October 21, 2014
Robert Caruso: “I Will Enjoy Your Beloved Syria Being Torn Apart”

Robert Caruso, a journalist and former bureaucrat who writes on foreign policy, wrote in a conversation on Twitter with Syrian activist Partisangirl that he would “enjoy [her] beloved Syria being torn apart with violence”:

After he began to catch flak for it, Caruso denied having written the tweet, despite the fact that it had already been archived:

If someone else had tweeted an analogous comment about Israel rather than Syria, something tells us that Caruso would not be satisfied with the sort of paper-thin excuse quoted above. Then again, no one should be satisfied with such a denial; it’s an outright lie, as other Twitter users pointed out.

There are some similar tweets that Caruso revealingly didn’t delete:

As Partisangirl notes, Caruso wrote last month that it was necessary to “create a new Middle East”—calling for support for Sunni and Kurdish forces on the one hand and opposition not only to IS but to Shiite forces on the other. What does Caruso have against Syrians and Shia Muslims, anyway? Caruso’s bio at the Huffington Post might provide a hint or two:

Robert Caruso has appeared in The Guardian, The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Buzzfeed, and The Jerusalem Post. He served with a Joint Task Force, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Robert is a veteran of the United States Navy and deployed to support Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM.

Robert Caruso is a great example of the kind of person our media-academic-political class selects for—the kind with more interest in intimidating others with his credentials than the fact that he has been caught lying—and there are people who take him seriously.

from Robert Caruso: “I Will Enjoy Your Beloved Syria Being Torn Apart”

October 20, 2014
Language and Conquest: A Guilt-Free History Lesson

We don’t know a lot of history these days, but we do know that we ought to feel guilty about something; in our secular age, we can’t feel guilty about original sin, so we feel guilty about history instead. It might seem like it doesn’t make sense to feel guilty about something we’re usually clueless about—but in reality, that just makes it easier.

The guilt of conquest is our version of original sin, secularized and localized down to the White man. Building the United States, you see, was very bad, because there were already people on it—never mind that almost all of them died off from smallpox before Massachusetts’ Protestant Wahhabis even thought of washing up on Plymouth Rock. Even PBS admits that “more victims of colonization were killed by Eurasian germs than by either the gun or the sword”.

“Smallpox!”, you may think. “Isn’t that what those bad White men put on those blankets?” Sure, the British Army tried that once, in an area where there was already a smallpox epidemic—as there would have been. The New World had been separate from the Old for a long time; they didn’t have smallpox until the Spanish landed there. Since they didn’t have smallpox, they didn’t have immunity; since they didn’t have immunity, most of them died. Just like the Black Plague, which the Mongols brought to Europe; just like syphilis, which the New World gave to the Old.

But that’s just history, and history can never be relevant. We have progress these days: things get better and people get more moral, and they learn that conquest is the White man’s original sin. I once met a guy—a sociology major, of course—who thought justice demanded that the White man get out of South Africa and leave the place to the natives. Never mind that there aren’t a whole lot of natives anymore: the Bantu came in, killed most of them, and enslaved the rest. The White man is not so exceptional as his leaders think.

The real South African natives—well, the people who have been there the longest—are the San, hunter-gatherers who make up the first half of the term Khoisan. (The other half, the Khoikhoi, came later from Botswana.) You can see where they are today by looking at a language map: the Khoisan speak Khoisan languages, the yellow parts of the map to the right, whereas the Bantu speak Bantu languages.

Notice how their languages are broken up across three different areas. That isn’t because the Sandawe, that dot off to the northeast, decided to go all the way over there to Tanzania. It’s a common pattern in linguistics—compare this map of Austro-Asiatic, a language family that contains Vietnamese, Khmer (the official language of Cambodia), and a few dozen minority languages spoken by highland montagnards splattered out everywhere from Meghalaya to Malaysiaand it’s never because some people decided to go all the way over there.

Actually, it is. It’s because a bunch of people decided to go all the way over there, and decided to go to all the places along the way, and then another bunch of people decided to go to some other all the way over there and to all the places along that way. And then another bunch of people decided to go to another all the way over there and all the places along the way, and so on for thousands of years. And when those next bunches of people come along, sometimes they don’t bother with the worst places to live, like the Kalahari Desert (the big yellow blob on that map), the montagnards’ mountains, the two parts of Nepal that still have some speakers of Kusunda (the language spoken in Southeast Asia before the Austro-Asiatics came along), or the Indian reservations here.

The only exception to that is Austronesian, which came out of either Taiwan or—more likely—Sundaland, a place you’ve never heard of, because it no longer exists, because it sank.

You’ve heard of the Vikings, right? How they sailed from Denmark to Norway and Scotland, and from Norway and Scotland to Iceland and Greenland, and from Greenland to Newfoundland? The Austronesians were better sailors than the Vikings; they had to be, to get off of Sundaland. They sailed all the way to Madagascar, and to Hawaii, and to the western coast of South America.

When you ask Google to tell you the distance from Madagascar to Peru, it draws a line across South America and Africa. They didn’t go that way.

You’ve heard of Cthulhu, of course, so you’ve heard that ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn. What you probably haven’t heard is that R’lyeh is based on Nan Madol.

Nan Madol is on Pohnpei, an island somewhere between here and Australia where they tell stories in Pohnpeian, an Austronesian language, about how one day some guy came to Pohnpei and did some shit. One day some guy Pali, a great engineer, came to Pohnpei from the southeast and decided to build an artificial city. So he got some people together and they used magic to fly some stones into the right sorts of piles in the right part of the ocean, and that’s Nan Madol.

(You can’t do that anymore, of course. Magic was much stronger in those days.)

After this guy Pali came to Pohnpei to build Nan Madol, some other guy, the first Sau Deleur, came to Pohnpei and decided to start a dynasty and base it out of Nan Madol. That’s the Saudeleur Dynasty. That lasted for a few hundred years, before some other guy, Isokelekel, the son of the god of thunder, came to Pohnpei, thought the palm trees were giants, ran away, came back to Pohnpei, decided to overthrow the Saudeleurs, lost an eye in the process, founded a confederacy, got old, and killed himself by hanging his penis from a palm tree.

Anyway. Pohnpeian is an Austronesian language. Which means Pohnpei was settled by Austronesians—but of course it was. People don’t just go from Taiwan or Sundaland to Madagascar and Peru; they go from Taiwan or Sundaland to Madagascar and Peru and everywhere along the way. Pohnpei was along the way to Peru. It was also probably uninhabited—as it would be, since not even the Vikings could sail like the Austronesians. That’s why they’re the exception.

