As readers of this wretched writer are well aware, while being a U.S. American from a family that has been in America since the 1600s (not Puritan, mind you, but Scotch-Irish and Welsh), we here at Bloody Nib Manor (Lady Nib is Japanese) are rather Anglophile. We like and appreciate English history, literature and English culture (of the pre 1960 variety). One of our favorite British authors is Jane Austen, and we feel that the King James Bible the plus non ultra translation of the Scriptures, as well as being a model for the writing of the English language despite the fact that this writer has not lived up to that style or clarity of writing.
And we both like Queen Elizabeth II. She has had, so far, a long reign and has shown herself to be an almost perfect monarch in a parliamentary/royal system of government. In reality, the queen is a figurehead and symbol more than she is a person with power. She opens sessions of Parliament, approves the new Prime Minister, gives a Christmas and New Year's Day address. Other than those things she supports charities, encourages businesses, and acts as a living symbol of what Great Britain is, was and should be. Born to wealth and privilege she worked as an Army mechanic while a princess during World War II. And while, during the dark days after the War when Britain was going through an economic rough spot, instead of swanning as a Royal, she did what she could, considering her position, to identify with the normal working class Limey while not becoming Bolshie or silly. She knew, and knows her role.
Her sons, on the other hand, have been a disappointment as symbolic heads of state. Prince Charles has shown himself to be a rather dim and silly man with not very good ideas and a mouth that he cannot control. His best pronouncements have been against modern architecture. But most of his public ideas are rather silly and not based on reality. Probably, despite popular opinion, was marrying Diana Spenser simply because she was not royal material. The world loved that silly woman because she was rather attractive and wore a gown well, but she was not of the type to hold back her vanity for the benefit of the nation. But Diana was cool and with it and made friends with people one would not want one's children to make friends with, so that made her the People's Princess. What many people do not realize, or will not admit to, is that the people -- themselves -- can be awfully silly and stupid. The people would have thought it great if Prince Charles had married Barbara Windsor because she was pretty and had a nice figure. Charles has not shown himself to be a great thinker or a serene highness. He comes across as a tweet clad twit who Bertie Wooster would have looked askance at.
And, of course, his brothers are no bargains. Andrew seems, if one is to believe the gutter press, a bit of a sex monkey of the Edward VII type, and who has been linked up, for better or worse, with J. Epstein. And Prince Edward is a bit of a dud who nobody really knows what is up to besides his trying to live a "green" life.
So we come to Elizabeth II's grandsons; William and Harry. William seems o be, despite his father and mother, seems to be a responsible and sensible young man with a sense of duty to the nation. He married a woman who seems to hold the values of Britain and the U.K. He and she, whether they are happy about it, do their duty as they see it for their nation. They seem to want to hold Great Britain together no matter what the religious or ethnic make up of the nation presently is. They seem to hold to traditional British values, and to be ridiculous, would much rather see West Indian immigrants take up Morris dancing instead of Welshmen take up twerking on St. David's Day, or Muslim read Dickens instead of al-Bagdadhi. They try their best despite their youth.
Prince Harry, on the other hand, is not so much a wild card as he is a bit of a termite. He probably cannot help himself. Despite his service in one war or another he seems to have gotten the silly gene. This is evinced by the fact that he married Meghan Markel. The problem is no that she is bi-racial or that she is an American. The problem is that she seems to have the whip hand over him. In other words, it's the old story of a warrior brought to his knees by a bit of fluff.
When Elizabeth II dies Charles will become king, and when happens the British monarchy will in fact, though not in name, end. When Charles ascends the throne he will not be declared as the defender of the Faith, but by his own wish, be declared the defender of faiths.
Since Henry VIII the British monarchs have been the heads of the Church of England, a Christian and Protestant church. The Church of Rome may have condemned the Church of England as an apostolic movement, but considering the current state of the Roman church under Francis there is no room for criticism on Rome's part. The modern Church of England, as silly and foolish as it is, is no less Christian than the nonsense spewed out by the Vatican and Frannie. But the point is that the monarch of Great Britain is supposed to be the defender of the Christian faith, whether it be Protestant or Catholic in Great Britain. This is not to say that he is to oppress Mohammedans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists or pagans. What he is supposed to do, by his traditional title, is defend the Christian faith against attacks. It's a defensive stance protecting the gates of the nation.
But Charles is a dopey guy and once he becomes monarch he will destroy the monarchy because he really doesn't believe in it and really doesn't believe in Christianity. He will prove himself to e a man who stands for, well nothing except his own privilege and wealth while playing a "go along to get along" game.
And whether his reign is two years or twenty years, he will destroy the monarchy for himself and his descendants because he does not hold his present position and his future role as nothing but a mouthpiece for his whimsies instead of being a rock or tradition in a nation that hates tradition until it' gone and destroyed.
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Language is all we have
It's been an exciting week here at the Manor. Well, to be truthful, in the village.
A couple of louts, wanting to mark there territory like a dog urinating on a post decided that it was a good idea to spray paint their gang nickname on the wall of a garage that they did not own, live, or live near. A man came out of his house and found the yobs spray painting their tag on his garage. When the man protested the poor minority youth thought is a good ideas to pull out a pistol and pop off a few shots at the home owner before running away. Fortunately the home owner was not injured, but a car and a wall were hit by the bullets. The result? The local constabulary, instead of investigating an attempted murder, makes the excuse of, "Ah! Youth! Ain't they just a silly bunch!"
Now let us get down to cases.
This week President Trump used the word "lynching" in reference to the impeachment investigation that the Democrats in Congress are conducting in regards to his position as President.
