The World According to AmericanGoy

They hate us, they really hate us: class warfare

2013-04-19T22:52:00.001-07:00

No,this post is not about the moslems - although that's a given that they hate the infidels.

If one looks at the whole situation in our European (as an Eastern European, I am calling it as it is as opposed to the "Western" culture which enthusiastically embraced the multiculturalism virus), one comes to the following two conclusion:

1) A group of people will (usually) assimilate into a society and be swallowed into it (which is a good thing) if the percentage of these people and their numbers are not too high.

2) moslems and jews do not assimilate into any society, ever. They are always a part apart. They never assimilate and become like the people around them - their beliefs, customs, behaviours, mentality and morality always set them apart from the European world.

That was a by the by, by the way, and not onto the main post.

They hate us, they really hate us: class warfare

General Casey

Reuters blog article, this is what general George Casey, who last served as the 36th Chief of Staff of the United States Army from April 10, 2007 to April 11, 2011, has said after the Fort Hood mass murder of Americans by a moslem in their midst(actual quote, this is what he said):

“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” Casey said.

Think on a minute on this situation.

Here we have a shocking situation of an enemy within who was shooting men, his "buddies" from five minutes ago, his "friends" for years, who was shouting "Allahu akbar!" while doing it.

The army, in any sane modern country (twas slightly different in the Middle Ages, and back) has one main function: to protect the people of the country.

To keep the citizens of their country safe.

To protect US, against THEM (whoever they happen to be, Soviets, jews, moslems, Tongans).

And here we have the number one army guy saying to the TV cameras, to the nation and to the world, that no, the American army does not aim to protect the people of this country, hell - they do not even want to protect themselves.

Multiculturalism trumps protecting the army itself, much less the citizens of America.

Tony Blair, Peter Hitchens

Former adviser to the UK's Labour Party, Andrew Neather, came out and said it:

The huge increases in migrants [in the UK - Americangoy] 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".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

In case the full impact does not hit you, re-read the quote from the Telegraph newspaper.

Andrew Neather was a spechwriter and advisor to Tony Blair, the prime minister at the time of the UK's multiculturalist catastrophe (ongoing).

Daily Mail (yes, I know):

Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, claimed a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up forever.

It also emerged that:

Home Office Minister Barbara Roche, who pioneered the open-door policy, wanted to restore her Labour reputation after being attacked by Left-wingers for condemning begging by immigrants as 'vile'.

Civil servant Jonathan Portes, who wrote the immigration report, was a speechwriter for Gordon Brown and is now a senior aide to Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell.

Labour chiefs decided to brand Tory leaders William Hague and Michael Howard as racists to deter them from criticising the covert initiative.

Mr Neather said there was a 'driving political purpose' behind Labour's decision to allow in hundreds of thousands of migrants to plug gaps in the labour market.

He said the stance was foreshadowed by a report by Mr Blair's Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) think-tank, which said the nation would benefit from more migrants.

Mr Neather claimed that earlier, unpublished versions of the report made clear that one aim was to make Britain more multi-cultural for political reasons.

'I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date,' he said.

And of course, the view from the enemy, the Guardian UK newspaper:

A former Labour adviser at the centre of claims that the government secretly encouraged mass immigration to turn Britain into a "truly multicultural society" and undermine the Tories today made clear "there was no such plot".

The shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, challenged ministers in the Commons today over remarks by Andrew Neather, a former speechwriter to Tony Blair and special adviser to Barbara Roche when she was immigration minister.

But Neather, now comment editor of the London Evening Standard, said an article he wrote in the aftermath of the television appearance of the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, had been twisted out of all recognition.

"There was no plot," said Neather. He pinpointed a shift in immigration policy in 2001, when he wrote a speech for Roche outlining changes to make it easier for skilled workers to come to the UK. The speech followed a sensitive report on migration from the Downing Street performance and innovation unit.

"Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when – hard as it is to imagine now – the booming economy was running up against skills shortages," Neather wrote in the Standard.

He admitted he had a sense from several discussions at the time that there was a subsidiary purpose of boosting diversity and undermining the right's opposition to multiculturalism, but Neather insisted it was not the main point at issue.

Now, lets focus on the text I bolded for you; text from multiple sources (Telegraph - right wing and Guardian - left wing newspapers and the Daily Mail rag).

Telegraph has said that there was a plot to make Britain less British, but that the ministers at the secret, closed doors Labour party meeting were reluctant to broach the subject because they were sure it wouldn't go so well with their constituency, which is the working class people.

Labour (labor in America) means working class, the proletariat, the rubes, the losers who wake up every morning, pay their dues and taxes on time and obey the laws.

You know - the losers, the idiots - like us.

Now the Labour party had decided to import massive immigration into the country, wholesale, effectively replacing their"constituency", the people who vote for them, and firing them from their jobs, to keep the economy pumping and their rich donors happy.

Not quite hate from the elites towards their lessers, us, the proles, the proletariat, the ACTUAL labour class which keeps society alive, but lets keep stuff from the children, from the lesser beings, lets keep it hush hush, because they wouldn't understand our grand plan and "fantastic" strategy.

Daily Mail's bolded text shows the disdain and hate towards patriots (so old fashioned, I know) and people who disagreed (ever so mildly) with massive waves of immigrants from the Congo, Pakistan, India, Congo, the Maghreb, Bangladesh, Eastern Europe (including everybody's favorite tribe - not, not jews, the gypsies).

It was a chance for the paladins of "correct thinking" to "rub the Right's nose in diversity", which is also quoted by the Telegraph.

Anybody who disagreed with this insanity was set upon like a pack of wolves sets upon a deer. This resulted in the "guilty", such as Home Office Minister Barbara Roche, having to do penance and to be extra "double plus good" in the implementation of the UK's national death plan.

The Guardian, of course, spins it.

There was no plot - there was a need, an urgent need, for workers to get into Britain, because, apparently, that was a need.

Similar arguments are made even today in my beloved Yoo Ess of Ey, even with its 15% to 25% unemployment and those forced to work part time (no benefits and minimum wage for you - how's that rubbing their noses in multiculturalism!)
.

Because, you see, there are such jobs that Americans simply won't do - for example, in my beloved IT, Americans do not want to be programmers, consultants, designers - that is why we need hordes of H1B visa indians, more and more, because there is a shortage of people who want to work for 1/3 of what they should be paid, you see, so that instead of paying an American (racist and bigot!) IT person US$40,000 to $150,000, the powers that be can pay $US30,000 or less.

Because those $100,000 jobs are those that Americans simply just don't want to do, natch.

Same with mexicans in Construction jobs, Eastern European plumbers and babysitters.

Americans apparently don't want to work - they prefer to starve and be unable to pay for their medicines...

And now for hitchens.

Hitchens blog post one:

This article on the census was also published in the Mail on Sunday of 16th December.
The future will be another country. They will do things differently there. The Census is not just a description of the state of things on a day in 2011, it is a prophetic document telling us where we are going, whether we like it or not. I don’t.

For the last 60 years or so, we have lived in a nation that was more or less familiar to anyone who had grown up in the pre-war Britain of 1939. Even the devastation of conflict had not transformed it out of recognition.

People behaved, thought, worked, laughed and enjoyed themselves much as they had done for decades. They lived in the same sorts of families in the same kind of houses. Their children went to the same kinds of schools.

And they had grown up in a land which was still identifiably the same as their grandparents had known. And so it went back for centuries. As recently as 1949, the prices of most goods were roughly the same, and expressed in the same money, as the prices of 1649.

A short-distance time-traveller between 1912 and 2012 might be perplexed and astonished, but he would not be lost.

That period is now coming to an end. I suspect that anyone in Britain, travelling between 2012 and 2112 would be unable to believe that he was in the same place.

What is the most significant single fact in the Census? I do not think there is one. Several are shocking or disturbing, if you are not fond of change, and delightful if you are. But there are some, which taken together, prophesy a transformation to come.

Look at these – manufacturing is now only the fourth biggest employer, after supplying and selling goods and services, health and social work and education. So, in the nation that was once the ‘Workshop of the World’, we now have more teachers than industrial workers.

London is rapidly becoming a separate nation, as different from England as Scotland or Wales are, with indigenous British people now in a minority, in some areas a very small minority indeed, and incidentally with extremes of wealth and poverty not known since Edwardian times.

Then of course there are the decline in Christianity, down by four million, from 72% to 59% ; the growth in indifference to religion, with non-believers almost doubling to 14.1 million; and also of Islam, rising so fast that one British resident in 20 is now a Muslim. The Muslim population is young, and keen on large families, while the Christian population tends to be older and less likely to have children. This is very much a work in progress, far from complete. A lot of nominal Christians are no longer bothering to pretend to a faith they have never cared much about.

Do not be surprised if, in 10 years, the gap between the number of professing Christians and the number of Muslims has grown much smaller.

The secularists, who have so enthusiastically sought to drive Christianity out of British life, may realise with a gulp of apprehension that they have only created a vacancy for Islam – a faith which is not at all troubled by Richard Dawkins.