A place that was on the way to Madagascar was Vietnam. You’ve probably heard of that; we lost a war there a while back, and now we eat their soup. Some Austronesians came there and started one of those kingdoms that tens of thousands of people sacrificed their lives for and now no one’s heard of them: Champa.

The Chams came along, conquered some land, and made Champa. Then the Vietnamese came along, conquered some land, and made Vietnam. Then the French came along, conquered some land, and made French Indochina. Then the two great modernist empires came along, conquered some land, and made North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Then the one great modernist empire beat out the other, conquered some more land, and made the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which still exists today, and will continue to exist until someone else comes along, conquers it, and makes something else.

So it goes.

No exceptions.

from Language and Conquest: A Guilt-Free History Lesson

October 19, 2014
Another Failed Martyrdom: Forensic Analysis Confirms Struggle in Mike Brown Case

As protesters in Ferguson, MO continue to make a nuisance of themselves for anyone who lives in the area, the New York Times reported on Friday some bad news for their cause. According to the Times, FBI forensic analysis has at least partially confirmed Officer Darren Wilson’s version of events:

(Wilson’s gun) was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Since the beginning of the case, Brown’s supporters have screeched that his death was one more example of a young Black man being gunned down for no apparent reason by racist Whites, be they cops or otherwise. The most persistent narrative still circulating about Brown’s death is that he had his hands up and seemed to be acquiescing to Wilson’s requests at the time that Wilson fired the fatal shots. This narrative led to a number of Ferguson protests and even the ‘hashtag activism’ of #HandsUpDontShoot on Twitter.

The forensic analysis evidence only adds to the failed martyrdom of Brown. When the story first erupted in August, it played out much the same way the Trayvon Martin case did two years ago.  Brown was yet another fine young man who was poised to be a positive contributor to society, who was, like always, ‘doing nothing’ other than being young and Black, when a racist killer came across him and decided to end his life. In Brown’s case, his supporters even went so far as to call him a “gentle giant”.

That “gentle giant” characterization was quickly debunked, when it was discovered that Brown had robbed a convenience store shortly before his death, and did indeed injure Wilson during the incident. The FBI’s forensic analysis further undoes that narrative, and once again leaves the Left looking foolish.

Brown’s case, then, would appear to be another expression of the morbid tendency of the progressive media-university circuit to attempt to create martyrs out of young Black men who have been killed in violent altercations with non-Blacks. From Martin to Brown to, most recently, Vonderitt Myers Jr., the Left never hesitates to jump at the chance to scream about deadly White racism against Blacks, often long before all the facts are known. And even once those facts are known, journalists and activists continue to desperately cling to their exhausted narratives.

from Another Failed Martyrdom: Forensic Analysis Confirms Struggle in Mike Brown Case

October 18, 2014
Crime Reports Continue to Defy Progressive Narratives on Racial Violence

In recent months, the Left has once again taken up the narrative that Whites commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime against Blacks.. The Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri seemed to spark this latest flare-up, and the nearby Vonderrit Myers shooting added more fuel in recent weeks. So once again the Left is baying loudly about a supposed epidemic of White racist crime. (And they had only just shut up about the “open season on black boys” that the justifiable homicide of Trayvon Martin was supposed to represent. Never a moment’s peace.)

Unfortunately for the grievance mongers,  two recent hate crime reports from Los Angeles and Washington D.C. show that White-on-Black violence is not the epidemic the Left, and their allies in the Black activist community, would like it to be. Earlier this week, LA County released its annual hate crime report, revealing uncomfortable truths about who attacks whom over race:

Some long-held patterns persisted: Blacks and Latinos targeted each other with disturbing consistency.

“The great majority of African Americans and Latinos in L.A. County coexist peacefully and are not involved in ongoing racial conflict,” the report states. “However, for many years this report has documented that most hate crimes against African Americans are committed by Latino suspects and vice versa.”

When hate crimes against blacks were reported in 2013, Latinos were the suspects 62% of the time. When the victim was Latino, the suspect was black 71% of the time.

And earlier this year, DC released its hate crime report, which revealed that, in the nation’s capital, Black-on-White violence was the most common hate crime:

D.C. police say that of the 18 race-based hate crimes in 2013, the majority of victims were white and the majority of suspects were black. The number of incidents was up from the 13 race-based bias crimes reported in 2012.

When Ferguson was still dominating the news cycle earlier this year, conservative talk show host Michael Medved also had the audacity to point out that white people are shot more often by police than black people. Politifact tried it’s best to spin this news at the time:

Yes, more whites than blacks die as a result of an encounter with police, but whites also represent a much bigger chunk of the total population.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention keeps data on fatal injuries from 1999 to 2011 and one category is homicides by legal intervention. The term “legal intervention” covers any situation when a person dies at the hands of anyone authorized to use deadly force in the line of duty.

Over the span of more than a decade, 2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks.

That 1,130 number defies both the Leftist narrative and the narratives developed in Black popular culture regarding police violence towards Blacks. The math works out to 113 deaths a year from a population numbering approximately 39 million. Hardly an epidemic. Meanwhile, according to statistics compiled by the US Department of Justice from 1980-2008, Blacks comprised 47.4 percent of all homicide victims, and made up 52.5 percent of all homicide offenders, indicating that the violence against their community comes from within, not without.

Thankfully, the persistence of data means the tired leftist narrative of White violence against Blacks is losing steam steadily. Try as they might, they are convincing fewer and fewer people outside of their ranks that White violence against Blacks or other minorities is a significant problem in the country. With this weakening of their control over the narrative, hopefully these issues of racial violence, especially from the Black community, will finally receive their ‘honest conversation.’

from Crime Reports Continue to Defy Progressive Narratives on Racial Violence

October 18, 2014
The Butt Plug that Fell Out

It was supposed to be a subtle in-joke for the cognoscenti, the people who know about this sort of thing, either from direct experience or from familiarity with the sexual practices of Bohemian and urban elites: a giant, inflatable Xmas tree in a Parisian square in the shape of an anal plug, a device used in preparation for acts of buggery.

What could be wittier than that?

In its own way, it could have been quite a clever comment on the commercialism and consumerism of Xmas – coming across as a traditional ornament, plasticized and streamlined almost beyond recognition, like so much else in modern Western society, for maximum production, cheapness, and efficiency; and in the process coming to resemble another implement necessarily streamlined by its function in forcing wide a naturally tight orifice never intended for sexual intercourse: Xmas or the commercialism of Xmas as a giant act of symbolic buggery. There might have been something in that.