And it was then, when the word "lynching" was used, that the poop hit the air conditioner. It was claimed that the word "lynch" could only be properly used by black people in referring to the lynching of black people. In their world only black people have ever been lynched despite the fact that teh word comes from an early American judge (1700s) was the person from whom the word comes from, and at the time most people lynched were white pro-British Americans during the Revolution. And also forget that it was not uncommon for white cowboys in the old west to by lynched for robbery or horse theft. And, once again, down the memory hole goes the fact that in the late 1800s 13 Sicilians were lynched in New Orleans as a bunch in New Orleans or that Leo Frank was lynched on a false charge.
The liberals and SJWs and the black lobby have decided that the word lynch is only properly used when it is used regarding black people. You, if not of European, Asian, Australian or South American cannot use the word. Only people who consider themselves of African heritage can use the word in reference to themselves.
Now think of this: There is a group of people with a very large microphone who have decided that there is a word that originally had not racial connotation that you cannot use without without a racial connotation. These people want to limit your ability to express yourself in your way because they think you are using a word in a way that they don't like.
They are babies who want a lollipop, but if the lollipop is not cherry instead of grape that means that you're a bad parent or uncle or auntie and should be reported to the Department of Family Services.
They want to take away the words you use to express yourself and penalize you for using those words. They want to limit your freedom to say an unpopular thing. The words "Nigger", "Jap", "Beaner", "Flip", "Kraut", "Squarehead", "Limey" or "Frog" may be offensive to some. But guess what? Nobody ever died by being called by those words. At the same time the words "Honky", "Cracker", "Gaijin", "Gringo", "Wop", and "Banana", "Coconut" and "Oreo" are okay.
There are two levels in the modern world. One is good, meaning the SJW world. The other is bad because the old is bad.
Language is really all we have. It is a thing that is more powerful than guns or laws. And now we find ourselves in an age where our words are being policed by people who don't know the difference between "they're" and "their."
A couple of louts, wanting to mark there territory like a dog urinating on a post decided that it was a good idea to spray paint their gang nickname on the wall of a garage that they did not own, live, or live near. A man came out of his house and found the yobs spray painting their tag on his garage. When the man protested the poor minority youth thought is a good ideas to pull out a pistol and pop off a few shots at the home owner before running away. Fortunately the home owner was not injured, but a car and a wall were hit by the bullets. The result? The local constabulary, instead of investigating an attempted murder, makes the excuse of, "Ah! Youth! Ain't they just a silly bunch!"
Now let us get down to cases.
This week President Trump used the word "lynching" in reference to the impeachment investigation that the Democrats in Congress are conducting in regards to his position as President.
And it was then, when the word "lynching" was used, that the poop hit the air conditioner. It was claimed that the word "lynch" could only be properly used by black people in referring to the lynching of black people. In their world only black people have ever been lynched despite the fact that teh word comes from an early American judge (1700s) was the person from whom the word comes from, and at the time most people lynched were white pro-British Americans during the Revolution. And also forget that it was not uncommon for white cowboys in the old west to by lynched for robbery or horse theft. And, once again, down the memory hole goes the fact that in the late 1800s 13 Sicilians were lynched in New Orleans as a bunch in New Orleans or that Leo Frank was lynched on a false charge.
The liberals and SJWs and the black lobby have decided that the word lynch is only properly used when it is used regarding black people. You, if not of European, Asian, Australian or South American cannot use the word. Only people who consider themselves of African heritage can use the word in reference to themselves.
Now think of this: There is a group of people with a very large microphone who have decided that there is a word that originally had not racial connotation that you cannot use without without a racial connotation. These people want to limit your ability to express yourself in your way because they think you are using a word in a way that they don't like.
They are babies who want a lollipop, but if the lollipop is not cherry instead of grape that means that you're a bad parent or uncle or auntie and should be reported to the Department of Family Services.
They want to take away the words you use to express yourself and penalize you for using those words. They want to limit your freedom to say an unpopular thing. The words "Nigger", "Jap", "Beaner", "Flip", "Kraut", "Squarehead", "Limey" or "Frog" may be offensive to some. But guess what? Nobody ever died by being called by those words. At the same time the words "Honky", "Cracker", "Gaijin", "Gringo", "Wop", and "Banana", "Coconut" and "Oreo" are okay.
There are two levels in the modern world. One is good, meaning the SJW world. The other is bad because the old is bad.
Language is really all we have. It is a thing that is more powerful than guns or laws. And now we find ourselves in an age where our words are being policed by people who don't know the difference between "they're" and "their."
Sunday, October 20, 2019
A Mixed Grill
Have you, gentle reader, ever awoken from some sweet dream in which you live in some sort of Paradise only to fall out of bed and find that the world has become more silly and ridiculous, and because of the silliness and ridiculousness, has become a more dangerous place?
Of course you have. Anyone with more sense than a goose has. It's a daily occurrence.
So let's run down a few of the most silly, stupid and foolish matters that have become "serious" news by the "news" media.
In Great Britain a British subsidiary of Protector and Gamble has, until recently sold a brand of sanitary napkin for women on which the packaging features the astronomical symbol for Venus. The symbol is a circle with a cross at the bottom of the circle. It is a symbol that is used by many feminists on their silly marches. It is recognized as not only a symbol for the planet Venus, but is also used as a symbol, both medically, scientifically and popularly, as a symbol for a woman.
Well, a group of transexuals (this writer refuses to use the word "transgender" and would much rather use the word "tranny") and their allies have decided to pitch a bitch as many of the entitled often do because the Proctor and Gamble sanitary product for women to be used during their periods excludes men who claim to be women. Now think about this for about half a second. Women, natural born and real women, whether straight, lesbian, "transitioning" into men have periods unless they're anorexic or have spent too much time becoming "elite" athletes. But the fact of the matter that it is only people who have been born biological female who menstruate. To do so requires a uterus at the minimum.
