the time anyway.”

Lena Dunham
Lena Dunham
After her crash course in directing and producing, in 2013 Soloway wrote and directed her first movie, Afternoon Delight, a film which focuses on a bored, therapist-frequenting, Jewish housewife, Rachel, who “drops a bomb into her marriage when she takes in a stripper named McKenna, after receiving a mind-blowing lap dance from the sex worker.” The film, shot in and around Soloway’s own home, won her the directing prize at the Sundance Film Festival.
One Jewish source notes that: “While it would be incorrect to describe Afternoon Delight — which Soloway calls a ‘coming-of-middle-age’ film — as autobiographical, it is assuredly an amalgam of the Chicago native’s passions: Judaism, feminism, sex, comedy and spirituality.” Soloway’s Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism, radical feminism, and obsession with sexual non-conformists fully characterize Afternoon Delight and, indeed, in her entire body of work. She has observed that “sex workers, feminism, queer art are all alive in the same space for me. In some ways, I feel like it’s my work to be a translator between the queer world and the straight world.”

Despite being heterosexual, Soloway claims to have always felt most comfortable among homosexuals since her college days at the University of Wisconsin, where she first started “hanging out with lesbians.” Soloway explains: “I’ve always been straight identified and always slept with men, but politically I feel like a lesbian — I see male privilege everywhere. … I identify as queer.” One of Soloway’s best friends is the Jewish lesbian activist Mel Shimkovitz — who identifies as “butch-queer” and purports to be a “designer, actor, writer, and DJ.” According to Soloway, the two of them “instantly fell in love, and I sort of wanted Mel to be my fashion-icon muse.”

Acknowledging how effective the civilization-destroying feminist propaganda spewed out by the media and entertainment industries has been in poisoning the minds of millions of American women, Soloway pointed out how common it is for her to meet women and to discover “they’re either gay, they’re bi, they’re queer, they’re feminist, they’re artists, and you don’t even have to stop to be like, ‘Are you down for the cause to topple the patriarchy? Because it’s already understood. It’s like, “what are we doing today?’”

Reflecting on her two decade-long obsession with sex workers and the LGBTQ subculture, Soloway observed that: “Coming out of college and women’s studies, Susie Bright, Annie Sprinkle, and Carol Queen were these feminist performance artists, filmmakers, writers, who felt to me, like the female equivalent of war journalists. … I loved what they were able to bring back from being in a room with a John or on-stage at a Peep Show. I have always found their memoirs and art compelling in a way that I didn’t understand.” In 2006 Soloway offered the public her own “sexual insights, political diatribes and tips for would-be screenwriters” in her autobiographical essay collection, Tiny Ladies in Shiny Pants: Based on a True Story.

Transparent

All of Soloway’s ideological fixations (particularly her obsession with “otherness”) are manifest in her show Transparent which is the story of Mort (Jeffrey Tambor) the elderly father of a Jewish family coming out to his three grown children as a transvestite — his ex-wife Shelly (Judith Light) already knows. He now wants to go full-time in women’s clothing, be called “Maura,” and be referred to as “she.” Meanwhile, his son Joshua (Jay Duplass) is having an affair with the new woman rabbi. One daughter, Sarah (Amy Landecker), the mother of two children, leaves her husband for a lesbian lover from her earlier days. Another daughter, Ali (Gaby Hoffmann) is “pansexual, moody and masochistic,” and who especially enjoys “being bossed around by a transsexual man with a beard and a vagina.” Transparent is, in the words of The Village Voice, replete with “adultery, abortion, threesomes, lesbians, transgenders, interracial hook-ups.”