But for the joke to work, only a small, sophisticated elite could be in on it. The main part of the humor would have come from the unsuspecting majority – the doofuses – who would have continued to see it as a Xmas tree.

How hilarious it would have been to see normal families walking by on their way to do a bit of Xmas shopping or young couples whose sex life was still refreshingly uncomplicated by such perversions stopping to look up at it naively as a symbol of the Christian holiday – and then, of course, there would have been Paris’s many Muslims. Would they have got the joke? The city’s gays and other cosmopolitan elites would have had a permanent smirk on their faces.

But, alas, we no longer live in such innocent times! In an age of pervasive pornography and unprecedented vulgarity enough of the population was conversant with the minutiae of pornography and homosexual practices so that soon – much too soon – everybody got the joke, meaning that that joke was no longer funny anymore.

Like the slack arse of some ultrafag who has been fisted too many times, our society has lost not just its innocence but any moral tautness or elasticity that was left; and jokes like this that needed that to play off are simply left dangling disgustingly.

from The Butt Plug that Fell Out

October 17, 2014
The Left Eats Itself: Equal Pay Ad Angers Trans Groups

Jewish “comedienne” Sarah Silverman angered transgender groups recently when she starred in an ad promoting equal pay for women. In the ludicrous video, Silverman undergoes a sex change to become a man so she can finally earn equal pay. Unfortunately for her, the eternally aggrieved trans community took offense to the ad.  According to this report, a number of trans groups issued statements condemning the video:

Vincent Paolo Villano, the director of communications for the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Campaign US: “The National Center for Transgender Equality is struck by the insensitivity of Sarah Silverman’s video and we have reached out to the National Women’s Law Center to provide a cultural competency training to ensure that transgender people are always part of the conversation when it comes to the wage gap.”

Silverman found herself backpedaling furiously, as she tried to appease the tiny minority of trans people in the US and abroad:

Silverman’s transgression indicates the growing fractures among the various  identity groups that comprise the progressive Left. Whether it’s Blacks crying racism in schools dominated by Hispanics or gay ex-congressman Barney Frank claiming that trans groups “are only excluded from rights legislation because they wouldn’t help lobby for it,” or whether it’s Silverman’s gaffe itself, the return on investment for progressive identity politics is fast diminishing.

The trans community exemplifies that diminishing return. Earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that identifying the portion of trans people in the US is incredibly difficult. As this Washington Post report noted :

One challenge is that there are more than 200 terms used by people who identify as a different sex than the biological one they were born as…

Some people who have completed gender reassignment surgery may no longer consider themselves transgender but rather a member of their new sex, she said. Others may be offended by terms such as “transsexual,” which was once routinely used but in some circles is now considered pejorative.

Progressive Brahmins fail to realize the sort of difficulties involved in dealing with a group whose numbers are just as difficult to pin down as their constantly fluctuating ‘gender identities.’ Brahmins fail to realize that, when your politics consist of catering to these tinier and tinier minorities of crazier and crazier people, you’ll eventually find yourself dealing with a group that is impossible to not offend. The trans community is one such group, exceptionally small and exceptionally neurotic. But as Silverman and others have learned, the trans community wields an unusual amount of power for their size.

Regardless, it’s instances like these that should give hope to anyone who dissents from the progressive worldview or resists their directives. The Left is eating itself slowly like the mythical Ouroborous. It just seems like a matter of time before it self-consumes entirely.

from The Left Eats Itself: Equal Pay Ad Angers Trans Groups

October 14, 2014
Weev’s Apostasy: Acclaimed Troll Writes Scathing Critique of American Justice, Society

Andrew “weev” Aurenheimer, a well-known figure in the tech/Internet/hacking/trolling worlds, has posted a scathing critique of the American justice system and American society in general. Titled “What I Learned from My Time in Prison”, and posted at The Daily Stormer, Aurenheimer’s screed has ignited a crescendo of fury from many of his former comrades and supporters.

For those unfamiliar with Aurenheimer, he was part of a well-publicized “hacking” case in which he was charged for making public a vulnerability regarding user information of iPad owners. He was eventually released early on a technicality, but knew the deck was stacked against him as soon as he walked in the courthouse:

When I walked into the court of the “Honorable” Susan D. Wigenton, what mattered were her nails.

They were hot pinker and longer than anything I’d ever seen, and Judge Wigenton talked like a hood rat straight out of a ghetto. My case was important. There were issues of venue. There were First Amendment issues. There were Fifth Amendment issues.

Aurenheimer continues, describing his sense of alienation from both the judge and prosecuting attorney in his case:

I’ve been a long-time critic of Judaism, black culture, immigration to Western nations, and the media’s constant stream of anti-white propaganda. Judge Wigenton was as black as they come. The prosecutor, Zach Intrater, was a Brooklyn Jew from an old money New York family. The trial was a sham.

The whole time a yarmulke-covered audience of Jewry stared at me from the pews of the courtroom. My prosecutor invited his whole synagogue to spectate.

Perhaps fueling the most ire among his former comrades and often-times reluctant supporters is the sense of identity Aurenheimer said he connected with while in prison:

I have some new tattoos that mark the wisdom I gained from my time in prison, which happens to be the same as the wisdom of my ancestors…My first tattoo is a 4.5 inch swastika on my chest featuring Oðinn, Baldr, Freyr, and Þór. My second is a Jörmungandr-wrapped Þórshamar flanked by Huginn and Muninn on my forearm.

Predictably, Aurenheimer is being cast out by many in the worlds he inhabited. As this picture on Twitter shows, his apostasy is simply…unthinkable to many, and therefore, there must be something wrong with him.


It will be interesting to continue to monitor this, because it seems likely Aurenheimer will be “un-personed” eventually by those on the left with whom he used to associate. Aurenheimer’s apostasy is either an act of genuine belief, or his most elaborate troll yet.

from Weev’s Apostasy: Acclaimed Troll Writes Scathing Critique of American Justice, Society

September 24, 2014
The New York Times on Christianity: Another Gaffe from an Alienated Elite

The Daily Caller recently discovered something that should surprise no one, but that reveals a lot about the state of the States: the New York Times has no idea what Christianity is.