No person who was born biologically male can menstruate. It doesn't matter if said born male has been taking female hormones for many years, had cosmetic surgery to make his private look like those of a woman, or had breast implants to make give him a bust that would shame Jayne Mansfield. That person may look like Jennifer Aniston or Monica Belluci or Audrey Hepburn. That person will never have a period and has no more need of a sanitary napkin than an iguana.
But because that crowd is as loud as a dozen roosters at dawn when one is trying to sleep off a night of drinking too much brandy, that bunch of screamers gets attention because they are, well, weird. No one in the media will admit that they are weird are weird and not normal. but they, themselves, really do think that that trannies are weird and not normal. If the televised news organizations thought that trannies were not weird they would have put a born man pretending to be a Barbie on television as a news reader. And the media push forward the transexual gag because it is good for those in the media to be accepting. It makes them feel good and accepting. But, in real life, they want to have no more to have to do with a bunch of men who demand that sanitary napkins be sold and marketed to them than you do. And that's because the media are "enlightened" and you are just some dumb rube walking around a local carnival looking at the freaks and trying to knock over the milk bottles with a ball. It's all a fixed game for that bunch of fraudsters.
If you, dear reader, has spent any time at all looking at the "news" over the past few days you'll know that Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent of some sort and a woman who was going to set up a third party candidacy for a Presidential campaign, and thus dilute the votes for the Democrats, resulting the the re-election of Donald Trump. It was, really and in fact, a silly and stupid accusation by Mrs. Clinton. And it was also an indication that she, in her madness, thinks that she can, without going through the debate process among that bunch of hydrocephalics who are attempting to become the Democratic candidate for President, slide into the role in the same way that a rat or a termite can infest a house. Rep. Gabbard, unlike most of the Democratic aspirants for the position, pulled out her Purdy shotgun and let Mrs. Clinton have it with both barrels. Let us hope that she, while being a Democrat who is the best of a bad bunch, keeps her powder dry and is not loath to use her ammunition against just plain idiocy.
In the past this writer has been accused of writing things that some people find Islamophobic. Or course, like racism, the word Islamophobic has never been properly defined. And by properly defined this writer means not only defined by a dictionary or some sort, but also defined in the legal sense.
Your friend rejects the accusation of Islamophobia for the simple reason that the end of the word "phobia" in Latin means fear. Your writer has no fear of Islam, whether in physical fact or in theology . We here at Bloody Nib Manor consider Islam as foolish as Scientology or Mormonism.
No. This writer is not Islamophobic. But this writer does suffer from Islamonausea. He is sick of the demands and excuses of a bunch of people who adhere to an Arabian bandit who had visions.
Of course you have. Anyone with more sense than a goose has. It's a daily occurrence.
So let's run down a few of the most silly, stupid and foolish matters that have become "serious" news by the "news" media.
In Great Britain a British subsidiary of Protector and Gamble has, until recently sold a brand of sanitary napkin for women on which the packaging features the astronomical symbol for Venus. The symbol is a circle with a cross at the bottom of the circle. It is a symbol that is used by many feminists on their silly marches. It is recognized as not only a symbol for the planet Venus, but is also used as a symbol, both medically, scientifically and popularly, as a symbol for a woman.
Well, a group of transexuals (this writer refuses to use the word "transgender" and would much rather use the word "tranny") and their allies have decided to pitch a bitch as many of the entitled often do because the Proctor and Gamble sanitary product for women to be used during their periods excludes men who claim to be women. Now think about this for about half a second. Women, natural born and real women, whether straight, lesbian, "transitioning" into men have periods unless they're anorexic or have spent too much time becoming "elite" athletes. But the fact of the matter that it is only people who have been born biological female who menstruate. To do so requires a uterus at the minimum.
No person who was born biologically male can menstruate. It doesn't matter if said born male has been taking female hormones for many years, had cosmetic surgery to make his private look like those of a woman, or had breast implants to make give him a bust that would shame Jayne Mansfield. That person may look like Jennifer Aniston or Monica Belluci or Audrey Hepburn. That person will never have a period and has no more need of a sanitary napkin than an iguana.
But because that crowd is as loud as a dozen roosters at dawn when one is trying to sleep off a night of drinking too much brandy, that bunch of screamers gets attention because they are, well, weird. No one in the media will admit that they are weird are weird and not normal. but they, themselves, really do think that that trannies are weird and not normal. If the televised news organizations thought that trannies were not weird they would have put a born man pretending to be a Barbie on television as a news reader. And the media push forward the transexual gag because it is good for those in the media to be accepting. It makes them feel good and accepting. But, in real life, they want to have no more to have to do with a bunch of men who demand that sanitary napkins be sold and marketed to them than you do. And that's because the media are "enlightened" and you are just some dumb rube walking around a local carnival looking at the freaks and trying to knock over the milk bottles with a ball. It's all a fixed game for that bunch of fraudsters.
If you, dear reader, has spent any time at all looking at the "news" over the past few days you'll know that Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent of some sort and a woman who was going to set up a third party candidacy for a Presidential campaign, and thus dilute the votes for the Democrats, resulting the the re-election of Donald Trump. It was, really and in fact, a silly and stupid accusation by Mrs. Clinton. And it was also an indication that she, in her madness, thinks that she can, without going through the debate process among that bunch of hydrocephalics who are attempting to become the Democratic candidate for President, slide into the role in the same way that a rat or a termite can infest a house. Rep. Gabbard, unlike most of the Democratic aspirants for the position, pulled out her Purdy shotgun and let Mrs. Clinton have it with both barrels. Let us hope that she, while being a Democrat who is the best of a bad bunch, keeps her powder dry and is not loath to use her ammunition against just plain idiocy.