The cast of Transparent
The cast of Transparent
Transparent is Soloway’s answer to the question she asked herself: “What would I do if I granted myself the same kind of artistic entitlement that Lena Dunham grants herself?” According to Jewish writer Anna Goldsworthy, writing for The Monthly:
Transparent does bear some resemblance to Dunham’s Girls: Jewish people behaving badly; indie soundtrack; assorted humiliations of the flesh (the slap of the over-lubricated dildo falling onto the public bathroom floor, as Ali experiments with a trans boyfriend). It is attention-grabbing television, with generous lashings of nudity, but it differs from Girls in that it believes in good sex and allows its protagonists to enjoy it. And if this sometimes looks like sex in the movies, it is salvaged by an attention to everyday detail, such as the children’s car seats hastily abandoned alongside the SUV in which Tammy and Sarah have their first tryst.
The negative effect that this kind of hyper-sexualized programming has on young people has been noted by the psychologists Richard Jackson Harris and Fred W. Sandborn in their book A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication. They note that: “Teenagers who watch heavy diet of television with sexual content were twice as likely to engage in sexual intercourse over the following year as teens who were light viewers of sexual content, even after controlling for other possible factors.” Record high rates of sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents is just one of the negative consequences of the dysfunctional behaviour encouraged by this Jewish hyper-sexualization of Western culture.

Noting how Soloway’s salacious output parallels that of Dunham and Jenji Kohan, creator of Orange Is the New Black, one source notes that “All three shows explore the sexual ‘other’ and attempt to wrest depictions of female sexuality from the boys. These aren’t new pursuits. The L Word, Glee, and even Will & Grace were pioneers for humanizing LGBTQ roles on television, while Sex and the City paved the way for a broader look at women’s sex lives. But Transparent is the first to feature a fully fleshed-out trans character as the protagonist.” All of these shows were created and produced by Jews. As I have previously noted, Hollywood has been integral to changing Western attitudes towards homosexuality, as Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged when he noted in 2013 that
it wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was “Will and Grace,” it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace [gay marriage]. Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.
Soloway is proud to follow this path laid out by fellow Jews in “recreating culture to defend ourselves post-Holocaust,” observing that: “My work privileges the Other, with a capital ‘O,’ meaning all kinds of other — Jewish, trans, gay, unattractive, weird, freaky, outsider, different, fucked up.” She proposes that “it’s impossible for cis white men to understand how every, every, every other person has to synthesize the feeling of being ‘otherized,’ always.” Cis being short for cisgender, a bogus etymological construction which supposedly describes a normal person who identifies with the gender he or she was assigned at birth.

The term was first used by the (likely Jewish) “gender warrior and transactivist” Eli R. Green in a 2006 article in the Journal of Lesbian Studies, and was then popularized by the transgender writer Julia Serano in “her” 2007 book Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. Soloway, a big fan of Serano, neglects to explain how Africans living in a homogeneously Black Africa, or Chinese living in a homogeneously Asian China (or billions of other non-Whites living in countries with few or no White men) are afflicted with “the feeling of being otherized always.” Nonetheless, she informs us that she now feels “less angry after having made Transparent, because the experience of watching Transparent privileges the other.”

Echoing this theme, journalist Inkoo Kang, writing for The Village Voice, notes that Transparent’s place at the vanguard of “mainstream pop culture’s explorations of gender and sexuality” — alongside HBO’s Girls and Netflix’s Orange Is the New Black, “isn’t secured simply through its trans focus, but its multivalent privileging of the other.” Another commentator claims that: “It’s very interesting that the most noted shows of two of the major streaming TV services, Netflix and Amazon Prime, are by women showcasing an astonishing diversity of female (and queer) characters.” While it may be interesting, this situation is hardly surprising given that all of these women are Jewish, and that a Jewish ethno-political agenda is the driving force behind their squalid output: this agenda, as always, revolving around the White displacement agenda, race-mixing, the hyper-sexualization of culture and overthrow of traditional Western sexual mores, and, in recent years, the feminization of White men and the breaking down of traditional gender boundaries.