Perhaps most significant of all is the accelerating disappearance of marriage as the normal state of life for grown-up people. For the first time, fewer than half of adults are married. This means many things – a greater number of fatherless households, a greater number of cohabiting couples, the rapid disappearance of what was once a strong social force.

Since the stable married family is a fortress of private life and individuality, its retreat will mean the opposite of that - more state interference and surveillance, more conformism – and more conformists - and mass culture.

Its main effect will be on the children. Many of them will grow up outside what used to be normal, a lifelong two-parent home. They will, as a result, be different sorts of people. Already, half of Britain’s 15-year-olds do not live with their ‘birth parents’. 300,000 sets of parents split each year.

I cannot believe this is not part of the reason for the so-called ‘riots’ of 2011, in which young men brought up without male authority ran wild. These were equal-opportunity events, and their causes were home-grown, not imported. This will get much, much worse.

Again, conservatives will find this worrying and ill-omened. Liberal ‘progressives’, who have never had much time for the married family, seeing it as a sort of prison, will view it as a liberation. Edmund Leach, giving his influential Reith lectures in 1967, put it this way ‘Far from being the basis of the good society, the family with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all our discontents’.

I know - a long read.

hitchens is lamenting the Britain he remembers - White people, living their boring lives in their own country, which they have lived in since the Roman times (if not before - the elite, of course, was Norman, and now jewish led - more on that in a jiffy).

But now compare the giant political fuss over same-sex marriage with the numbers of people affected. See just what a tiny proportion of the country is involved. While the decline of conventional marriage involves many millions, there are 105,000 people in civil partnerships, one fifth of one per cent of the population, one person in 500. And that is seven years after they first became available

Good point, hitch.

So that one can assume that there is something else at play here. Issues which affect the tiniest minorites (in this case, sexual deviancy - nothing wrong with that, feel free to do whatever you want in the comfort of your own dwelling) are blown out of proportion, while the needs of the majority who work and keep the system going are ignored and lambasted.

It sounds like a plot, actually, although, there was no plot, of course, nothing was hidden, only the citizens of the UK were not informed of the then secret conclusions to the still secret meeting of top Labour bosses, "for their own good", because importing hordes of 3rd world migrants to take over their jobs (dey took our jerbs - so funny, when written by a left leaning reddit barrista making $6 an hour while paying for his $100,000 student debt).

But a plot - a conspiracy - naaaaaw!

And while at it, rubbing the noses of "the Right" was a very good side effect indeed.

Forcing all those bigots and racists to live amidst the tribal population of Pakistan and the Congo - of course, we, the liberal elite, live in gated communities, with armed guards, and our children go to private all White schools, but that is beside the point...

The point is, we, your betters, can look down on you, the racists, the bigots, the people who vote Labour - because we are the elite.

hitch proves this point in his blog post number dos:

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible.

It wasn't because we liked immigrants, but because we didn't like Britain. We saw immigrants - from anywhere - as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people - usually in the poorest parts of Britain - who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly 'vibrant communities'.

If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

Revolutionary students didn't come from such 'vibrant' areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London).

We might live in 'vibrant' places for a few (usually squalid) years, amid unmown lawns and overflowing dustbins.

But we did so as irresponsible, childless transients - not as homeowners, or as parents of school-age children, or as old people hoping for a bit of serenity at the ends of their lives.

When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as 'racists'.

To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as 'racist'.

hitchens, of course, was and is a jew.

Every student of history should read and learn about the jews, as they are the force which many, many times in the past have acted as agents of revolutionary changes to societies.

Wikipedia article, of course, does not actually state that hitchens is a jew - his biographical article just happens to be placed in the category of "British people of Jewish descent" at the end of the page, but nary a peep in the article itself.

Jews, in case you are not a student of history, NEVER assimilate into any society, from ancient times to the present - in Pharaoh's Egypt, in Babylonia, in Judea, in Napoleon's France, in present day Empire of the Yoo Ess of Ey.

Napoleon, being a forthright and direct fellow (PC was unknown at the time), had a meeting with 111 rabbis and asked them some pointed questions - because, you see, Napoleon was FRENCH, while the jews WEREN'T. And so he wanted to make their position vis a vis his state known to him.

The questions he asked the rebbes were:

Is it lawful for Jews to have more than one wife?
Is divorce allowed by the Jewish religion? Is divorce valid, although pronounced not by courts of justice but by virtue of laws in contradiction to the French code?
May a Jewess marry a Christian, or [May] a Jew [marry] a Christian woman? or does Jewish law order that the Jews should only intermarry among themselves?
In the eyes of Jews are Frenchmen not of the Jewish religion considered as brethren or as strangers?
What conduct does Jewish law prescribe toward Frenchmen not of the Jewish religion?
Do the Jews born in France, and treated by the law as French citizens, acknowledge France as their country? Are they bound to defend it? Are they bound to obey the laws and follow the directions of the civil code?
Who elects the rabbis?
What kind of police jurisdiction do the rabbis exercise over the Jews? What judicial power do they exercise over them?
Are the police jurisdiction of the rabbis and the forms of the election regulated by Jewish law, or are they only sanctioned by custom?
Are there professions from which the Jews are excluded by their law?
Does Jewish law forbid the Jews to take usury from their brethren?
Does it forbid, or does it allow, usury in dealings with strangers?

As a ruler, he was asking the jews whether they considered themselves his subjects and s subjects to the state they were in, and as a minority which has never assimilated, ever, in history (Post reconquista and General Franco era Spanish jews stayed jews - although in secret - no assimilation there!).

Now, of course, one cannot ask such questions: How do jews view other Americans? Are jews bound to the destiny of this country? Who elects the rabbis?

The last one you will find the answer in my Bible Stories posts, of which the upcoming "Jesus' and other rebellions" will soon (hah! soonish!) be posted.

I will urge you now to use this wonderful tool, the internet, and research the answers to these questions that Napoleon asked on your own.

Or listen to what hitchens, the jew, says:

And I have spent a great deal of time in the parts of Britain where the revolutionary unintelligentsia don't go.

Such people seldom, if ever, visit their own country.

Their orbits are in fashionable London zones, and holiday destinations.

They are better acquainted with the Apennines of Italy than with the Pennines of their own country.

But, unlike me, most of the Sixties generation still hold the views I used to hold and - with the recent, honourable exception of David Goodhart, the Left-wing journalist turned Think Tank boss who recognises he was wrong - they will not change.

The worst part of this is the deep, deep hypocrisy of it.

Even back in my Trotskyist days I had begun to notice that many of the migrants from Asia were in fact not our allies.

They were deeply, unshakably religious.

They were socially conservative.

Their attitudes towards girls and women were, in many cases, close to medieval.

Many of them were horribly hostile to Jews, in a way which we would have condemned fiercely if anyone else had expressed it, but which we somehow managed to forgive and forget in their case.

We have recently seen this in the distressing and embarrassing episode of Lord Ahmed's outburst against a phantom Jewish conspiracy.

The answers to Napoleon's questions are right there, given by hitchens.

No, the jews may be citizens of the UK, of America, of Iran, but they are NOT Americans, British nor Iranians.

They are a caste apart - your betters, in fact.

hitch only laments the fact of the complete and utter destruction of Britain now, after he has done his yeoman's work in said destruction, and of course he points out that the moslems are not exactly friendly to jews nor modernity.

But you see, that did not matter then and it does not matter NOW - the effect of destruction "stale", "right wing", "racist" society is THE goal. moslems, blacks, mexicans, are just unwitting tools of the trade.

The lower caste - the Whites who used to be working middle class, fighting for scraps with the third world hordes are too busy to notice those at the top, sneering at them, hating them, laughing at them, in their gated communities and their private, exclusive schools, shops, pedophile sex clubs.

And why are jews always (ALWAYS, without fail) at the forefront of any revolutionary (meaning society changing) activity?

Good question.

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones on Amazon is one clue.

Another is my discussions with my (Polish) family, who saw jewish kids welcoming the Red Army with a clenched fist communist salute when the Soviets invaded Poland and then the (all grown up) kids getting ALL the posts in the Urzad Bezpieczenstwa (UB - communist Poland's NKVD) and unleashing the terror.

Wikipedia on the UB: a staggering 37% of the directors of the organ of the repression were jewish.

And that's the directors - if a goy was a frontperson, you can be sure that the "chosen" people were right behind.

Consider - again from the Wiki link- the squad of the UB bosses in 1944-1945.