The Daily Caller reports:

While the Times correctly recalled that Christians do believe Jesus died (one might even say “was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried”), they stopped reading the Creed a bit too soon–skipping over the whole “and the third day he rose again” bit. Christians commemorate Christ’s rising from the dead on Easter, an obscure holiday celebrated by just over 2 billion people throughout the world.

Christianity is also the largest religion in the United States, with nearly 80 percent of the U.S. population identifying as Christian.

Kalman, former editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Report [and the author of the article], graduated from Cambridge University with a Master’s in History, and has been based in Jerusalem since 1998.

Isn’t that interesting?

The New York Times is, as we all know, the most well-known newspaper in America. Presumably it has editors. One must wonder how many people saw that error before the article went to press.

This is how disconnected the media, with all its power, is from America. What does it say about a country that the people responsible for informing its public opinion are this alienated from those they inform? There are, no doubt, many more people, with a great deal of journalistic, commercial, or political influence, who would have let that error slip; why would this be? As we and others have noted before, the American educated class and those outside it are effectively separate cultures, who know less and less about each other as time goes on. Cultural distinction between different groups of people is nothing new, of course, and it shouldn’t be a problem—but since both of these groups lay claim over the same borders and the same national identity, the situation is a bit trickier than it might otherwise be.

from The New York Times on Christianity: Another Gaffe from an Alienated Elite

September 16, 2014
Another Non-Racist Crime That Won’t Be Remembered

We’re all familiar with the usual progressive line about how the problems of Blacks in modern Western societies are all caused by the racist traumas they suffered under slavery and segregation a long time ago. A hundred years from now, future Black dysfunction might well be put down to the nightmares their forbears suffered under “White privilege” and the occasional “unkind” word.

But the traumas they suffered due to other Blacks will always be forgotten.

You see this phenomenon all the time in stories on Africa, like the recent report on African Union “peacekeepers” in the failed state that is Somalia, sexually exploiting and raping, in an entirely predictable way, young women — some as young as twelve — who come under their control.

The BBC reports:

African Union (AU) troops raped women and girls seeking medical aid or water from their bases in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, a rights group says. The troops had ‘misused’ their power over women fleeing violence and poverty, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said. One Muslim girl, aged 15, reportedly had her headscarf ripped off before being raped. The AU, which has some 22,000 troops fighting militant Islamists in Somalia, says it will investigate the claims.

The AU will investigate the claims! Well, that’s reassuring, except for the fact that this will probably involve yet more sex-starved African soldiers interviewing nubile victims to, ahem, get at the truth. No doubt there will be yet further sexual exploitation and rape, some of which might even make the Pakistani rape gangs of Rotherham seem like gentlemen by comparison.

But that’s just Africa for you. Africa is “trauma central”, and was so even in the bad old days of slavery, although, luckily, none of the terrible things that happened to the slaves before they came to America had any bad effects on them. That was purely down to the horrible racism they encountered after they came into the hands of the White man.

As for the present trauma suffered at the hands of their fellow African ‘peacekeepers’, these things happen. But African underage girls are tough and resilient, and they will pull through. It will soon be water under the bridge as far as White liberals (and everyone else) is concerned.

But it is a very different thing if the perpetrator is a White man; in those cases, and only those cases, the trauma stays and grows with each subsequent generation.

So great is the power of the White man that any minor act of violence he inflicts on Blacks will last centuries, break apart entire countries, and reduce any descendants of the original victims to endless poverty, dysfunction, and resentment; and so weak is the Black man that even the most terrible and horrific acts he does against Whites or his own kind will evaporate like next morning’s dew. Or so the progressives say.

from Another Non-Racist Crime That Won’t Be Remembered

September 16, 2014
Ted Cruz and the Atrocious Anti-Semitism of Persecuted Christians

Since the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and beyond, thousands of Middle Eastern Christians—as well as other religious minorities, such as Yazidis—have been raped, killed, or driven from their homes. These minorities have been safest under secular governments such as that of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, because the only other option within the Middle East is Islamic theocracy—which is, again, presently in the process of eliminating them. Israel, with its Law of Return, is no option for them at all, as its only Christian permanent residents are descendents of those who lived in Palestine before the State of Israel was founded in 1948, many of whose fellows were expelled during the Arab-Israeli conflicts of the mid-20th century. Christians who were not so fortunate as to have been born in Israel are not allowed to reside in Israel permanently. And even those Christians, according to Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Vatican’s Custodian of the Holy Land, have had their churches defaced, and have been literally spat upon, by Jews.

It is no surprise, then, that so many Palestinian and Arab Christians have allied with Assad—who is himself a member of a religious minority, an Alawite, and thus has an interest in protecting religious freedom in his country—or with other secular or pan-Arab governments, or have simply emigrated (often to the United States). It is also, accordingly, no surprise that the destabilization of the region by Washington military campaigns, which has favored the rise of the Islamic State, has been so devastating for these Christian communities.

None of this stopped Senator Ted Cruz from telling a group of these Christians, in no equivocal terms, that his support for their struggle is contingent upon their support for a State which has no interest in taking them in.

Sen. Ted Cruz was booed offstage at a conference for Middle Eastern Christians Wednesday night after saying that “Christians have no greater ally than Israel.”

Cruz, the keynote speaker at the sold-out D.C. dinner gala for the recently-founded non-profit In Defense of Christians, began by saying that “tonight, we are all united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are all united in defense of Jews. Tonight, we are all united in defense of people of good faith, who are standing together against those who would persecute and murder those who dare disagree with their religious teachings.”

A State which denies citizenship to gentiles is the greatest ally of Christians! One wonders, then, when Israeli commandos will begin taking on the Islamic State on behalf of the persecuted.

Cruz went further, however: his final statement at the gala, before leaving the stage, was that “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you.” Cruz’s attitude appears to be shared by many other conservative American Protestants, who seem entirely willing to condemn fellow Christians, who live with the daily threat of rape and murder, for the sake of Israel. According to commenters on Mollie Hemingway’s recent piece at the Federalist, Maronite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are getting what they deserve for not liking Jews enough:

Israel is not Middle Eastern Christian sects’ enemy.

Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination. If they harbor resentments, now is the time they dropped them.

Or they’ll deserve the consequences.

Well, dhimmis, you spent the last 1400 years building this trap for yourselves. Learn to accept the Jews or die ‘the vilest of animals’ as the Koran calls all Kuffar, Christian or Jew.

ME Christians just gave you a window to the virulent strain of Christianity that most Americans had long had bred out of them.

Let’s face [it], even as th[e]y are being slaughtered, ME Christians would sooner die than relinquish they [sic] antisemitism. It’s their choice.