Jenji Kohan
Jenji Kohan
In addition to its highly sexual nature, The Jewish Daily Forward declared Transparent “the Jewiest show ever,” a sentiment echoed by The New Yorker. The hyper-ethnocentric Soloway, referring to her show, told the Jewish journalist Daniel Fienberg:
I want it to be super Jewy! I want it to be really, really Jewy. When I gave you that list of people who don’t normally get consulted when pilots get ordered — Feminists, gay people, trans people — and Jews. There’s a lot of Jewish writers, but the old adage is “Write Jewish, Cast British.” You’re supposed to write the Jewish anxieties, but then take out any references to Tu Bishvat and make sure that the actors look WASP-y. So I think I’m gonna subvert that and write Jewish, cast Jewish, act Jewish, fall apart Jewish, make mistakes Jewish, cry Jewish. Even when I was working on [HBO’s] Six Feet Under [2001-05], I was thinking, “One day I’m going to have my own show, and it’s going to be about a family and it’s going to be really Jew-y and really sexy.”
Naturally Jews and Judaism are always presented sympathetically in the show. According to Debra Nussbaum Cohen, writing for the Jewish Daily Forward, Soloway’s Transparent “shows a family — not a religious Jewish family, but one that is in many respects typically American — connecting with Jewishness in fits and starts, treating Judaism in an intimate and lovingly familiar ways.” Soloway’s Jewcentric output has, not surprisingly, endeared her to the pillars of Hollywood’s Jewish establishment. The Jewish television writer and producer Norman Lear, creator of the subversive 1970s comedy All in the Family, labelled Soloway his hero, noting that: “I’m utterly taken by Transparent, [lead actor Jeffery Tambor] walks a line between hilarity and heartbreak.” The Jewish director, screenwriter and producer Darren Aronofsky has been similarly effusive, tweeting that, “I gotta hang @jillsoloway #TransparentTV next to the best of Philip Roth.”

Reading these comments reminds one of the accuracy of the Jewish director David Mamet’s observation that: “Hollywood movies are profoundly, genetically Judaic; the product, via the minds of their creators, of certain distinctive racial traits that arose in the ghettos of Eastern Europe and transported themselves to Beverly Hills.” Mamet believes two of these traits, indifference to (and, indeed, contempt for) wider non-Jewish social norms and high intelligence, combined with a form of autism known as Asperger’s Syndrome, which “has its highest prevalence among Ashkenazi Jews and their descendants … sounds to me like a job description for a movie director.”

Explaining the prominence of Jews in her 2006 memoir Tiny Ladies in Shiny Pants, Soloway again echoed the late radical Jewish feminist Andrea Dworkin, maintaining that, “the Jew is not just the Jew — it’s the scapegoat, it’s the other. My whole book is about feeling like the other, the other at summer camp, the other in the sorority, the other in every part of life.” Enthusiastically adhering to the longstanding Jewish ethno-political stance favoring the promotion sexual liberation among gentiles as a way to defuse “anti-Semitism,” Soloway says she opposes “the old-school feminists who [like Dworkin] are anti-porn” and is much more in sympathy with “the modern feminists who are pro-sex worker, pro-porn, pro-choice.”

As expected, Soloway’s Jewish identification and sympathies override her other widely-touted ideological commitments. Despite trumpeting and propagandizing the alleged virtues of “diversity,” she herself “is happily married to a Jewish man” and made sure she sent her son Isaac to a private Jewish day school. Asked in an interview why she did this, despite having written favourably of her parents’ decision to send her to a public school where she was one of the few non-African-American students, Soloway disingenuously claimed that: “It wasn’t really the plan. Part of it was that my son is allergic to peanuts and the school is a peanut free environment. Also, I wasn’t in a good public school district, otherwise I would have used the public school.”

It was while she was in the process of looking for a nursery school for her son that Soloway claims that she “rediscovered her Jewishness.” After walking into the Temple Israel in Hollywood she “knew immediately that this was where I want to be. After that I sort of rediscovered the tribe. I love being a community organizer and became very active with the East Side Jews and Reboot.” A decade ago Soloway went on retreat with Reboot, an organization that, in its own parlance, brings together “Jewishly unconnected cultural creatives.” It had a major impact on her and led to her starting, with other Rebooters, a group called East Side Jews, which gathers in the Silver Lake area of Los Angeles to conduct Jewish rituals like Shabbat dinners and tashlich. Most importantly, it provides an opportunity for some good old fashioned Jewish ethnic networking. Soloway has noted that many of the writers on Transparent are people she met through Reboot and East Side Jews.

Notes:
[i] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 170.
[ii] Harry Brod & Michael Kaufman, Theorizing Masculinities (Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage, 1994), 29.
[iii] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 174; 177.

EU “Grossly Underestimates” the Dangers of Mass Migration

via Hungary Today

The European Union still grossly underestimates the dangers of mass migration involving people in the millions, Hungarian foreign minister Péter Szijjártó has said.