Minister of Public Security – Gen. Stanisław Radkiewicz (1944/54)

Deputy – Gen. Mieczysław Mietkowski (b. Moshe Bobrowicki, 1944/54)

Deputy – Col. Konrad Świetlik (1948/54)

Deputy – Wacław Lewikowski (1949/52)

Deputy – Gen. Roman Romkowski (b. Natan Grünspau, 1946/49)

Deputy – Gen. Mieczysław Moczar (b. Diemko Moczar, 1948)

Department I – Counter-intelligence – headed by col. Stefan Antosiewicz (1944-48/54)

Department II – Operative Technology and records – headed by col. Leon (Leiba) Rubinstein (1947-49/51)

Department III – Fighting bandits – headed by col. Józef Czaplicki (b. Izydor Kurc, 1950/53)

Department IV – Protection of economy – headed by col. Józef Kratko

Department V – Religious political and social organizations – headed by col. Julia Brystiger (1954)

Department VI – Prisons – headed by col. Stanisław Pizło (1946-47/51)

Department VII – Intelligence – headed by col. Witold (Lewin) Sieniewicz (1950/54)

Department of Investigations – headed by col. Józef Różański (b. Josek Goldberg, 1945/47)

Department for Training – headed by mjr. Zdzisław Szymczak (1945-48/53)

Department of Staff – headed by col. Mikołaj Orechwa (1944/54)

Department for Government Protection – headed by col. Faustym Grzybowski

Department of Transport – headed by col. Czesław Radzicki

Department of Communications – headed by col. Feliks Suczek

Special Bureau – headed by col. Anatol Fejgin (1950/53)

Bureau for control – deputies: Joachim Getzel (1949), Jefim Artymowicz (1952/54)

Bureau of foreign passports – headed by lt. col. Władyslaw (Spychaj) Sobczyński

Bureau of Budget and Finances – headed by lt./lt. col. Szymon Ela Tenenbaum

Bureau A (Observation of suspicious element)

Bureau B (Central archives) – headed by col. Zygmunt Okręt (b. Izrael Nachemiasz)

The bolded names are jews.

There are stories of the jewish communist gestapo - the UB - which are hair raising.

They run concentration camps, and of course once caught they escaped to israel (peruse the story of Salomon Morel).

Please note that while I have bolded the obvious jewish names, there were many who had polish names (that is another tactic - once in a country, typical jewish names are changed, so that a Goldenstein becomes a Mr. Gold, to blend in and to appear assimilated).

Helena Wolińska-Brus:

Lt. Col. Helena Wolińska-Brus (1919 – 26 November 2008), born Fajga Mindla Danielak, was a military prosecutor in Poland with the rank of lieutenant-colonel (podpułkownik), involved in Stalinist regime show trials of the 1950s. She has been implicated in the arrest and execution of many Polish anti-Nazi resistance fighters including key figures in Poland's Home Army. From 1999 to 2008, Poland sought the extradition of Wolińska from the United Kingdom to stand trial in Poland. The official charges against her were initiated by the Commission for Investigating Crimes against the Polish Nation.

Wolińska was accused of being an "accessory to a court murder," classified as a Stalinist crime and a crime of genocide, which is punishable by up to ten years in prison. Among other alleged crimes, she organised the unlawful arrest, investigation and trial of, Poland's wartime general Emil August Fieldorf, a legendary commander of the underground Polish Home Army during World War II. Emil August Fieldorf was executed on 24 February 1953 and his family were never shown the body.

Communist authorities concluded in a 1956 report already that Wolińska had violated the rule of law by her involvement in biased investigations and staged questionable trials that frequently resulted in executions.

The purpose of the show in 1945-1950's Poland trials was to catch the pro Western (actually pro Freedom) partisans and politicians and to show the nation in newsreels the "enemies of the people" hanging their heads in shame and apologizing for their "crimes".

This jewish woman went beyond that apparently - as even the then communist authorities were aghast at what she was doing.

jews enthusiastically supported early communism - they, again in history - have acted as agents of revolutionary change. The goal was all, and, just like for hitchens and his trockyist, marxist friends, the methods were chosen to destroy society.

But always on top, always the bosses, always the elite, looking disdainfully at the labour, goyim, prole masses below them in society.

Then - it was as part of the NKVD, or UB, torturing and shooting people.

Now - it is as those who argue for "equality" (meaning you work and pay for people who do not have to work), for political correctness that enforces newspaper editors to substitute the words "blacks riot" to "youths wildings" or even "disaffected youth".

In a stable society, without jews, there is order, discipline, norms, forms and laws to be obeyed, explicit but especially implicit laws to follow - not because we HAVE to, but because we WANT to - because some things are right and correct, and some (being on welfare your whole life not because of disability but because of your privileged status as a minority, racial quotes in work places, universities, etc etc) are NOT.

Now, enter the infiltrating jews, the agents of change, the revolutionaries - whether followers of Levites, Cohens or jesus, be they subjects of Hammurabi, Napoleon, Stalin or Obama (just kidding on the last one).

They want a society where they make enough chaos, enough insecurity that the old edifices crumble, there is no order only disorder, new alliances are made with the groups on the bottom and then at the top, until finally, they become the top or close enough to it (Sarkozy, Helena Wolińska-Brus, Genrikh Yagoda).

Any monkey can do that

A friend, many years ago, told me a story about a company wide meeting, with all the bosses on the podium, with their quarterly profits and market strategizing speeches being given to both the live audience (of which my friend was a part of) and the worldwide contingents, listening in on their office phones.

My friend wasn't paying too much attention, sitting in the IT and engineering section ghetto (quite apart from the cool kids popular crowd of human resources young ladies and middle management section - you know, the people who do not work), but something happened.

The CEO was flabbergasted that an IT person (probably a White one!) has asked him about a raise for the IT folks. The CEO (according to my friend) became flustered, red faced, and sneeringly answered (paraphrasing):

"The real work is in high level organization and leadership - this is what makes or brakes a company! Now, computer work, all this coding - anybody could do that, any monkey could do that!".

And then went on with the rest of the meeting.

The "monkey" visibly upset my friend, because at the time he was (and he still is) Black Man (note - not a nigger).

Much better at the top, but also fine near it

It is much better at the top than at the bottom, and, once that position is reached, perks, services, and attitudes of people around you change.

Of course it is better to be rich than a poor, 8-8 working drone.

Jews, as the new kids on the block, as infiltrators, since they do not assimilate they work TOGETHER to change society so that they can be on the top, or at least as close to it as possible.

This has always happened in history, and there are many instances of this situation.

Viewing themselves as apart from the people they lived amongst, as separate yet better (the whole "chosen" angle explained in my Bible Stories posts), they positioned themselves as the overseers for the very top, the elites.

Being small in number, but very supportive of their own, it would look a bit askew if people in a given society realized that so many jews are in positions that are giving orders and directions to people who are not jews - the people whose country it is.

This is awkward, and there are specific historical lessons for jews to follow.

Comparison: Berlin and Arenda

The Arenda system

jewishvirtuallibrary.org:

ARENDA, Polish term designating the lease of fixed assets or of prerogatives, such as land, mills, inns, breweries, distilleries, or of special rights, such as the collection of customs duties and taxes. The term was adopted with the same meaning in Hebrew and Yiddish from the 16^th century (with the lessee, in particular the small-scale lessee, being called the arenda). The arenda system was widespread in the economy of *Poland-Lithuania from the late Middle Ages.

The first leases to be held by Jews were of royal revenues and functions: the mint, salt mines, customs, and tax farming. Large-scale operations of this type were conducted by the Jews *Lewko (14^th century) and Volchko (15^th century). The number of Jewish lessees of central and regional customs duties and of salt mines increased in the 15^th century, especially in the eastern districts. Often the same persons leased both the customs and the mines. In western Poland the nobility, possessing more capital, prevented Jews from leasing royal revenues, this being a highly lucrative activity. As the power of the nobility increased during the 16^th and 17^th centuries, they tried to obtain a monopoly on leasing the royal prerogatives. In 1538 the Polish Sejm (Diet) prohibited the lease of royal revenues to Jews. From fear of retaliation by the nobility, the Jewish autonomous body, the *Council of Four Lands, in 1580 forbade Jews to lease the great arenda. However, none of these enactments succeeded in eliminating Jewish enterprise completely from this sphere. Even where the nobility monopolized the lease of the royal prerogatives, there remained a broad field for Jewish enterprise and capital in the lease of revenues and functions from towns and private townships. These revenues were taxes on products and services, especially flour milling, potash and pitch, fish ponds, and alcoholic beverages (both production and sale); but sometimes the lease of whole estates was involved. All these types of lease were linked with the agricultural arenda (see below). Until the middle of the 16^th century, Jews were among the chief lessees of the customs in the stations in Lithuania and White Russia. Some moved there from Poland for this purpose. In 1569 the Lithuanian Sejm accorded the nobility the monopoly on leases in Lithuania, which also included Belorussia and the Ukraine. The economic consequences of this prohibition would have been disastrous for Lithuanian Jewry, which felt strong enough to defy it openly. The Va'ad Medinat Lita (Lithuanian Council) therefore twice passed a resolution supporting the lease of customs and taxes by Jews, stating: "We have openly seen the great danger deriving from the operation of customs in Gentile hands; for the customs to be in Jewish hands is a pivot on which everything (in commerce) turns, since thereby Jews may exert control" (S. Dubnow, Pinkas… Lita (1925), 29, no. 123). In Lithuania, Jews openly held concessions for the great arenda, with the exception of the mint, until late in the 17^th century.