In the past this writer has been accused of writing things that some people find Islamophobic. Or course, like racism, the word Islamophobic has never been properly defined. And by properly defined this writer means not only defined by a dictionary or some sort, but also defined in the legal sense.
Your friend rejects the accusation of Islamophobia for the simple reason that the end of the word "phobia" in Latin means fear. Your writer has no fear of Islam, whether in physical fact or in theology . We here at Bloody Nib Manor consider Islam as foolish as Scientology or Mormonism.
No. This writer is not Islamophobic. But this writer does suffer from Islamonausea. He is sick of the demands and excuses of a bunch of people who adhere to an Arabian bandit who had visions.
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Just nattering
As usual, it's been a rather peaceful week here at Bloody Nib Manor. There were a couple of shooting incidents in the shire which did not make the news. But you know what they say about the news --- the unusual get reported and the normal is ignored.
Have you wondered why the Democrats and the liberal Republicans are so upset that President Trump has decided to pull American troops out of northern Syria? The popular argument is that by doing so President Trump is abandoning the Kurds while the awful Turk Erdogen sends his forces into Syria, and breaking his promise (if said promise was made it was sub rosa and not public, and sub rosa promises are worth a 99 Cent Store drill motor) to the Kurds. The Middle Eastern mind is a very strange thing and it often sees things that are not there i.e., Mohammed's magical trip to Jerusalem while he was still in Arabia.
But the question that must be addressed in this whole mess is what exactly do the Democrats and liberal Republicans want? Do they want a greater investment of blood, money and honor into the Syria with no return? Do they want a factual and actual geographic Kurdistan? How much blood, money and honor are they willing to invest in such a project? You can be pretty damn sure that their kids won't be doing the fighting, bleeding and dying. Their kids will be getting drunk at Harvard and Stanford while taking classes in gender studies and poli-sci. Waging useless wars is good for them. Such wars give them the support of the unthinking voter (follow the flag, boys!), and makes them a good deal of the long green slid to them by the base of the defense industry (firearms, uniforms, rations, etc.) The upper reaches of the defense industry can always sell their stuff to foreign governments for a lot of jack unless the product is super great and super expensive (paid for by the working class Yank) like the awful F-35, or super great and pretty cheap like the old Northrop F-20.
The Kurds in Syria are a mixed bag. According to the mainstream media the Kurds are just a bunch of guys, who if they lived in the U.S., would come to your great barbecue of a whole pig and down a bunch of Miller High Life beers with you. But they aren't that. Many Kurds believe in a sharia governmental system. They don't believe in religious tolerance. They are as bothersome, in a modern Western sense, as a second generation Mohammedan living in London who demands that the local Oinkster BBQ restaurant stop serving shredding pork sandwiches because pork is not haram.
And a lot of the hand wringing class spend their time bitching and moaning about the future of Christians in Syria without knowing or realizing that before the Arab Spring the Christians in Syria were doing well and prospering under the awful Assad. It was only during and after the onset of the Arab Spring (which really was a Fundamentalist Muslim Spring) that the Christians in Syria were under threat by ISIS. They have only themselves to blame. The Obama administration support the release of savages who had no more interest in republican and democratic forms of governance than did Lenin or Tamerlane.
The crocodile tears concerning Christians in Syria are either fake or ignorant. If they were really concerned about the fate of Christians in Third World nations they would be demanding that the U.S. invade China where Christians are persecuted, jailed and murdered for no other reason that they are Christians, the African nations infested with Boko Haram where Christian villages and the inhabitants are destroyed, North Korea, Vietnam and so forth. There seems to be a hierarchy based on a nostalgic sense of the Holy Land. It's all stuff and nonsense in that the Dems and liberal Republicans are willing to invest blood and honor for one group of Christians and not another. If they were honest they would encourage refugee status for Christians from Syria, China, Africa and Vietnam. But they won't because, to them, Christians are bad within the boundries of the nation unless they are Latino, and thus, huggable and cheaply hired.
But that's enough of that nonsense.
Tulsi Gabbard, a U.S. representative from Hawaii, went after Hillary Clinton after Mrs. Clinton accused Rep. Gabbard of pretty much being a tool of the Russians in Ms. Gabbard's run for the presidential candidate.. Ms. Gabbard unleashed in a mighty way calling Mrs. Clinton a "warmonger" and a "rot in the Democratic party" and many Democrats got pretty upset because, to tell the truth, Ms. Gabbard revealed many of them for what they are and what Mrs. Clinton is. That bunch likes to cut back on defense spending while waging useless wars to "spread democracy". In other words, they want to invest the blood and lives of your kids and grandkids to spread democracy to people who have no interest in Western democracy. They talk about being inclusive and "we are the world", but they don't believe in inclusion or "we are the world." They want them to become us. And considering what "us" has become one cannot blame them for not wanting to becoming "us."
As far as the "rot" bit goes. The Clintons, all three of them, are a rot in the nation is much the way that Muslims are a rot in the Western world. Everything they touch becomes poisonous because they are civil poison. They are akin to Hughey Long on a large scale. Ol' Bill has been on the quite lately. Perhaps because of the Jeffery Epstein thing. Or because his had of a wife told him to shut the Hell up and she'll give him a parade of young things to serve him. But she has gotten the upper hand over that lecher, and she's not been loath t use the whip. And because he wasn't man enough to rein her in, in fact because he was not strong enough to be a real husband to this hag, we have to put up with her nonsense, her delusions and her just sheer stupidity.
ONe find oneself worrying for the future of the Republic when one thinks of such nonsense.