If the EU loses its credibility in the countries that currently host the majority of migrants, its borders will be inundated by millions of new arrivals, Mr. Szijjártó said after meeting EU foreign ministers. A related agreement is urgently needed with Turkey, as well as with Jordan and Lebanon. “If the EU cannot regain control of its borders and cannot agree with Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq about ways to contribute to looking after the migrants in those countries, then millions of migrants will be coming”, Mr. Szijjártó said, adding that nothing has been achieved in addressing the causes that triggered the migrant crisis in the Middle East or in the fight against the Islamic State. Turkey plays a key role in this process, and it is also in Europe’s interest to speed up visa liberalisation and open a new chapter in EU accession talks with Turkey, he said. If cooperation between the Visegrád countries to protect Hungary’s southern borders proves to be successful, then “nobody will be able to credibly argue” against the 28 EU states joining forces to protect Greece’s external borders, he argued.
 
Szijjarto Peter
Hungarian foreign minister Péter
Szijjártó (photo: kormany.hu)

8702 new arrivals in a single day


The Hungarian foreign minister’s words come as a spokesman for the country’s national police force revealed this morning on public television that the number of individuals subjected to police proceedings for illegal border crossing between 1 January and Monday midnight is now 366 409. Of the 8702 illegal border crossings registered on Monday alone, 8633 took place through the frontier with Crotia and 68 on the border with Serbia, Kristóf Gál said.

Also speaking on the morning programme, a senior official at Hungary’s Office of Immigration and Nationality said that the nunber of approaches from foreign authorities concerning the Dublin procedure has increased eightfold compared to the identical period of the previous year, topping 32 000. In about 80 per cent of all cases, Hungary has to acknowledge responsibility, meaning that the country’s authorities are tasked with processing the asylum application, the official said.

Gandhi's Visit to Fascist Italy in 1931 and His Views on Mussolini's Foreign Policy from 1935

via Ur-Fascist Analytics

Gandhi on a visit to Fascist Italy
Ur-Fascist Analytics Editor's Note: In 1931, the Indian nationalist, Gandhi, made a special visit to Fascist Italy. He came as a peacemaker and to pay respect to Benito Mussolini's government. The video below shows Gandhi being given a tour of the fascist country. Mussolini warmed to Gandhi, calling him a "genius and a saint," and Gandhi in turn hailed Mussolini as a great statesman who had "done much for the peasant class." When, in 1935, Mussolini invaded the African country of Abyssinia, Gandhi criticized the action but called for only peaceful responses.

Mussolini and Gandhi: Strange Bedfellows
Palash Ghosh
International Business Times, 3 March 2012

Politics not only make for strange bedfellows, sometimes they create bizarre, confounding, incomprehensible bedfellows.

It would be difficult to identify two historical figures from the 20th century who were more diametrically opposed to one another than the gentle, saintly hero of Indian independence, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Benito Mussolini, the brutal Fascist dictator of Italy.

Yet, the “Mahatma” and “Il Duce” formed a mutual admiration society during the 1920s and 1930s.

According to a book entitled “Subhash Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany,” author Romain Hayes wrote that in late 1931, Gandhi accepted an invitation to visit Mussolini in Rome while the Mahatma was touring Europe.

Reportedly, the two men -- the vain Italian Fascist and the modest, unassuming Indian ascetic -- got along extremely well and admired each other.

Hayes wrote that, among other things, Gandhi reviewed a black-shirted Fascist youth honor guard during his visit.

“Mussolini hailed Gandhi as a 'genius and a saint,' admiring ... [Gandhi's] ability to challenge the British Empire,” Hayes wrote.

Regarding his visit with Il Duce, Gandhi wrote in a letter to a friend: Mussolini is a riddle to me. Many of his reforms attract me. He seems to have done much for the peasant class. I admit an iron hand is there. But as violence is the basis of Western society, Mussolini's reforms deserve an impartial study.”

Obviously, Gandhi's enthusiasm for Mussolini was tempered by the dictator's questionable tactics.