In the 16^th and 17^th centuries the Jews in Red Russia also occupied a not insignificant place in the lease of customs, salt mines, taxes from drinks, etc. The lessees of these large economic undertakings often contracted them out to sublessees, mainly to Jews, as well. That Jews actually operated customs stations is attested by customs registers of 1580, written in mixed Hebrew and Yiddish, even where and when the prohibition on Jewish customs leasing formally remained in force. Jewish expertise and financial ability in this field were in demand. Jews are later found as silent partners of the nominal Christian lessees, often Armenians.

jews as overseers, with the people - in this case Poles and Lithuanians and Ukrainians - as serfs, as slaves, on their own land, in their own country.

So, all this gobleddygood aside, how did it work?

kehilalinks:

By leasing lands and concessions the magnate could reduce short term financial risk while obtaining a fixed income. More information on the enterprises included in arendas is provided in Section 4. The magnate was protected where potential income from the lease was underestimated and sold for too low a price by providing only short term leases. Leases often did not exceed three years and in some cases were only one year long.

When the lease expired the magnate could then obtain a higher price on the next contract or seek another arendar for the lease. It was said that some Jewish arendars paid bribes to representatives of the magnate to avoid paying a higher price for the next lease. Arendars stuck with leases that produced less than the expected income, would try to obtain discounts on the next lease. Depending on the particular magnate, a discount might be taken or the arendar was forced to continue under the same terms.

One of the functions of the Kehila/Kahal was to prevent Jews from competing with each other for arendas and thus raising the price of an arenda. A Jew failing to adhere to Kahal laws could be excommunicated from the Jewish community. These short term leases and other controls put considerable pressure on the Jewish arendar to produce sufficient income to please the magnate as well as provide the Jew with a suitable profit.

And key point:

It is believed that there were no more than 10 to 20 families in each generation who were of this aristocratic magnate class. Due to generally weak central Polish government, magnates held considerable power in determining the course the country would take in civil, military, and financial matters.

The magnate held absolute authority over his latifundium. The magnate was the legislature, the judiciary, commander of his military, the governing body, and executioner when needed. The magnate was a tough one to do business with, yet Jewish arendars flourished.

The magnate owed certain obligations to his arendars; such as, providing soldiers to keep out those who would violate the arendar’s monopolies and enforcing workloads on serfs.

Because it was just good business economics, the magnate did whatever he could to protect his Jews during times of wars from without or revolts from within.

The Jews made a profit for the magnate, as well as themselves.

Life was good near the top.

Berlin

Dirty Little Secrets Of WWII:

Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying "Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war". (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129).

Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says "Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish handswhen bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike campsPresident Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for." (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)

Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany 'understandable'. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, "the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jewsamong the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jewsthe leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred." (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).

Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin 'said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself' (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).

Is all of this merely attributable to terrible 'anti-semitism'?

The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.

At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H NicholsonPeacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that 'Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.' (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).

As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.

According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):

'It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.

The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the 'Aryans' who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed and lavishly displayed by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle."

Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed?

Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, 'Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.' But she adds 'Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..' etc etc.

Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing. 'Ullstein's was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper.. Apart from these, Ullstein's published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein - they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.' (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).

Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes 'In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state.. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.'

Mowrer says 'No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed.. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood..' (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds 'Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews.. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.' (pp. 144-5).

Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: 'I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word "Jew", in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.' (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed's bookDisgrace Abounding of the following year he notes 'In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.. The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it.. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish' (pp238-9).

The Jewish writer Edwin Black notes 'For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.' (Black,The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.

To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, 'The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer.' (p 369). This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline Judea Declares War on Germany. The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel (Hannah ArendtEichmann in Jerusalem p 7).

Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia's population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):

'It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.

'To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews.. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.' Other authors agree with this:

"There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation." (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the 'Jewish Question' Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).

"The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in 'nice society', and 'nice society' included the universities." (Martin Bernal, Black Athenavol. 1 pp. 367, 387).

"The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler's) anti-Semitic beliefs." (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).

Same modus operandi - chaos and destabilization is good for the very effective, very tightly knit, supporting each other, SMART and motivated minority to profit. And since the world view is always us versus them, god's chosen people versus the goyim, the cattle, there are very few morals, hangups or pondering on the good versus evil - rather, "Is it good for the jews" is the question.

Have you read the article carefully?

All sourced, eye witness accounts living there.

What has struck me most was this:

They [the jews - Americangoy] did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.

And more of Sir Arthur:

The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.

Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the 'Aryans' who exercised racial discrimination.

It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed and lavishly displayed by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe.

The jews overreached themselves in Berlin and Germany pre hitler, in the 1920's and 1930's.

They became noticeable as a minority which acted together, for the betterment of themselves at the expense of people whose land it was (in this case, the Germans).

How successful were they?

Princeton University Press, Sarah Gordon's "Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question"

'Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.' But she adds 'Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.

They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses..

Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".

At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..'

Very.

Infuriatingly so to the ordinary Germans, who were forced to burn their worthless paper money to keep warm and resort to bartering and cowtowing in a jewish owned bank to people who sneered at them.

Hence why hitler and his anti-jewish policies were widely popular.

And before anyone here makes a claim "Well, old chap, it was free market, jews were better at it than the lazy, pathetic germans", please keep in mind that this is Germans we are talking about, with their ordnung and hard work ethic and no bullshit speaking from employees to the bosses.

Where society organized itself for its betterment, factory unions work with managers and owners toward common goal.

Germans, who are the Europe's producers, exporters, even in the era of cheap Chinese products biblical flooding of the world.

Talk to any European, but lazy and "not good at business" is not something you will hear from them - whether they like them or not.

And these people were infiltrated and made slaves in their own country - a remarkable achievement.

I was going to write the final section, comparing America to 1920's Germany and the then pinnacle of judaic power of a country, but you have eyes, you have the internet, you are not stupid...

The only difference is, the biggest lesson learned by jews - after destabilizing a society and getting close to or to the top, steps must be taken to KEEP a society unstable, in flux, with norms, laws, mores, ethics are changing, all in flux, all in chaos - otherwise, like the Germans, people would start to notice certain patterns, and start to see the forest and not just the individual trees...

And so, multiculturalism - many races, many peoples, scrambling for scraps at the bottom, while all discussion about this state of affairs is forbidden in the official media and in your workplace, union shop...

When did America die?

When NAFTA passed?

When New Deal passed and Rossevelt conspired to get America into the war?

Perhaps it is now, the last gasp, as the unions who supposedly represent their members gave their full support to mexican amnesty...

Or perhaps it was a plot from the very beginning - after all, it was Freemasons who wrote "all men are created equal", and who organized the proles, the rubes to fight for THEIR lower taxes from English Crown...

500 niggers riot on Chicago's Magnificent Mile; more riots elsewhere in Chicago- hooray for warm weather

2013-03-31T15:13:00.001-07:00

Or, They hate us, they really hate us, continuing and ever ongoing until the death of the oppressors (people like me).

This is a bit too much, even for the PC world we live in.

500 niggers rioted on March 30, at about 6PM onward, on Chicago's Michigan Avenue - which is the premiere street in Chicago downtown. This is the street where the most posh, expensive stores and restaurants are located, where all the tourists come and is the representative street of my town.

CBS local:

The warmest day of the year so far brings hundreds of mischievous teens to Michigan Avenue. Police are calling it “mob action.”
CBS 2 is learning about multiple incidents in at least four different locations along the

Magnificent Mile and in the Gold Coast, yielding a slew of arrests.
Many innocent shoppers and tourists became caught in the middle of a very chaotic situation. Hundreds of teens littered Michigan Avenue and State Street near Chicago.

Things started turn bad around 6:00 p.m. Saturday, with teens purposely bumping into people, and causing fights among themselves.
Fifteen juveniles and two adults were arrested and charged with Reckless Conduct— a misdemeanor.

Community activist, Andrew Holmes witnessed some of the problems, while shopping with his family.

“You had a group of teens, close to maybe 500. They assaulted a Chicago police officer that was mounted on a horse and all of a sudden they assaulted a citizen walking the streets, just a normal citizen shopping and enjoying the weather,” said Holmes.

Later that night, a man was attacked around 10:45 p.m. while walking near Chicago and Dearborn. Sources tell us he was jumped and punched in the face by a group of teens. He was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

In a separate incident, a group of women say they were attacked by a mob of girls on the CTA Red Line. The women reported a robbery once they got off the train at the State and Monroe station. Eleven females were arrested—10 juveniles and one adult—and charged with battery. Two of the teens were charged with strong- armed robbery.

NBC Chicago:

The victim of a beating and attempted robbery by a group of teens Saturday is speaking out about his ordeal.

Chris Wilkowski says he had just finished up a day of shopping when he was sitting on his parked motor scooter on East Chicago Avenue, and suddenly hit in the face by a baseball and dragged onto the street.

"I was just trying to get away while fighting them back," Wilkowski says.

Wilkowski received some bruises and scrapes in the attack, but avoided serious injury.

"There was no questions being asked. I just heard 'grab his phone, get this, hit him,' so I just fought back. It was an instinct," Wilkowski said.

At least one teen has been charged in connection with his beating and more have been charged in other reported attacks.

The mob-style attacks -- referred to as "wilding" -- have been on the rise in the last few years downtown.