These ‘Christians’ have two choices: life alongside Israel and the Jews or slaughter at the hands of Muslims.

You are way off base here. Their persecution by fanatical Muslims does not justify their antisemitism.

The moral case for Christians in the Middle East is undermined — perhaps undermined to the point of being not deserving of support — because of their not-so thinly-veiled Jew-hatred.

That is the *exact* point that Cruz was making.

Don’t like the Islamic State? You’d better be friendlier with Jews, then! It’s so simple—all these Christians have to do is call out the name of Benjamin Netanyahu three times under the sign of the Star of David, and Israel, in its unending beneficence, will transport them instantly to safety! Expressing support for Israel would normally get these people killed, but Israel and Uncle Sam are ready to repel the forces of the Islamic State immediately and forever—all they have to do is to say the magic words. And it’s not as though Washington brought the Islamic State into existence through its involvement in the Middle East on behalf of its Israeli and Saudi friends; to say so, in fact, would be grievously and atrociously anti-Semitic, wouldn’t it? And according to Ted Cruz and these other conservative commenters, anti-Semitism is a crime far worse than anything the Islamic State is doing.

from Ted Cruz and the Atrocious Anti-Semitism of Persecuted Christians

September 1, 2014
The Rotherham Child Rape Coverup: A Study in Institutional Malice

In Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England, it has been revealed that about 1400 young White girls were raped and otherwise abused by gangs of Pakistani men between 1997 and 2013. Good thing the authorities were there to do something about it, right?


From the Telegraph:

Top ranking staff ordered raids to delete and remove case files and evidence detailing the scale of Rotherham’s child exploitation scandal, sources have revealed.

More than 10 years before the damning independent inquiry revealed sexual exploitation of 1,400 children in Rotherham a raid was carried out on the orders of senior staff to destroy evidence, it has been claimed.

In 2002 high profile personnel at Rotherham Council ordered a raid on Risky Business, Rotherham council’s specialist youth service, which offered one-to-one help and support to vulnerable teenage girls, ahead of the findings of a draft report, according to the Times.

The raid was to remove case files and wipe computer records detailing the scale and severity of the town’s sex-grooming crisis, sources told The Times.

It took place shortly after senior police and council staff became aware of the contents of the draft report of a 2000-01 research project that found evidence of a hidden child sex abuse scandal.

Files which revealed victims, offenders and how individual cases were handled by the child-protection authorities were removed.

Indeed, one of the known offenders is now “living the high life”, according to the Daily Mail:

One of the ring leaders of a child grooming gang in Rotherham has boasted he is ‘living the high life’ after being released from jail.

Umar Razaq, 28, was jailed in 2010 in a case that lifted the lid on the horrific extent of sexual exploitation in the South Yorkshire town.

But after appealing the length of his four-year sentence, he has been released – and is now jetting off on holiday to Pakistan.

His victim Lizzie, who was only 12 when she was groomed by Umar Razaq, has been left distraught by the posts, saying he ‘taunted’ her on the social networking site after being released from jail.

Posting a selfie in sunglasses on Facebook, Razaq boasted: ‘Can’t wait… Roll on to the lifetime holiday’.

From the Independent Inquiry for Rotherham Council:

…one child who was being prepared to give evidence received a text saying the perpetrator had her younger sister and the choice of what happened next was up to her. She withdrew her statements. At least two other families were terrorised by groups of perpetrators, sitting in cars outside the family home, smashing windows, making abusive and threatening phone calls. On some occasions child victims went back to perpetrators in the belief that this was the only way their parents and other children in the family would be safe. In the most extreme cases, no one in the family believed that the authorities could protect them.

The same authorities, of course, who promoted lax immigration policies which allowed the rapists to enter the UK, according to the Telegraph:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

So much for Labour caring about, you know, labor.

The Independent reports:

Professor Alexis Jay, who wrote the report, said she found “children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone”.

It said that three reports from 2002 to 2006 highlighted the extent of child exploitation and links to wider criminality but nothing was done, with the findings either suppressed or simply ignored. Police failed to act on the crimes and treated the victims with contempt and deemed that they were “undesirables” not worthy of protection, the inquiry team was told.

One young person told the inquiry that “gang rape” was a usual part of growing up in the area of Rotherham where she lived. In most of the cases that the inquiry team examined, the victims were white children under the age of 16 and the perpetrators named in the files as “Asian males”.

The report said council staff were scared of being accused of racism by flagging up the issue in a town of nearly 260,000, where 8 per cent were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.

If avoiding “racism” is considered a valid pretext for allowing the rape of more than 1400 children, it’s time for “racism” as a concept to be reëvaluated. Indeed, if White men had been invited by the Pakistani government to live among the natives, and had formed gangs who raped little Pakistani girls, would any of these journalists, any of these councillors, hesitate to decry such heinous acts—and would they not describe the White men as “racists”? Perhaps more to the point, would Pakistanis sit by and allow them to continue? If the Pakistani government had established a norm of allowing the foreign gangs to roam more or less freely, while cracking down quickly and ruthlessly on any native resistance to the gangs and referring to the child victims of gang rape as “undesirables”—well, now we see the problem, don’t we?

The legal system in Rotherham was not allowing these crimes due to incompetence or utter ignorance; it was allowing them out of malice. If you’re a Westerner living in a place like Rotherham, and you are not a member of your country’s financial, political, journalistic, or otherwise educated classes, it is likely that the law does not give a good goddamn about you. Its purpose is increasingly to silence you. The Rotherham case only drives home the undeniability of this point. Make of it what you will.

from The Rotherham Child Rape Coverup: A Study in Institutional Malice

August 29, 2014
Richard Florida, Academia Perplexed by Gentrification Research

Gentrification is such a nice, hot phrase for something liberals enjoy while simultaneously decrying it for ruining city slum authenticity. It is not like rich conservatives are gentrifying those areas. Simple reviews of vote history in elections by census tract can show the media progressives how they are just attacking the hands that pay for them. Academia even has a nice myopia or selective amnesia about gentrification. In no other way can one explain this piece of work from Richard Florida.

Immediately, the writer does not notice the circumstances of recent decades where the gentrifying cities suffered sharp declines and White flight while being followed by the FIRE economy real estate bubble. The Sun Belt cities had no gentrification because they experienced their growth in the post-WW2 era as those old, bordering bodies of water experienced decline. Sun Belt cities had no zoning-law red tape and they had cheap land. Rust Belt cities held on a bit longer due to manufacturing sticking around as an economic force longer there than in the older port cities. For liberals who celebrate diversity, they miss diversity of economics, history and land.