Nonetheless, Gandhi's missive continued: “[Mussolini's] care of the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about coordination between capital and labor, seem to me to demand special attention ... My own fundamental objection is that these reforms are compulsory. But it is the same in all democratic institutions. What strikes me is that behind Mussolini's implacability is a desire to serve his people. Even behind his emphatic speeches there is a nucleus of sincerity and of passionate love for his people. It seems to me that the majority of the Italian people love the iron government of Mussolini.

Gandhi also hailed Mussolini “one of the great statesmen of our time.”

As odd as it seems, the Mahatma's affection for Mussolini was echoed by many unlikely sources.

In the mid-1920s, Winston Churchill, who met Mussolini and was impressed by his sense of apparent order and efficiency in Fascist Italy, once gushed: “If I had been Italian, I am sure I would have been with you from the beginning.”

George Bernard Shaw, the famed Irish playwright and Socialist (and avowed enemy of Churchill) once declared: “Socialists should be delighted to find at last a Socialist [Mussolini] who speaks and thinks as responsible rulers do.”

While Gandhi's relationship with Mussolini may seem strange and indefensible on the surface, if one considers the global political climate between the two World Wars, perhaps such linkages are not so unusual.

Following the devastation of World War I, extremist ideologies appealed to millions of people around the world who faced economic recession, starvation, joblessness, privation and sectarian violence, among other seemingly insurmountable societal ills.

At that time, Fascism, Nazism and Communism were simply political “philosophies” which sought to find drastic solutions to overwhelming social problems.

Long before the horrors of the Nazi death camps and the mass exterminations perpetrated by Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao Tse-Tung were exposed, many people of goodwill and with good intentions embraced these “extremist” ideologies.

From an Indian Nationalist perspective, Mussolini's Italy and Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany were viewed not only as bulwarks against British imperialism, but they were widely admired for creating strong, economically robust nations out of the wreckage of WWI and its resultant devastation.

Tarak Nath Das, an Indian revolutionary, wrote glowingly of Fascist Italy in 1931: “Italy, under the leadership of Signor Mussolini, is roused to its very depths of national consciousness. It feels that it has a mission of introducing a higher type of civilization. It had the urge of becoming a great power again ... Italy must be great through her national power, achieved through the authority of an 'ethical State' supported by national co-operation and solidarity.”

Das added: “Every Italian citizen must think first of his duty towards his self-development, [his concern for the] welfare of the state and society ... and [he must] make his or her supreme effort to attain the ideal. Class harmony must take the place of the ideal of class-war. So-called democracy must give way to the rule of the aristocracy of intellect. ... Some superficial and prejudiced observers of new Italy have spoken of 'Fascist tyranny' and condemned the Fascist regime. To me it is clear that the Fascist government or a particular official might have made some mistakes on particular occasions; but Fascism stands for liberty with responsibility and it is opposed to all forms of license. It gives precedence to Duty and Strength, as one finds in the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.

By the time Mussolini invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in the mid-1930s, Gandhi (as well as Churchill, Shaw and other former admirers), completely disavowed Il Duce. Thereafter, Mussolini's prestige declined and completely evaporated in India.

However, Hitler and Nazism are an entirely different matter.

To this day, many right-wing Hindu Nationalists in India admire Der Fuhrer, and his infamous tract “Mein Kampf” remains widely popular, especially among the young.

Strange bedfellows indeed.


***************

INDIA: Gandhi vs. Mussolini
TIME, 8/5/1935, Vol. 26, Issue 6, p. 19

During the Boer War well-fleshed young Lawyer Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi organized an ambulance corps and personally led it under fire to the succor of British troops with such bravery that he received the official thanks of Queen Victoria's Government.
In 1906 similar service was rendered by Mr. Gandhi during the savage Zulu Rebellion in Natal and he accepted from King George the highly coveted Kaiser-i-Hind medal, sent it back in 1920 when he began to preach "Civil Disobedience."
Last week scrawny St. Gandhi, some-what in eclipse since he failed to win Dominion Status for India, thrilled 350,000,000 Indians anew by announcing at Calcutta, "India cannot ignore Benito Mussolini's threat against the dark-skinned people. Although India is under British rule, she is a member of the League of Nations, and fully entitled to assist against another nation, in a noncombatant way."