The niggers (excuse me, "youths") modus operandi is to take the public transportation "El" train from the south side (ghetto) into the Downtown area. Then it is mob rule and very fluid - the "kids" coalesce and dissolve their groups depending on a given situation and police presence.

This is revolutionary violence -Carlos Marighella would be proud and would shed a manly, marxist tear from being overjoyed at this slow death of civilization.

Chicago Tribune:

Nearly 30 people were arrested downtown on Saturday night for disturbances that ranged from bumping into passersby on sidewalks to attacking passengers aboard a CTA train, authorities said, citing preliminary information.

Seventeen of the people in custody -- all but two younger than 18 -- were charged with misdemeanor reckless conduct, said Chicago Police Department News Affairs Officer Hector Alfaro. The two adults are Bobby K. Rhodes, 19, of the 1100 block of North Cambridge Avenue, and Marquell Hicks, 18, of the 3200 block of West Diversey Avenue, police said.

Those arrests happened on the Magnificent Mile near North Michigan Avenue and East Huron Street between 7 p.m. and about 7:40 p.m., authorities said. The suspects were alleged to have bumped into other people on the sidewalks, blocked sidewalks and traffic on the street and started fights among themselves.

The incident started when a woman on the "L" asked one of the teens to put out a cigarette, authorities said, citing preliminary information. The group of teenagers then allegedly attacked that woman and another woman on the train before running onto the "L" platform with the purse belonging to one of the victims.

Officers arrested the teens as they attempted to leave the station, authorities said.
The 11 teens, all but one of whom are younger than 18, told police they had agreed on Twitter to meet downtown. It appeared that several of those arrested had not met in person before Saturday, authorities said.

Happy Easter!

So, white christian people - what will you do?

Will you turn the other cheek, as the fat pedophile priest living off your money teaches you, and follow your slave religion's tenets?

They hate us. They really, really hate us.

2013-03-28T20:55:00.001-07:00

Huffington Post has run a story about a certain email:

Alabama State Rep. Joe Mitchell (D-Mobile) raised eyebrows on Wednesday after a local blog picked up an email he had sent to a constituent (snip)

Here be the email, from a (black) state senator to his (White) constituent:

Hey man. You have used the word ‘except’ when I think you mean somethin’ else.
Hey man. Your folk never used all this sheit [sic] to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed [sic], imported criminal-minded kin folk. You can keep sending me stuff like you have however because it helps me explain to my constituents why they should protect that 2nd amendment thing AFTER we finish stocking up on spare parts, munitions and the like.
Bring it. As one of my friends in the Alabama Senate suggested – “BRING IT!!!!”
JOSEPHm, a prepper (’70-’13)
Mobile County

The one thing I learned and experienced in America, and keep on experiencing, is the hatred of black folk towards White people.

I have many personal experiences, too many to list - I went to a majority black high school, and it was basically a prison combined with a mental ward - EXCEPT for a slew of "honors" courses, where the retards were not admitted.

Being an immigrant, with absolutely no English language beyond the absolute basics at the beginning of my high school experience, I still managed to take some honor courses my junior and senior year.

Otherwise, my high school was a complete waste of four years of my good, precious youth.

The contrast between the "honors" courses (advanced chem, honors biology) versus, say, study hall or normal English was staggering. Actual learning and listening to a teacher and participating in discussion and experiments versus spitballs, spit, gum, snide remarks, giggling and the terrified teacher, man or woman, trying VERY hard to not notice anything.

Sometimes I forget the lessons taught me by my high school experience, to my detriment.

Example - there is an oldish looking black dude pan handling near my apartment. Feeling stupid, I gave him one time and one time only $20. What the hell, I was stupid, right?

I was repaid for my gesture about a week and a few days later, as the same black man, in a different location, grabbed my hand and said "Why you walk so proud, white boy, you mafia or sumthin?".

Now, he was not alone - there was a group of "yoofs" near him, about five.

To which I replied - "If I am the mafia, you should start to be really afraid right now. Now let go of the hand or I break yours".

He laughed, I laughed back, he let go of my hand.

Now, before you (the internet warriors) criticize me for not doing a Bruce Lee/Rambo impression, please note that I am a coward, and also that any altercation with a "disadvantaged, poor minority down on his luck" could play not to my satisfaction in one of Chicago's courtrooms (Who do you think is stupid enough and has time enough to get saddled with jury duty? Whites? Asians?).

This has just reminded me - they really, really, really hate us.

It does not matter whether it is a bum off the street, or a state senator, or your BFF (black friendly friend) at work you are chummy with.

Makes no difference at all.

PS

Good luck hearing this story of this black senator and his email on national news...

Bonus Material

State Representative Joseph Mitchell and citizen Maxwell emails exchange (full)

Worth a read.

Camp of the Saints

2013-03-16T17:08:00.001-07:00

In case the hint was not made abundantly clear, you should read Camp of the Saints (PDF version here).

In case you doubt the apocalyptic vision, because, as an American, you have met only the Hamadura's and not the shit eaters (the untouchables, the Kshudra or Shudra), here is a primer - a photo journalistic essay.

Enjoy!

Tourist photos from india

And now, of course, go back to your TV and listen to the chatter of the odious Clement Dio types...

Fact - humanity is on the move, and we have migrations of peoples - in N. America, in Western Europe, in numbers not seen since the end of the Roman Empire.

Fact - in America, the spanish language newspaper for latinos in Chicago is called la raza - the race...

(In case it is not getting through your thick, whitey skull, lets go to wikipedia:

In the Spanish language the term Raza translates to "race". Its meaning varies amongst various Spanish-speaking peoples. For instance, in Spain, "Raza" may denote specifically Spanish and often something or someone of a European Christian heritage. The Francoist film Raza, from 1944, which celebrates ideally Spanish qualities, is an example of this usage. In Latin America, it may primarily emphasize Spanish and European heritage, and/or the family, such as the name Dia de la Raza to mark the arrival of Christopher Columbus to America. In this way, "La Raza" symbolically means "the people". It is equivalent in meaning and intent to the German word Volk which may be used in reference to a population as a nationality or a race. Raza pura (pure race) is a term that refers either neutrally to a person being a "full-blooded" member of an ethnic group or, as in La Raza Pura (the Pure Race), it is intended as a statement of Latino supremacism over what they refer to as Anglos or people of Asian or African descent.

All clear now?

Fact - the American indians helped out the poor, starving Pilgrims to survive their first winter. Moreover, they showed them how to live off the land, which fruits and nuts were good to eat.

Basically, the American indians were the perfect christians.

All clear now?

Fact - jews hate this book:

SPLC center:

Racist Book, Camp of the Saints, Gains in Popularity

The book is a racist fantasy about an invasion of France and the white Western world by a fleet of starving, dark-skinned refugees, "a haunting and prophetic vision," TSCP says, "of Western Civilization overrun by a burgeoning Third World population."
The book characterizes non-whites as horrific and uncivilized "monsters" who will stop at nothing to greedily and violently seize what rightfully belongs to the white man.

Incredibly, although the book was widely reviled in Europe, its translation in English was greeted with excited reviews like the one in The Wall Street Journal that said the book had moments "of appalling power and occasionally a terrible beauty."

Fact - Raspail was right on the money in his prediction of how the West would deal with such an invasion (excuse me, needy, starving, poor refugees, of course):

Start with the Gates of Vienna: Stop the Trains article, and then read up the whole series on the crisis.

Oh, and of course, do read the Camp of the Saints: A Strategy for Surrender article! It's grand, is all I will say, and your blood pressure will not rise at all.

Of course, there is also hope, as the resistance, tepid, but still, is profiled on the Camp of the Saints: The Schengen Agreement.

Might as well hit the The “Camp of the Saints” Crisis also.

This was a trial run, if you will.

A taste of things to come.

Fact - I am off to party and drink my ass off with some Mexican, Korean and Guatemalan irish people (it is Saint Patrick party time).

Toodles!

Best of lists and random rambling

2013-03-15T18:11:00.003-07:00

Best Military Nerdism Book:

Battleground The Greatest Tank Duels in History, editor Steven Zaloga

Best TV Series:

Rome, both seasons

The Young Indiana Jones (perfect for nerdy boys)

Babylon 5

Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex Complete Series

Best Movies:

The Outlaw Josey Wales

Conan the Barbarian (the long version)

Best History (General) Books:

Europe by Norman Davies

Best Colonial Books:

Small Wars by Colonel C. E. Callwell

Street Without Joy by Bernard Fall

Koevoet by Jim Hooper

Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Walt and Mearshimer

Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran

Best Fiction Books:

The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester

The Eden trilogy by Harry Harrison (the best alternative history)

The Hammer and the Cross trilogy by Harry Harrison (the best alternative history, tied)

The Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsyth

James White series: Sector General (if you like your sci fi without the easy to write constant, mindless violence, written by a Christian, a counter point to Raspail if you will).

Tactics of Mistake by Gordon R. Dickson

Best WW2 Books:

Nomonhan: Japanese-Soviet Tactical Combat, 1939 (the battle that decided WW2 for the non-historians among you).