Comedy continues as the writer notes research finding that gentrification is very dependent on the percentage of Black inhabitants, with 40% a magic line. It might not just be “explicit racism”, but other factors. Here is an idea: maybe it is crime statistics for the area. Maybe there is a sweet spot where real estate values are depressed by the crime and blight in the area but the crime and blight might be more manageable with an increased police presence. Do black gangs operate in 65% black neighborhoods but have less of a footprint in 30% black neighborhoods? Just asking before I label gentrification scouts as racists.

The researchers find that gentrification does not have spillover effects for bordering neighborhoods. Anyone who has walked in a major Northeastern city knows this. It is an archipelago one navigates for safe zones. These academics, and the writer, have the foolish mindset that if you paint the cage pink, the pit bull will change. The idea that inserting people with wealth into an area will help surrounding areas is an ancient one from the bygone era of ethnic city neighborhoods. Neighbors that all sent kids to the same schools, ate the same ethnic foods, went to the same church, and were a connected unit. Twenty-first-century gentrification is made up by wealthy or adventurous people who love the architecture, the location, the idea of living in, or returning to, the city. There is no connection to the older ethnic enclave mindset; these gentrifiers simply bring the atomized suburban experience to the city.

Looking at gentrification as an economic and lifestyle selection on the part of big-money developers and urban knowledge workers strips the stupidity from these academics’ assumptions. This is not organic neighborhood-building with a bonding drive. It is a homo economicus decision for one’s lifestyle. It is about money—their money. If the natives do not adjust or do not feel the financial benefits, then tough—sell and move out. Gentrification is not evil, and it is also not a solution to improving the plight of the urban poor. A return to the old neighborhoods in American cities is a fantasy. It might not improve the lives of the urban underclass, but gentrification at least improves the quality and utility of the prime real estate in our knowledge economy hubs.

from Richard Florida, Academia Perplexed by Gentrification Research

August 23, 2014
Hidden History: The Last Supreme Court Nominees to Be Discriminated Against

A statement this month by President Obama centered around his thought that he would get to appoint one more Supreme Court justice. Are there any firsts, any unprecedented appointments, left? An Asian justice? An openly gay justice? A justice that does not speak English? America is running out of firsts. The press loves to spotlight such firsts. For the Supreme Court, the first Catholic was in the mid 1800s, first Jew was a century ago, first Black was two generations ago, and we recently had our first Hispanic. Hurrah for progress! No one ever talks about lasts or, even in our victim culture, last instances of discrimination. The last group barred from joining the Supreme Court was the bloc known as Southern White men.

Supreme Court presidential nominations have had few outright rejections in its history. Normally, the President would nominate, the ABA would give its advice beforehand, and the Senate would confirm. A change occurred in the 20th century with the rise of voting blocs as John J. Parker’s nomination failed by one vote due to his attitude towards labor and the newly formed NAACP’s agitation. Eisenhower made appointments during a Congressional recess. Once the progressive takeover of the machinery of the Federal government was complete, the remaining problem was that of exerting control of the court system. The activist Warren court became a fundraising gold mine for the Right as hocus-pocus rights were discovered. Even the Burger Court found a way to twist the 14th Amendment for illegitimate kids. Before the famous Borking incident that birthed a new political atmosphere for nominations thanks to Senator Ted Kennedy, Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative Mephistopheles himself, was confirmed 98-0. Nominations were political, but not as overtly caustic as now. Incidents always involve politics (increasingly affecting lower court appointments with eyes on future SCOTUS potential), but the Senatorial blockade of Southern White men in ’69-’70 was special.

President Nixon came to power in ’69, and realized that, with most of the government machine controlled by the Left, a way to influence America for a long period was through a “Nixon Court”. Per Ehrlichman’s book, he was looking for strict constructionists, with no racial or ethnic slots, who would come from meat-and-potatoes law schools. Not the Ivy League and “above all, not the Northeast” (Ehrlichman, Witness to Power). This fed into Nixon’s ’68 campaign on law and order, with moves to push the SCOTUS away from it’s liberal, activist Warren behavior that many associated with the unraveling in process in America. When Nixon arrived in the Oval Office, he had the Chief Justice slot to fill, and fortuitously, Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign due to ethics scandals that mushroomed from initial investigations as he was originally to be raised to Chief. This was an immediate and unique opportunity for Nixon to change America’s political course for far beyond his four to eight years in office.

With two slots, Nixon, ever the political animal, picked Warren Burger for Chief Justice; Nixon said that he “had Burger’s promise that Burger would retire before Nixon did so Nixon could appoint another, younger Chief Justice” (Ehrlichman, Witness to Power). Nixon would banter with his inner circle about possibilities. Politically, they would be strict constructionists, but he understood the identity group bingo game of American politics. He wanted Catholics, women, and Southerners. A problem with female nominees, pointed out by his inner circle and never understood by the press, is that the difficulty in nominating a woman in 1970 or even 1980 started with the lack of women at top flight law schools twenty five years earlier to work their way up the legal ladder. Apply this to anything prestigious, and the Left disregards the filtered funnel concept. Nixon joked about Jewell LaFontant because she was Black and a woman, to which he added that it was “too bad she isn’t Jewish” (Witness to Power). Nixon did have a Jewish legal supporter, Rita Hauser, whom he considered for SCOTUS. Hauser made the mistake of saying there were no Constitutional prohibitions for same-sex marriage. Nixon remarked, “Did you read that? There goes a Supreme Court Justice! I can’t go that far; that’s the year 2000! Negroes [and whites], okay. But that’s too far!” (Ehrlichman, Witness to Power) In April of ’69 in order to help Nixon, Warren Burger created a list of potential nominees to suit Nixon’s quest. After Burger’s confirmation, Nixon first nominated a strict constructionist from the South, Clement Haynsworth, to fill the open Associate slot.

Clement Haynsworth was a sitting judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals from South Carolina. He spoke slowly and deliberately with a Southern drawl. His ascension to the Court would be a great signal for Nixon to the South to help with 1972. While Nixon’s team saw the South as a secure area for ’72, they were going to approach desegregation delicately, keeping an eye on how hard they pushed the South, and focus on ethnics and Northern union voters for ’72. The Civil Rights crusade and subsequent formalized mechanisms for forced integration made race a huge concern for Nixon in his first term. Like gay rights today, any black issue was a club used by the Left in political battles. Throughout 1969 and 1970, Nixon’s team was confronted with riots in cities so often that thankfully the outgoing LBJ administration had faced the same problem and left behind the stacks of papers and formal agreements to handle anything. The actual implementation of the Civil Rights crusade’s victory vote was left to be implemented and created a need for sweeping away the old guard.