Have you wondered why the Democrats and the liberal Republicans are so upset that President Trump has decided to pull American troops out of northern Syria? The popular argument is that by doing so President Trump is abandoning the Kurds while the awful Turk Erdogen sends his forces into Syria, and breaking his promise (if said promise was made it was sub rosa and not public, and sub rosa promises are worth a 99 Cent Store drill motor) to the Kurds. The Middle Eastern mind is a very strange thing and it often sees things that are not there i.e., Mohammed's magical trip to Jerusalem while he was still in Arabia.
But the question that must be addressed in this whole mess is what exactly do the Democrats and liberal Republicans want? Do they want a greater investment of blood, money and honor into the Syria with no return? Do they want a factual and actual geographic Kurdistan? How much blood, money and honor are they willing to invest in such a project? You can be pretty damn sure that their kids won't be doing the fighting, bleeding and dying. Their kids will be getting drunk at Harvard and Stanford while taking classes in gender studies and poli-sci. Waging useless wars is good for them. Such wars give them the support of the unthinking voter (follow the flag, boys!), and makes them a good deal of the long green slid to them by the base of the defense industry (firearms, uniforms, rations, etc.) The upper reaches of the defense industry can always sell their stuff to foreign governments for a lot of jack unless the product is super great and super expensive (paid for by the working class Yank) like the awful F-35, or super great and pretty cheap like the old Northrop F-20.
The Kurds in Syria are a mixed bag. According to the mainstream media the Kurds are just a bunch of guys, who if they lived in the U.S., would come to your great barbecue of a whole pig and down a bunch of Miller High Life beers with you. But they aren't that. Many Kurds believe in a sharia governmental system. They don't believe in religious tolerance. They are as bothersome, in a modern Western sense, as a second generation Mohammedan living in London who demands that the local Oinkster BBQ restaurant stop serving shredding pork sandwiches because pork is not haram.
And a lot of the hand wringing class spend their time bitching and moaning about the future of Christians in Syria without knowing or realizing that before the Arab Spring the Christians in Syria were doing well and prospering under the awful Assad. It was only during and after the onset of the Arab Spring (which really was a Fundamentalist Muslim Spring) that the Christians in Syria were under threat by ISIS. They have only themselves to blame. The Obama administration support the release of savages who had no more interest in republican and democratic forms of governance than did Lenin or Tamerlane.
The crocodile tears concerning Christians in Syria are either fake or ignorant. If they were really concerned about the fate of Christians in Third World nations they would be demanding that the U.S. invade China where Christians are persecuted, jailed and murdered for no other reason that they are Christians, the African nations infested with Boko Haram where Christian villages and the inhabitants are destroyed, North Korea, Vietnam and so forth. There seems to be a hierarchy based on a nostalgic sense of the Holy Land. It's all stuff and nonsense in that the Dems and liberal Republicans are willing to invest blood and honor for one group of Christians and not another. If they were honest they would encourage refugee status for Christians from Syria, China, Africa and Vietnam. But they won't because, to them, Christians are bad within the boundries of the nation unless they are Latino, and thus, huggable and cheaply hired.
But that's enough of that nonsense.
Tulsi Gabbard, a U.S. representative from Hawaii, went after Hillary Clinton after Mrs. Clinton accused Rep. Gabbard of pretty much being a tool of the Russians in Ms. Gabbard's run for the presidential candidate.. Ms. Gabbard unleashed in a mighty way calling Mrs. Clinton a "warmonger" and a "rot in the Democratic party" and many Democrats got pretty upset because, to tell the truth, Ms. Gabbard revealed many of them for what they are and what Mrs. Clinton is. That bunch likes to cut back on defense spending while waging useless wars to "spread democracy". In other words, they want to invest the blood and lives of your kids and grandkids to spread democracy to people who have no interest in Western democracy. They talk about being inclusive and "we are the world", but they don't believe in inclusion or "we are the world." They want them to become us. And considering what "us" has become one cannot blame them for not wanting to becoming "us."
As far as the "rot" bit goes. The Clintons, all three of them, are a rot in the nation is much the way that Muslims are a rot in the Western world. Everything they touch becomes poisonous because they are civil poison. They are akin to Hughey Long on a large scale. Ol' Bill has been on the quite lately. Perhaps because of the Jeffery Epstein thing. Or because his had of a wife told him to shut the Hell up and she'll give him a parade of young things to serve him. But she has gotten the upper hand over that lecher, and she's not been loath t use the whip. And because he wasn't man enough to rein her in, in fact because he was not strong enough to be a real husband to this hag, we have to put up with her nonsense, her delusions and her just sheer stupidity.
ONe find oneself worrying for the future of the Republic when one thinks of such nonsense.
Sunday, October 13, 2019
Shotgunning
It's been a relatively quiet week here at Bloody Nib Manor and the environs. There were a couple of ineffective shooting attempts by various yokel cohorts. But, as usual, they were half-hearted, not unlike the marriage vows they often make while standing before the altar next to their eight month pregnant paramour. An old time chivaree exhibits more enthusiasm among the participants than the armed settling of a territorial dispute. How the mighty have fallen.
This week President Trump announced that, acting as president, he has ordered the withdrawal of American troops from Syria. This particular action seems to have thrown the professional political crowd and ink stained wretches who call themselves journalists or opinion writers into a state of confusion among themselves. It's almost comical to watch, not unlike watching a rat being thrown into a group of dogs of different breeds; half want to tear the thing to pieces and the other hand want to make friends with it because they know that there's a YouTube video to be made. Some of the Never Trumpers find themselves p[raising the withdrawal and some of the Always Trumpers find themselves condemning the idea. And all are mightily confused because Pres. Trump is actually working toward keeping his campaign promise to get the U.S. out of foreign military entanglements.