Fighting in Hell: The German Ordeal on the Eastern Front edited by Peter G. Tsouras

Blood Tears and Folly by Len Deighton

Icrebreaker by Viktor Suvorov (nee Rezun)

Beyond the Beachhead by Joseph Balkoski

Best Books on Communism:

Liberators by Viktor Suvorov (nee Rezun - I lied, there are more translations)

Special Tasks by Pavel Sudoplatov

STASI by John Koehler

Red Horizons by on Mihai Pacepa

Kolyma by Robert Conquest

Mitrokhin Archive by Major Vasili Mitrokhin (both books)

Best Alternative History Books:

The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes by Richard Firestone, Allen West, Simon Warwick-Smith

Ancient Egypt 39,000 BCE: The History, Technology, and Philosophy of Civilization X by Edward Malkowski

Advanced Civilizations of Prehistoric America by Frank Joseph

Catastrophe by David Keys

Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock

Underworld by Graham Hancock

Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail

Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt by Christopher Dunn

Best climatology Books:

Plows , Plagues and Petroleum by William Ruddiam

Bonus

Deep Thought of the Day:

The Native Americans gave a very hearty welcome to the alien race Pilgrims, fed them and rescued them from almost certain death - more, they taught them about which plants are good to eat, which are not, how to live off the land.

They were exterminated.

In the near future, the scenario (maybe not the exact scenario) depicted at the end of Camp of the Saints WILL happen. Your children, or perhaps (ah, ever the optimist, me) your children's children are fucked.

Interestingly, when I googled "James White", James William White IV (a mediocre basketball player) was chosen for me by google, followed by more James William White IV on ALL the hits on the first search page.

Food for thought.

Bible Stories: Adam and Eve and the... snake?

2013-02-22T15:53:00.000-08:00

A jewish Friend of mine once told me a very profound thing.

The bible, written in old hebrew, is very hard to translate and, actually, CANNOT be translated.

Because it is written as an allegory, with nuances that only people steeped in that culture will get, and that basically the so called "christian bible" is a mess of mistranslated, out of context shit.

In truth, jews laugh at the idiotic christians who mangled the whole "holy" book.

The more I study the bible, the more I agree with him.

Lets take the biblical story that everybody knows, the most familiar one - the one about the first man and woman (human) on this planet.

I will analyze this (supposedly) simple story in two parts, first in English, and then in old hebrew.

The English Adam and Eve

Good old Wiki:

In the Book of Genesis, God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden, where he is to have dominion over the plants and animals. Eve is later created to be his companion. God places a tree in the garden which he prohibits Adam and Eve from eating. However, a serpent tricks Eve into eating from it, and they are subsequently expelled from the garden for disobeying God, who visits upon them and their progeny numerous hardships as punishment.

A very simple story.

If you want to read the original, the teacher's version, or the kids (!) version, why not peruse DLTK's Bible Activities for Kids (here be the Genesis from King James version).

In English, a very simple, even simplistic story, with nothing behind it.

But lets think on it for a moment.

The good god (yahweh) made everything he could imagine for our heroes in the prison, I mean paradise, and allowed them to partake (eat, try) everything EXCEPT one thing:

"2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

The tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The tree of knowledge.

Think on this for one moment, let it sink in - the god (he? it? alien? yahweh?) er, thing, forbade our human intrepid innocents to "eat of" the tree of knowledge, because, "thou shalt surely die."

Here we have the almighty forbidding humans knowledge.

You two can prance around, play hokey and hopskotch, but real knowledge is not for you.

To make you two docile slaves, ignorant of the world and reality...

Enter dramatis personae: the snake (badum tschh dramatic music insert here).

The eeeeeeevil snake tempts our wonderful, pure, innocent Eve into eating this fruit and lo and behold, humans... gain knowledge.

Gain intelligence.

Humans start thinking about the world and their situation.

Start to make clothes for themselves.

Start to QUESTION.

In short, it is only by eating this fruit from the tree of knowledge, that Adam and Eve became human.

Before, they were not fully human - they were unintelligent creatures, VERY pliable to their slavemaster, I mean the good god guy, and obeying every order post haste.

Pliable slaves.

The Church doctrine in Christianity is to treat this event as a calamity, as the "original sin", for which Jesus had to go on a cross and die.

I would posit that this event should be CELEBRATED, as the moment that our two intrepid ancestors break the chains and try to get out from their terrible, terrible bondage.

Interestingly, please compare what god and what the serpent have said to our first humans:

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

versus

3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Who told the truth?

The super goody God or the eeeeeeevil serpent?

Who is the good guy in this story, boys and girls?

The god guy, who lies and tries to prevent humans from gaining knowledge and bettering themselves?

Or is it the serpent, who (he? it? she?) who guides humans into becoming, well... human, and knowledgeable, and curious (an EXTREMELY important trait, perhaps the most important human trait of all - without curiosity, even with intelligence and language, we would be a far worse product than we are now).

Another, totally unconnected and off the wall fact is that the symbol of medicine is a snake... climbing a pole... or perhaps a tree...

Of course, the current version of this symbol is that it has nothing to do with the ole Adam and Eve and the snake story, and is instead (Wiki:Serpent (symbolism); Modern medicine) based off the myth of the serpent and the staff of Asclepius, or is it Hermes, and absolutely, positively nothing to do with the bible and the snake which set humanity on its way.

Let me ask again.

Who is the good guy in this story, boys and girls?

The Old Hebrew Adam and Eve

And now for the super fun part.

One of the first and most important differences one immediately notices between this version and dumbed down christian version is that the dramatis personae are... different.

Specifically, the snake... is not a snake.

The word used is nachash (naw-kash), which translates to: magician, enchanter, spellbinder; to illuminate, shine.

Oh, and also, it is a word for "serpent".

Don't believe me?

Do your own research; here is a good gateway to the concept of nachash in the bible - anthrocivitas - somebody has really done their homework (and this time it wasn't me, saving me oodles of time).

Some quotes (from the various sources linked to that page):

The Hebrew word Nachash is translated to "shine" (like brass) or whisper (as in enchantment). The Nachash was not a literal snake. The Nachash was, to use literal Hebrew, a 'shining enchanter.' He was also 'shrewd' (smooth or slick), as a descriptive term in the Hebrew for 'naked and cunning' in deceiving Eve. Scripture goes on to say that the Nachash was - "above (higher in intelligence) than any living thing 'of the field' that Yahweh Elohim had made."

nachash
naw-khash'
a primitive root; properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate:--X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.

nachash
nakh'-ash
from 'nachash'; an incantation or augury:--enchantment.

nchash
nekh-awsh'
(Aramaic) corresponding to 'nchuwshah'; copper:--brass.

nachash
naw-khawsh'
from 'nachash'; a snake (from its hiss):--serpent.

Nachash
naw-khawsh'
the same as 'nachash'; Nachash, the name of two persons apparently non-Israelite:--Nahash.

So, as you can see, not necessarily a snake.

Not an animal.

A pretty smart nachash, brass like, shiny, illuminator...

Wait a moment.

We are all familiar with the one who is called the one who brings the light, the illuminated one, yes, boys and girls, lets go there (to the wiki, of course):

Lucifer (pron.: /ˈluːsɪfər/ or /ˈljuːsɪfər/) is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12. This word, transliterated hêlēl or heylel, occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible and according to the KJV-influenced Strong's Concordance means "shining one, morning star, Lucifer". The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate, which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer, meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus" (or, as an adjective, "light-bringing"). The Septuagint renders הֵילֵל in Greek as ἑωσφόρος (heōsphoros),a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star. Kaufmann Kohler says that the Greek Septuagint translation is "Phosphoros".

Venus is one bright motherfucking star, boys and girls, and has saved the lives of countless ancient mariners, seamen, merchants...

Go grab your bible (or look online, I don't care) and see how god chastises, and, really gets all mad at this "snake" non-animal:

Ezekiel 28:17:
Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

This was not a snake, but a charming, extremely beautiful, seductive, trickster, sly, smart, beguiling creature (it? he? she? snake?).

Again, not a snake.

The light bringer is the one who helps out humans, who represents the Good.

Usually in Hollywood movies, when a hero in a horror movie or a fantasy movie is in trouble, in darkness, he is rescued by a source of light, thereby saving him and his quest - recall the Lord of the Rings little hobbit fighting the giant snake, using the light bringer as his helper...

Hopefully you understand by now that the snake from the dumbed down bible version for idiots (for christians, if you will) is not really a snake, but rather a creature, a very seductive, beguiling creature.

And what happens to a woman when exposed to such charm, sophistication, world-wise, seduction?

From the King James version:

3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Sounds innocent enough - Eve ate the fruit, with the serpent animal doing nothing but just, I guess, observing, and then she and her man ate some more fruit.

"Pleasant to the eyes" is in hebrew one word - chamad.

chamad: to desire, take pleasure in

Original Word: חָמַד
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chamad
Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-mad')
Short Definition: covet

NASB Translation
attracted (1), covet (6), coveted (1), delight (1), desirable (2), desire (1), desired (2), desires (2), pleasing (1), precious (2), precious things (1), took great delight (1).