The Haynsworth nomination put this on display. Haynsworth was attacked immediately for conflicts of interest that were never proved, for being a racist, and for being anti-labor. In Nixon’s memoirs, he cites the simple anger of the left for what Haynsworth believes, which was not a problem when he was nominated thirteen years earlier to the Appeals Court, and writes,

Civil rights organizations immediately called Haynsworth a racist; one group said he was a “laundered segregationist”. George Meany claimed that his record was anti-labor. The press picked up these themes and played daily variations on them. Soon the pack mentality took hold in Washington. Organized interest groups went to work, and letter and phone campaigns began putting pressure on the Senate.

Haynsworth was defeated despite no inappropriate behavior. Haynsworth was a Harvard graduate. Haynsworth was also a Southern White male. Haldeman writes in his diaries that it was not Haynsworth’s abilities. It was “a combination of reaction against the Fortas matter, plus a strong anti-Southern move, plus pure partisan politics” (Haldeman, The Haldeman Diaries). Haynsworth’s nomination was voted down, and he continued to serve elsewhere for many more years.

Nixon was not done trying to nominate a strict constructionist White Southerner; not a Black from the South like Marshall whom the Senate, held by Democrats with Rockefeller GOP help, would support. Nixon then nominated G. Harrold Carswell. Carswell had been nominated by Eisenhower and Nixon and confirmed by the US Senate two separate occasions, including in 1969. Nixon notes in his memoirs, “the ritual charges of “racist” were made in the media and in Congress”. Carswell had made the horrible mistake in his past of saying he supported segregation in 1948, when the Armed Forces were just being integrated. This twenty-two-year-old statement came back to haunt him, there were questions of his “competence”, and his nomination was rejected. This competence was not a problem for the Appeals Court, which somehow gets glossed over due to the political SCOTUS fetish.

It also shows the problem of ever-leftward movement that hurts anyone to the Right of the current zeitgeist. This is easily seen in media coverage of Left vs. Right, as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can have anti-same sex marriage statements in their past considered no problem, since they’ve clearly “evolved” since then, but a target on the Right cannot be similarly considered to have “evolved” unless he compromises whatever was right-wing about his previous position. An interesting throwaway fact on Carswell is that it is widely suspected he was gay or at least bisexual. Such a horribly oppressive time Carswell lived in. His closet was full of gay and segregationist skeletons.

Nixon and his team were well aware of the political opposition to the Southern flavor of their nominees. Nixon gave a speech that stressed this Southern problem. While his memoirs deny the anti-Southern animus, his speech reads differently,

I have reluctantly concluded that it is not possible to get confirmation for a Judge on the Supreme Court of any man who believes in the strict construction of the Constitution, as I do, if he happens to come from the South…

When you strip away all the hypocrisy, the real reason for their rejection was their legal philosophy, a philosophy that I share, of strict construction of the Constitution, and also the accident of their birth, the fact that they were born in the South…

Nixon would nominate a good Harvard-trained man from Minnesota, Harry Blackmun. Chief Justice Burger was friends with Blackmun and had told Nixon he would keep an eye on him. Blackmun, the third off Burger’s list, was confirmed by a vote of 94-0. This was another White, Harvard-educated law-and-order type that Nixon nominated, yet he sailed through. All that was different between Haynsworth and Blackmun was their home State. Blackmun would move from a moderate conservative to a consistently liberal judge. Read The Brethren for a fantastic inside view of the SCOTUS written with a super liberal bias to it. Woodward writes Burger as an inconsistent idiot, Marshall as super cool, and Blackmun is always being worked on to become more liberal. After writing Roe v. Wade, Blackmun takes the plunge and grows to be in love with being powerful, citing the case in other cases later in his career with no real connection to Roe.

Think of how often we hear “accident of birth” to explain privilege or some poor criminal’s past to excuse his behavior. Nixon was noticing that these men were simply Southerners, and therefore, not worthy of SCOTUS confirmation by the Eastern Establishment. While the switch of a liberal seat (Fortas) for a conservative was a problem for the Left, the main issue became their simple status as Southern gentlemen. Southerners have been few and far between for SCOTUS concerns. Clarence Thomas, a Black Southern conservative, was born a Georgian. He endured his own witch hunt which, when looked at in hindsight, was simply a political operation with sex as the excuse. The media has remarked in the recent decades about the Southern Strategy, the switch of the Solid South, the South’s political effect on national politics and clout. No one ever mentions this part of it, though. In an odd coincidence, America has seen many firsts since 1970, but no Southern White men confirmed for the Supreme Court. Carswell and Haynsworth were the last two nominated. As the media loves to trumpet, the rickety old doors of discrimination have been knocked down—never mind the new cement doors that the Left does not want anyone to notice that they have erected.

from Hidden History: The Last Supreme Court Nominees to Be Discriminated Against

August 20, 2014
NY Times Misses the Point About ISIS

The NY Times has a fantastic piece out about ISIS and Al-Baghdadi. It is a tremendous look at the myths that are woven around this man. It is also a steady attack on how ISIS and their dear leader are both residue of the American foreign policy and military intervention in the Middle East. This is red meat for its readers. It is also selective avoidance to control the ignorance of its well informed readers. The NY Times does not want to admit it nor even let it be up for debate, but there are diversity, multicultural and religious lessons in ISIS that no liberal wants to touch. ISIS has taken a broken and beaten back group (Iraqi Sunnis) and given them something to rally around, something to fight for and an outlet to channel their energy that cuts along religious and ethnic lines.

ISIS is a terror organization, but one that is pretty well put together with powerpoint presentations, quarterly reports, and other Bond villain ideas. They operate oil and gas facilities to keep revenue up. They think of non-confrontational ways to have leverage, like controlling a dam and threatening to drown Baghdad. They have taken the Caliphate 2.0 concept from Al-Qaeda and actually claimed one. It is a Sunni organization. This is neither pan-Arab nor pan-Islam. They kill those who do not convert and attack groups that are not Sunni Arabs. Kurds might be Sunni but it does not matter. Shias might be Arab but are by definition not Sunni. This is tribal warfare with the basics of you are either one of us or one of them. The NY Times avoids discussing this to harp instead on the US policy moves that led to such a figure as Al-Baghdadi.