One of the reasons that those who are opposed to the American pull-out from Syria is that it is a betrayal of the Kurds and will result in the Kurds being at the mercy of the Turkish military. And that is not good, in their lights, because they say that the U.S., sub rosa, promised to always protect the Kurds in exchange for the Kurds fighting against ISIS (or Daesh), and, in fact, help the Kurds set up a nation of Kurdistan.
This is, of course, all stuff and nonsense.
First of all, in the U.S., and for the populace of the U.S., there should be no sub rosa agreements with any government. Sub rosa agreements are the purview of the Medicis and the Tudors and Hapsburgs. The U.S., in theory at least, is supposed to be a nation with an open and above board governmental and civil servant (and note the second word, "servant" which has somehow now become to be defined as "master") class answerable to the U.S. citizen. A sub rosa agreement with any foreign entity, whether a governmental, ethnic, or religious group, should be taken no more seriously than one fourteen year old girl telling another fourteen year old girl a "secret" with the promise that it will never be told to anyone else. Of course, within five hours everyone in the school knows that Debbie has a crush on Jason.
Secondly, those who oppose the withdrawal of American troops from Northern Syria seem to be under the mistaken idea that there are thousands and thousands of Americans in the area who are all locked and load to take on Turkish bear to protect our Kurdish "friends." In fact, there are not many more than 1,000 (if that many) Americans in Northern Syria providing military aid and training to the Kurds. 1,000 men and women in the U.S. military. There are many times more Kurds and "democratic" (whatever that word means in the Arab world), and yet there seems to be an idea among some of the nattering class that 1,000 G.I. Joes can hold off an invasion into the area by Turkey as if the whole operation were a second battle of Thermopylae, or perhaps, a battle of the Alamo. In other words, American blood, treasure and honor are supposed to be sacrificed for a group of people who seem to be unable to fight for themselves, or co-operate among themselves to the extent that they can defend themselves. The problem that there are no Yanks to defend them, the problem is with themselves. Their intercine in-fighting among themselves is more a problem than the absence of U.S.Special Forces. In fact, one can argue that the most effective thing that the U.S. did to increase the effectiveness of the various Kurdish and "democratic" factions was somewhat like that of a kindergarten teacher; telling them to make up and play nice so they can get something done.
Thirdly, people opposed to the withdrawal of American troops say that the action is a "cut and run" and betrayal of our allies, and is unprecedented in American history. This is false. Those who are of an age will remember when the U.S. abandoned the War in Vietnam. Whether it was for better or worse, it was something that happened and resulted in the establishment of a Communist government in Vietnam, as well as the establishment of a lot of nail salons, pho restaurants, and funky liquor stores in the U.S. It could be argued that the U.S., with the active involvement of the South Vietnamese government at the time, could have defeated the North Vietnamese; in fact, old North Vietnamese leaders have stated that when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong were about to throw in the towel. When the last helicopter took off from Saigon and landed on an aircraft carrier only to be pushed off the vessel because there were too many helicopters much of the populace cheered because they finally saw the U.S. out of a morass that seemed never-ending.
But unlike Northern Syria, there was an established government in South Vietnam; a government recognized by the world except for the Soviets, the ChiComs, the North Koreans, and the French (then the problem child of Europe). There is no proper Kurdish government. There are Kurdish governments. Each self-declared as legitimate and each not recognizing the other. One ends up not having to work with an ethnic group. One finds oneself dealing with tribes and factions within the ethnic group. In other words, and once again, playing the kindergarten teacher for a bunch of brats with rocket launchers and AK-47s or M-16s.
Fourth, the Kurds, in U.S. media, are portrayed as cuddly Mohammedans i.e., as religiously tolerant as the average American United Methodist. According to the media, some of them drink booze and don't whip themselves afterwards as penance, they don't beat their wives or hate Jews. The fact of the matter is that they are really not all that. Saudis, once they get out of Saudi Arabia and to Spanish resorts or Beverly Hills that crowd of devout Muslims are swilling down vodka and whiskey like sixteen year old kids who managed to steal the key to the liquor cabinet, and surround themselves with large breasted Russian and European (note: this writer does not consider Russians European -- they are something else culturally) harlots while the Saudi men laze around the pool wearing Speedos over which their fat guts spill over. The only difference is that the Kurds pretend, in their public image, portray themselves as a form of the "All-American Boy" who happens to be a Muslim while installing Sharia Law in their cantons, and the Saudis pretend Sharia Law in their homeland while behaving like a bunch of Spring Break Ivy Leaguers in Fort Lauderdale. They are really both the same thing in that they both present a false face to the world for their own benefit.
Is the Turkish government bad? Of course it is. It has been so since the establishment of the Ottoman Empire. It's grasping, racist, religiously intolerant. It always has been, even under the rule of Ataturk. The serial Armenian genocides are proof of this. But, while the Turkish governments from the Ottoman Empire to Ataturk to Erdogan have been racist, religiously intolerant and grasping. And if the majority of Turks had wanted it any other way there would have been a democratic change or a popular uprising that was effective. To paraphrase a Hong Kong protester who was protesting against China, "Turkey is a**hole!" Turkey is a rotten country in the same way that China is a rotten country. Turkey wants to take over and control the Kurds, and China wants to effectively take over and control Hong Kong and Taiwan. But as much as the "stay in Syria to fight the Turks to protect the Kurds with our 1,000 troops" crowd bitch and moan, they have made no good argument about American interests in investing American blood in the region. On the other hand, they'll give lip service to the protesters on Hong Kong or the independence of Taiwan without ever saying that the U.S. should invest troops into either place despite the fact that both places are much more valuable in strategy and economics than are the Kurds. We are expected to shed our blood and spend our money for a people who do not hold our values, respect basic human rights and have no economic benefit for the U.S., while at the same time trying to ignore, or in fact, playing the "coat holder" friend ( example: "Sean! Hold my coat while I fight this bloke!") with Hong Kong and Taiwan.