Now, things get mighty confusing here, and the good ole hebrews didn't do a very good job of (copying) this myth (and all others, actually) from other religions.

That's right - as I proved in my previous Bible Stories entry, the whole bible is a copypasta plagiarism, each and every story attributed to the jews is really a copy of a more ancient story from another culture.

Adam and Eve are taken from... well, lets take a look at the usually very reliable Wiki.

It lists the first man and/or woman myth from all ancient religions...

Wait a moment...

Something is missing in that Wiki entry about the myth of the first man and woman.

The one (goddamn fucking) religion that the jews actually copied from.

Ancient Roots:

“Adamu” is the name in Sumerian mythology for the first man, created by “Enki”, the creator god and inventor of civilization. Adam is Hebrew for “man”, and adamah is a Hebrew word signifying dust and earth, and in Aramaic signifying blood. Havva — Hebrew for “Eve” — in Hebrew signifies life.

Yep - someone edited the wikipedia entry for first man and woman myths and took out Sumer - because, you see, Adamu was the first man in the Sumerian mythology, and it would look bad for a certain religion if people noticed that Adamu is somewhat close to Adam and then started to notice other similarities between judaism and the Sumerian myths, and then, even worse if they stumbled on my Bible Studies and started reading the PLAGIARISM section.

They fucked the narrative a bit, or perhaps it is the translators who fucked up; needless to say, supposedly Eve, the woman, was very chamad with the... tree... and not the super seductive, charming, wordly, beautiful, beguiling sna... Bringer of Light.

And then they realized they were naked.

Fancy that.

Lets go into some good ole hebrew now and try to clarify.

We know now the word for snake (haha, I mean Lucifer) is nachash; the word for the tree is ets.

It checks out - ets does mean tree, no mistranslation there.

What about hebrew for "fruit"?

Periy.

Biblesuite:

peri: fruit

Original Word: פֶּ֫רִי
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: peri
Phonetic Spelling: (per-ee')
Short Definition: fruit

Word Origin
from parah
Definition
fruit
NASB Translation
earnings* (1), foliage (1), fruit (84), fruitful (2), fruits (2), fruits* (1), offspring (11), price (1), produce (12), product (1), results (2), reward (1).

Nuances, people.

Words with multiple meaning.

Hidden subtext only for the learned (or, in today's world, with google and internet and modern technology and that most human of all traits, curiosity) or the human enough to be curious about "their" (rather, alien invader) religion.

And what do you do with the fruit?

"Eat of it", of course: akal:

akal: to eat, devour

Original Word: אֲכַל
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: akal
Phonetic Spelling: (ak-al')
Short Definition: devour

Word Origin
(Aramaic) corresponding to akal
Definition
to eat, devour
NASB Translation
brought (1), devour (2), devoured (2), eating (1), maliciously accused* (1).

Doesn't sound like much (eat the fruit), but the original English translation of the bible was not "eat" the fruit - it was "partook" the fruit (do your own research, or just trust me on this one, your choice).

You "eat" a fruit, you "partake" of an activity (like, say....eating).

Not that that is very important; just throwing it out there...

But...

What is the "forbidden fruit" phrase in most modern cultures referring to?

An apple?

You know the answer.

But just in case you are a hardcore christian,and are willfully ignorant Wiki: Forbidden fruit:

Forbidden fruit is a phrase that originates from Genesis concerning Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:16–17. In the narrative, the fruit came from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and was eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. As a metaphor, the phrase typically refers to any indulgence or pleasure that is considered illegal or immoral.

Indulgence.

Pleasure.

Sex.

Now, it is starting to all make sense, if we let go of the mistranslated mess that is the version-for-idiots bible and instead try to translate - and, even more importantly - try to get at the nuances and really understand the not-so-hidden allusions and hidden meaning.

Adam and Eve did not make clothes for themselves and become self-conscious (and fully human) after a silly eating of fruit - they did it after having sex.

Some of my readers are probably going D'uh!, some are apopleptic, some just want me to get on with this damn story.

Fair enough.

Wipe the spittle from your lips, wipe the smirk off, stop fucking drinking that shitty American "vodka" made from corn and read on.

As you may recall, our intrepid heroine, Eve, did not eat - excuse me, partook the "eating of the fruit" with Adam.

She first "did it" with the sna... Lucifer.

Now, when she, er, "ate the fruit" with Adam, was the, er, snake still there... or perhaps we are into the typical porno threesome at this point, with Lucifer participating and teaching Adam what to do?

You know - bringing some light into this dreary world...

And as we learn every day now from that most aggressive of Abrahamic religions (islam), religion is chiefly about the denying of pleasure on this plane of existance, and, of course, obeying wicked old men promptly and without questioning... without thinking... and curiosity is frowned upon...

Or you go to hell, you sinner!

Christianity has healed itself a lot from the torah fanatical zealotry - islam still has a ways to go before it does so (and I wish the best to the people suffering under this system today, in XXI Century).

The Sumerian Adam and Eve (and snake... and fruit... and stuff)

We have dealt with the pathetic copy of a (bad) copy, the christian bible.

We have dealt with the terrible hatchet job, the hebrew bible.

Perhaps it is only fair that we learn about the original source

(Or is it? There must have been other civilizations before Sumer, which archeologists say sprang up from nothing on its own, just like ancient Egypt supposedly did - pshaw! I say).

Ancient Roots:

“Adamu” is the name in Sumerian mythology for the first man, created by “Enki”, the creator god and inventor of civilization. Adam is Hebrew for “man”, and adamah is a Hebrew word signifying dust and earth, and in Aramaic signifying blood. Havva — Hebrew for “Eve” — in Hebrew signifies life.

In the Sumerian myth, magical food is the source of immortality, not the source of its downfall, and Adamu is tricked to not eat it (the gods tell him it is poisonous), and thereby remains mortal. The Hebrew biblical account also describes such a life-giving magical food — the food of the “tree of life”, distinct from the forbidden “tree of knowledge of good and evil” — and it is chiefly to deprive them of the immortality bestowed by the fruit of the tree of life, that God exiles Adam and Eve from the garden. The tale of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-16) parallels tales in Sumerian mythology of rivalries between farmer and herder gods.

The gods (extra terrestrials?) were evil in the Sumerian myth, and tricked man into NOT eating the fruit to better himself.

After analyzing the English copypasta and the hebrew copypasta, I (and perhaps you, also) have come to the conclusion that in those versions god was not the super nice guy that the friendly child molesters and people who suck babies' penises for a living make him out (it?) to be.

Wiki: Epic of Gilgamesh:

Tablet nine

Tablet nine opens with Gilgamesh roaming the wild clothed in animal skins, grieving for Enkidu. Fearful of his own death, he decides to seek Utnapishtim ("the Faraway"), and learn the secret of eternal life. Among the few survivors of the Great Flood, Utnapishtim and his wife are the only humans to have been granted immortality by the gods. Gilgamesh crosses a mountain pass at night and encounters a pride of lions. Before sleeping he prays for protection to the moon god Sin. Then, waking from an encouraging dream, he kills the lions and uses their skins for clothing. After a long and perilous journey, Gilgamesh arrives at the twin peaks of Mount Mashu at the end of the earth. He comes across a tunnel, which no man has ever entered, guarded by two terrible scorpion-men. After questioning him and recognizing his semi-divine nature, they allow him to enter it, and he passes under the mountains along the Road of the Sun. In complete darkness he follows the road for 12 "double hours", managing to complete the trip before the Sun catches up with him. He arrives at the Garden of the gods, a paradise full of jewel-laden trees.

Great Flood, again (an event which I believe really occurred, and which affected EVERY race, civilization on this planet, almost destroyed humanity totally, and still scars the memory of our modern homo sapiens).

Trees, lots of trees.

Secret of eternal life... not a fruit this time, but a plant:

Tablet eleven

(snip)

As they are leaving, Utnapishtim's wife asks her husband to offer a parting gift. Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh that at the bottom of the sea there lives a boxthorn-like plant that will make him young again. Gilgamesh, by binding stones to his feet so he can walk on the bottom, manages to obtain the plant. He intends to test it on an old man when he returns to Uruk. Unfortunately, when Gilgamesh stops to bathe, it is stolen by a serpent, who sheds its skin as it departs.

The snake, that trickster.

The fruit of eternal life (and what is eternal life, but knowledge, fucking knowledge, passed to new generations through clay tablets, books, and now computer drives, movies, recordings...).

Anyways, it was Abraham who was the father of the jews, and the founder of the religion that conquered the world, so where did he get his ideas?

Genesis 11:26-31 and 17:5-8 teach that Abraham himself, vaunted father of nations, is a native of the Sumerian city Ur (southeast Iraq, near the ancient mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates) under Chaldean suzerainty, growing up there some time in the second millenium BCE, and departing for Canaan (Israel and environs). Abraham's father Terah adhered to the Sumerian mythology, and was a maker and seller of idols, but Abraham rejected polytheism and his father's idols, and managed a remarkable escape from the Chaldean king's sentence of death for his heresy.

There you go - the chief plagiarist himself, at the right place and time to learn the Sumerian stories.