The Sunni Arabs went from ruling the region in 2002 to being the losers of a civil war in 2006 to being the main antagonists of a bribe-or-kill policy (the Iraq Surge) to be left a broken, beaten-down minority pushed around, hunted down and squeezed by the central government run by the ethnic majority they used to dominate. Once the US forces all left Iraq, the government security forces became a Shia unit to harass and kill Sunnis. That sounds like a depressed group looking for any positives and primed for a leader. ISIS is nuts and disliked by Sunnis who give sound bites to foreign reporters as they leave battle zones, but check the NY Times article for details. They incorporated old Baath regime generals and leaders. The leadership delegated powers to different groups. The jihdais complain he relies on Baathists too much. Look at the map of where they control, and it shows ISIS controlling ethnic Sunni areas and fighting at the edges of other groups and areas held tighter by autocrats. It is a tribal unit. It has a goal. Proclaiming an independent state as the Caliphate, while sounding bonkers to Westerners, has a strong appeal to Muslims, especially Sunni Muslims in Iraq beaten down the last few years by Shias. ISIS is also winning; The Arabs, and most humans, are known to pick the strong horse and follow the hot hand.

The Times will avoid this rally around the tribe effect because it is an unpleasant reality of the world that globalist, multicultural pushing institutions like the Times doe not want to give any attention. If the Times were honest, they would label him the public face of the fighting front of the Sunnis against the Shias. (We are seeing it right now to a lesser degree in America, with the latest dead-black-criminal-turned-martyr political ritual.) It is not hard to look around the globe and question the viability of liberal democracy or even nation-States themselves. Catalonia? Scotland? Ukraine? The Times would not entertain the idea, or even want its readers to entertain the idea, of different models, but as history moves and the world changes, alternative forms of unification should be explored and debated. While barbaric in their practices, the glue made from ethnic and religious identification and unity exhibited by ISIS and those who are supporting them directly and indirectly should not be excluded from any discussion.

from NY Times Misses the Point About ISIS

August 20, 2014
Russo-German Rapprochement Amid Anglo-German Tension

Foreign policy and money have long been linked. The colonial view of mercantilism is centuries old. Some historians argue Rome was a conquest and plunder economy that started to collapse when they ran out of areas to conquer with reasonable effort. Money is the weak link of the US system. The Russians have been open with noticing this. It is not just the US world order system but the USG domestic situation. A big piece of this system are our vassals—er, friends in Europe. Europe is not the center of the dollar system, but much closer than US allies on the periphery in Asia and below the equator who have had crises in the last thirty years. I wrote months ago about Anglo-German tensions. It appears the tension is real—the Germans are cuddling up to the Russians and the Americans are spooked.

Anglo-German tensions have risen with open moves like gold repatriation, protests against the US Federal Reserve in Germany, and explicit anger over NSA spying. as well as spy ejections. The current geopolitical chessboard features the little Ukrainian piece that the US was eager to topple but Germany wasn’t, inspiring Victoria Nuland to say “fuck the EU”. Fast forward months later, and with a real civil war going on, it has been leaked that the Germans were close to a land-for-gas deal to end sanctions, bring a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine crisis, and keep the gas flowing. Russia is Germany’s 11th biggest trade partner. Germany is a bit more reliant than France or the UK on Russian gas, and right now Germany is the only piece of the EU able to fund all the bailout mechanisms and keep growing. Each time a nation needs some form of bailout in the EU, their share of the bailout responsibility has to be picked up by solvent nations. This gets ugly quick. Germany cannot absorb losses or hits, whether directly to them or to the EU. This is why it makes sense for them to reach out directly, as reported, to solve the USG-manufactured Ukrainian crisis.

Read the UK Independent’s leaked Germany-Russia deal article. Angela Merkel is involved, and the leak specifically cites her dealing with Putin. Contrast this with President Obama’s interactions with Putin.

Such strong trade ties between the two countries have also served to strengthen Ms Merkel’s hand and the Russian speaker has emerged as the leading advocate of closer relations between the EU and Russia. “This is Merkel’s deal. She has been dealing direct with President Putin on this. She needs to solve the dispute because it’s in no one’s interest to have tension in Ukraine or to have Russia out in the cold. No one wants another Cold War,” said one insider close to the negotiations.

It states basic diplomatic measures to get the gas flowing again, recognizes Crimea as Russian, sets up a looser Ukraine, and stops Ukrainian entry into NATO. Peace for Europe, but the USG does not get its way.

This also explains the MH17 crash being something to use on Germany and not Russia. This becomes a quick wedge. Read the land-for-gas link. Germany was ready to wrap up the Ukraine solution until MH17 happened. The initial accusation of Russian involvement paused the negotiations, and now everyone knows, which means the US can apply pressure openly on Germany. The indirect pressure has been out for a while. The US Federal Reserve warned Deutsche Bank for its derivatives portfolio and is throwing up regulatory obstacles to DB’s move into the US. Maybe Deutsche Bank will be the next AIG; Wall Street could use a new fall guy. MH17 is going to be investigated in the Netherlands with German technical help. It would be incredibly evil to set up a plane crash, but no need for much speculation considering no one has an answer for the first Malaysian Airlines crash. Timing is too odd, and so is the American rush to implicate Russia, and now its backing off as evidence seems to be sparse and not pointing to Russia.

The USG, mad drunk leviathan that it is, will not let a peaceful resolution happen quickly. It also must work to keep its clients in line. Germany is making long term moves and must see the future for the USG, which is a destiny the USG mandarins will not accept. German media is noticing that the USG is acting so wild that it would be an easy sell that it was the work of KGB moles to make the US look bad.  It is a bit of a mad world we live in where the Western media demonize Putin, who whether working for Russian interests or just his own, is setting up with the Chinese a monetary bloc to counter and slow down the USG, offered up a solution in Syria that stopped US warplanes, and was just trying to end a Ukrainian Civil War. The US media cannot admit we are at fault because the US media’s chosen good guys are at the helm of the ship. The USG can pull stunts like this now, but eventually the threats will get emptier or a big enough client will force action on a threat, and things will get ugly. Dollars hold it all together, and dollars will bring it down. Germany knows this. If Germany can set up shop in Europe as the regional hegemon, it might as well make buddies with the nuclear-armed eastern neighbor.

from Russo-German Rapprochement Amid Anglo-German Tension