On another topic: This writer has gotten pretty tried of the whole Global Warming/Climate Change panic. Those who have managed to grab a microphone and scream out their Jeremiads have attempted their best to make every person who has had the misfortune to be within earshot of them feel guilty because the unfortunate recipient of such sound waves is a person of the 20th or 21st century Western world. In other words, a person who has electrical power to his or her house or apartment, perhaps drives an automobile, cooks with natural gas, and maybe flies from one place to another via commercial airplane. Said Cassandras seem to have no problem talking into an electrically powered microphone, appearing on electrically powered television, driving or flying to an event to continue their "prophetic" mutterings. Not only to mention that said "prophets" seem to have the latest in "smart phones" and they consult the silly things constantly. They are not writing their missives with quill and ink by candle light. They are using the very things that they protest against to get their "message" out. And their excuse is that their message is more important than their sin. It's rather Pharisaical. But, we'll have Pharisees with us all and always until, well, you know.
No this bunch of of well-meaning idiots have decided to follow the panicky ravings of a 16 year old Swedish girl. For anyone with a lick of the sense that Our Lord gave him or her would ignore a 16 year old kid's advice concerning moral or deep concerns. Dear reader, be honest in asking yourself if you would trust a sixteen year old kid with your bank account, your liquor cabinet, or you Amazon account? If you came home from work and found that your sixteen year old son had gotten hold of your credit card and bought a new manifold and injector for your Lexis, a Rickenbacker guitar and Orange Crate amp, and a $2,000 donation to Greenpeace, would you be pretty happy and proud of your brat? Of course not. You might not bend said awful child over your knee and give him or her a good, and well deserved spanking with a hairbrush, belt, or your Dad's old blackjack, but if you had any sense and sense of self-preservation at all kid would have been given a mighty "time out". And by "time out" this writer means, "Forget going to USC. You're going to welding school or joining the Navy. If you don't like that, get used to living in a tent on 5th Street."
But the world had gotten silly and stupid, so a 16 year old brat is considered "wise." So wise, in fact, that the often morally confused Jane Fonda has hitched her wagon to that kid.
For Pete's sake. One finds oneself occasionally wishing for the old days of the empire, whether American or British.
This week President Trump announced that, acting as president, he has ordered the withdrawal of American troops from Syria. This particular action seems to have thrown the professional political crowd and ink stained wretches who call themselves journalists or opinion writers into a state of confusion among themselves. It's almost comical to watch, not unlike watching a rat being thrown into a group of dogs of different breeds; half want to tear the thing to pieces and the other hand want to make friends with it because they know that there's a YouTube video to be made. Some of the Never Trumpers find themselves p[raising the withdrawal and some of the Always Trumpers find themselves condemning the idea. And all are mightily confused because Pres. Trump is actually working toward keeping his campaign promise to get the U.S. out of foreign military entanglements.
One of the reasons that those who are opposed to the American pull-out from Syria is that it is a betrayal of the Kurds and will result in the Kurds being at the mercy of the Turkish military. And that is not good, in their lights, because they say that the U.S., sub rosa, promised to always protect the Kurds in exchange for the Kurds fighting against ISIS (or Daesh), and, in fact, help the Kurds set up a nation of Kurdistan.
This is, of course, all stuff and nonsense.
First of all, in the U.S., and for the populace of the U.S., there should be no sub rosa agreements with any government. Sub rosa agreements are the purview of the Medicis and the Tudors and Hapsburgs. The U.S., in theory at least, is supposed to be a nation with an open and above board governmental and civil servant (and note the second word, "servant" which has somehow now become to be defined as "master") class answerable to the U.S. citizen. A sub rosa agreement with any foreign entity, whether a governmental, ethnic, or religious group, should be taken no more seriously than one fourteen year old girl telling another fourteen year old girl a "secret" with the promise that it will never be told to anyone else. Of course, within five hours everyone in the school knows that Debbie has a crush on Jason.
Secondly, those who oppose the withdrawal of American troops from Northern Syria seem to be under the mistaken idea that there are thousands and thousands of Americans in the area who are all locked and load to take on Turkish bear to protect our Kurdish "friends." In fact, there are not many more than 1,000 (if that many) Americans in Northern Syria providing military aid and training to the Kurds. 1,000 men and women in the U.S. military. There are many times more Kurds and "democratic" (whatever that word means in the Arab world), and yet there seems to be an idea among some of the nattering class that 1,000 G.I. Joes can hold off an invasion into the area by Turkey as if the whole operation were a second battle of Thermopylae, or perhaps, a battle of the Alamo. In other words, American blood, treasure and honor are supposed to be sacrificed for a group of people who seem to be unable to fight for themselves, or co-operate among themselves to the extent that they can defend themselves. The problem that there are no Yanks to defend them, the problem is with themselves. Their intercine in-fighting among themselves is more a problem than the absence of U.S.Special Forces. In fact, one can argue that the most effective thing that the U.S. did to increase the effectiveness of the various Kurdish and "democratic" factions was somewhat like that of a kindergarten teacher; telling them to make up and play nice so they can get something done.
Thirdly, people opposed to the withdrawal of American troops say that the action is a "cut and run" and betrayal of our allies, and is unprecedented in American history. This is false. Those who are of an age will remember when the U.S. abandoned the War in Vietnam. Whether it was for better or worse, it was something that happened and resulted in the establishment of a Communist government in Vietnam, as well as the establishment of a lot of nail salons, pho restaurants, and funky liquor stores in the U.S. It could be argued that the U.S., with the active involvement of the South Vietnamese government at the time, could have defeated the North Vietnamese; in fact, old North Vietnamese leaders have stated that when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong were about to throw in the towel. When the last helicopter took off from Saigon and landed on an aircraft carrier only to be pushed off the vessel because there were too many helicopters much of the populace cheered because they finally saw the U.S. out of a morass that seemed never-ending.
But unlike Northern Syria, there was an established government in South Vietnam; a government recognized by the world except for the Soviets, the ChiComs, the North Koreans, and the French (then the problem child of Europe). There is no proper Kurdish government. There are Kurdish governments. Each self-declared as legitimate and each not recognizing the other. One ends up not having to work with an ethnic group. One finds oneself dealing with tribes and factions within the ethnic group. In other words, and once again, playing the kindergarten teacher for a bunch of brats with rocket launchers and AK-47s or M-16s.
Fourth, the Kurds, in U.S. media, are portrayed as cuddly Mohammedans i.e., as religiously tolerant as the average American United Methodist. According to the media, some of them drink booze and don't whip themselves afterwards as penance, they don't beat their wives or hate Jews. The fact of the matter is that they are really not all that. Saudis, once they get out of Saudi Arabia and to Spanish resorts or Beverly Hills that crowd of devout Muslims are swilling down vodka and whiskey like sixteen year old kids who managed to steal the key to the liquor cabinet, and surround themselves with large breasted Russian and European (note: this writer does not consider Russians European -- they are something else culturally) harlots while the Saudi men laze around the pool wearing Speedos over which their fat guts spill over. The only difference is that the Kurds pretend, in their public image, portray themselves as a form of the "All-American Boy" who happens to be a Muslim while installing Sharia Law in their cantons, and the Saudis pretend Sharia Law in their homeland while behaving like a bunch of Spring Break Ivy Leaguers in Fort Lauderdale. They are really both the same thing in that they both present a false face to the world for their own benefit.
Is the Turkish government bad? Of course it is. It has been so since the establishment of the Ottoman Empire. It's grasping, racist, religiously intolerant. It always has been, even under the rule of Ataturk. The serial Armenian genocides are proof of this. But, while the Turkish governments from the Ottoman Empire to Ataturk to Erdogan have been racist, religiously intolerant and grasping. And if the majority of Turks had wanted it any other way there would have been a democratic change or a popular uprising that was effective. To paraphrase a Hong Kong protester who was protesting against China, "Turkey is a**hole!" Turkey is a rotten country in the same way that China is a rotten country. Turkey wants to take over and control the Kurds, and China wants to effectively take over and control Hong Kong and Taiwan. But as much as the "stay in Syria to fight the Turks to protect the Kurds with our 1,000 troops" crowd bitch and moan, they have made no good argument about American interests in investing American blood in the region. On the other hand, they'll give lip service to the protesters on Hong Kong or the independence of Taiwan without ever saying that the U.S. should invest troops into either place despite the fact that both places are much more valuable in strategy and economics than are the Kurds. We are expected to shed our blood and spend our money for a people who do not hold our values, respect basic human rights and have no economic benefit for the U.S., while at the same time trying to ignore, or in fact, playing the "coat holder" friend ( example: "Sean! Hold my coat while I fight this bloke!") with Hong Kong and Taiwan.
On another topic: This writer has gotten pretty tried of the whole Global Warming/Climate Change panic. Those who have managed to grab a microphone and scream out their Jeremiads have attempted their best to make every person who has had the misfortune to be within earshot of them feel guilty because the unfortunate recipient of such sound waves is a person of the 20th or 21st century Western world. In other words, a person who has electrical power to his or her house or apartment, perhaps drives an automobile, cooks with natural gas, and maybe flies from one place to another via commercial airplane. Said Cassandras seem to have no problem talking into an electrically powered microphone, appearing on electrically powered television, driving or flying to an event to continue their "prophetic" mutterings. Not only to mention that said "prophets" seem to have the latest in "smart phones" and they consult the silly things constantly. They are not writing their missives with quill and ink by candle light. They are using the very things that they protest against to get their "message" out. And their excuse is that their message is more important than their sin. It's rather Pharisaical. But, we'll have Pharisees with us all and always until, well, you know.
No this bunch of of well-meaning idiots have decided to follow the panicky ravings of a 16 year old Swedish girl. For anyone with a lick of the sense that Our Lord gave him or her would ignore a 16 year old kid's advice concerning moral or deep concerns. Dear reader, be honest in asking yourself if you would trust a sixteen year old kid with your bank account, your liquor cabinet, or you Amazon account? If you came home from work and found that your sixteen year old son had gotten hold of your credit card and bought a new manifold and injector for your Lexis, a Rickenbacker guitar and Orange Crate amp, and a $2,000 donation to Greenpeace, would you be pretty happy and proud of your brat? Of course not. You might not bend said awful child over your knee and give him or her a good, and well deserved spanking with a hairbrush, belt, or your Dad's old blackjack, but if you had any sense and sense of self-preservation at all kid would have been given a mighty "time out". And by "time out" this writer means, "Forget going to USC. You're going to welding school or joining the Navy. If you don't like that, get used to living in a tent on 5th Street."
But the world had gotten silly and stupid, so a 16 year old brat is considered "wise." So wise, in fact, that the often morally confused Jane Fonda has hitched her wagon to that kid.
For Pete's sake. One finds oneself occasionally wishing for the old days of the empire, whether American or British.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)