The Point of All This

The point of this (supposed to be) short and simple analysis of the most famous bible story (everybody has heard the myth of Adam and Eve) is to not to accept things at face value.

When someone (a guy who makes his living off dipping kids in water, perhaps later molesting them, or a guy who sucks a baby's penis with his mouth) makes a claim, and teaches it, and there are several versions of this (the big fucking clue for my retarded christian brethren is in the title of their "holy" book: The King James VERSION) is to get all the sources, analyze, compare.

Do it with everything in your daily life - if a coworker tells you that the boss told him to tell you to do one thing this way, check with other co-workers and your boss; when CNN reports on an event, check with France24, Russia Today, Reddit, and any other source you can to get at the truth.

Don't blindly accept the simplest, easiest to understand version - question it.

Be curious.

Be human - like Eve, and Adam.

And eat your damn fruit - it's good for you.

Chicago Tribune publishes new revelations about the Liberty Incident

2013-02-18T23:02:00.000-08:00

New revelations in attack on American spy ship; Chicago Tribune December 2, 2013

Includes this following tidbit, which is amazing that it was allowed to be printed at all.

There are also apparent omissions in the inquiry's report. It does not include, for example, the testimony of a young lieutenant, Lloyd Painter, who was serving as officer of the deck when the attack began. Painter said he testified that an Israeli torpedo boat "methodically machine-gunned one of our life rafts" that had been put over the side by crewmen preparing to abandon ship.

Painter, who spent 32 years as a Secret Service agent after leaving the Navy, charged that his testimony about the life rafts was purposely omitted.

I am shocked.

Not that anybody will pay attention or notice this article - hell, I still haven't seen Chelyabinsk meteor footage on American "news" (haha) TV.

I did see the meteor footage on France24, but it was shown in a very small, 1/4 screen size window, with the France24 logo apparently being more important than the meteor hitting the Earth and injuring, oh, about one thousand (1,000) people.

Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

Meteor in Chelyabinsk?

2013-02-14T23:17:00.001-08:00

Quick edit: First video was deleted by the user, so I added a new first video from RT, which is a collection of different videos from different people of the event. Incredible footage.

For some reason, I have not seen it on American "news" TV shows.

More videos and a very limited explanation:

Explosions in Chelyabinsk; Meteor Suspected

More videos linked, from a reddit post:

reddit post

Amazing footage from multiple sources.

Also, this is the building impacted showing a big hole and another building with broken windows from the shock of the impact:

Last video; note how it gets very bright and then very dark.

I have no idea why it would get so dark - light, yes, a comet streaking across the sky and impacting, but why the darkness?

Was it just an effect on the lens from the extreme brightness?

Saturday Night Live pokes fun at Hagel's confirmation hearing

2013-02-11T21:02:00.000-08:00

Of course, the sketch never aired.

It was unfunny.

Because, you see, the audience was too afraid to laugh.

Political Theater

2013-02-04T15:23:00.000-08:00

A very neat article on what the priorities of our politicians are, Just Who Do They Represent: At Hagel Hearing, Concern for Israel Tops U.S. Troops in Combat.

It has some very neat graphs to drive the point home.

When Senator Mike Lee took his turn to cross-examine defense-secretary nominee Chuck Hagel during last Thursday’s confirmation hearing, he expressed considerable concern for Israel’s security.

“Let’s say those Palestinians who have engaged in acts of terrorism, perhaps in retaliation against Israel for Israel defending itself,” the Republican from Utah asked, ”do they have a legitimate gripe?”
Hagel responded that “terrorism can never be justified under any circumstances.”

Lee continued, bringing up the possibility that Israel might withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. “Do you view that as a tenable solution?” he asked Hagel. “Do you believe such borders are militarily defensible?”
This went on and on. In fact, Lee—by himself—made reference to Israel and its security a total of 16 times.

Why is this important? It’s important because Lee never mentioned Afghanistan and the 66,000 U.S. troops at war there.
And Lee was not alone.

Freshman Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas also grilled Hagel about Israel. He mentioned the Jewish state 10 times—without ever once referring to Afghanistan or the U.S. troops in combat there.

When it was their turn to question Hagel, GOP senators Roy Blunt of Missouri and Roger Wicker of Mississippi each referred to Israel in a half dozen instances. Neither mentioned Afghanistan.

In nearly eight hours of interrogation and testimony, Israel and its interests were referred to by the Senate Armed Services Committee a total of 106 times. On the other hand, there were a mere 24 references made to Afghanistan and the Americans fighting there—most by Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the committee.
Nuclear-armed Pakistan—where the U.S. frequently targets militants with drone-launched Hellfire missiles—barely merited mention at all.

The thing to notice is that this is very much a bipartisan thing - concern for Israel runs in both the Republican and Democratic parties, and is a priority, far ahead of any concern for American troops or American citizens.

Food for thought, n'est-ce pas?

Another thing, since this just happens to be a political theater blog post, here's some good political theater:

There seems to be a... certain disconnect... between our, public, er, um, hmm, servants... and us, the tax paying, working our butts off citizens.

Drill: black helicopters firing machine guns in downtown Miami

2013-01-27T11:44:00.001-08:00

No, am not kidding.

The spin on the idiot tube is that this is an entirely normal drill, with black helicopters flying extremely low in a dense urban area, firing blanks... Because in USA we do not have military training grounds, you see, which is where all the other countries train their military people.

So we must fire, err, blank rounds, in an American city, from black helicopters, at night, flying extremely low over the ground.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Edit:
Apparently, this IS an exercise and is the new normal in our "democracy".

Don’t mind the helicopters, it’s just practice, Miami-Dade police say

Quick update and reshuffling

2013-01-18T23:34:00.001-08:00

Added Fun and Games and The Texas Revolution and Mexican-American War to the Unknown History section, from when I started my career (?) as a blogger.

I foresee this blog being much more about in depth analysis of history and geostrategic and geopolitical trends and past trends, and much less about current events.

Although, if something pisses me off something fierce, I will blog about it.

Now go read Fun and Games.

It has some good research in it, and is about training exercises which have run at the same time as the 9/11 incident, the 7/7 incident (London bombings) and the 11-M incident (Madrid bombings) and the Aurora Shooting by a psychotropic drug befuddled mad man.

All of them had simultaneous, some more than one, training exercises and drills which simulated exactly what was happening at the same time in reality.

Bible Studies

2013-01-03T02:13:00.001-08:00

The Difference between Judaism and other religions

Simply put, Christianity and Islam deal with the afterlife as the primary area of interest. The goal of a Christian is (ostensibly) to live a Christian life so he/she will be taken to Heaven as a reward.

Same with Islam - live an Islamic driven life so that he/she will end up in Heaven.

Even Buddhists have a concept of a reward in the afterlife - excuse me, in the reincarnation. As a reward for a life led according to Buddhist teachings, a person in the next life will spawn as a better lifeform... And, if a person was evil, he/she will probably spawn as a dung beetle.

So, to sum up, most modern religions deal with the concept of the afterlife - and that to reach a Heaven, or to be reincarnated in a better incarnation, one must live a good, godly life.

It is, in fact, a slave mentality being fed to the masses - with the infamous Christian "turn the other cheek" the height of stupidity and hypocrisy.

The reward in all mainstream religions happen after death, even in Buddhism (next incarnation).

In fact, pre-Abrahamic religions also evolved into the concept of rewards AFTER death, with even Ancient Greek religion at first viewing death as a terrible thing, with the dead languishing in Hades, helpless and suffering, to the concept of Elysium, basically Heaven, where those who were good on this Earth went (see here and here).

Jews do not go with this common religious theme of Heaven, Hell, a punishment and reward from a deity AFTER death.

Jews do not go for the whole after life thing, either.

This is THE crucial thing to consider.

Jews called themselves "The Chosen People", chosen by god in fact.

Since they are already chosen, there is no worrying about Heaven, reincarnation, or living this life in a good or godly way - because they already have the reward from god - on this Earth, while they are alive, with no waiting and worrying about what's to come after death.

There is no talk about a "Jewish Heaven" - they are chosen because they are better than us, better than everybody else, on this earth - in this universe, in fact. Death and Heaven and after life rewards do not exist - what matters is the here and now.

And they have this reward, this pact with god who made them better than everybody else, on this Earth - in this universe - no need to wait for any reward after dying.

Since they are chosen, Jews can do whatever they want, with no moral qualms, with no limits, no ethics whatsoever - after all, they are ALREADY chosen by god.

The Kol Nidre "Prayer"

Learn about the very interesting Jewish prayer called the "Kol Nidre" (Wiki on Kol_Nidre).

Simply put, it is a "prayer" (I use this term loosely) that states that any oath given to any person or any authority may be broken.

Catholic Christians have a service called "Confession", where a person who did a wrong is given a punishment by a priest for his/her wrongdoing. A sinner is shunned and punished and made to confess to authority (in this case, a priest).

And lying is definitely a sin.

No such thing in Judaism - in fact, Kol Nidre is the opposite.

"All [personal] vows we are likely to make, all [personal] oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our [personal] vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."

Simply put... This is license to lie.

To swindle.

To cheat and steal.

With this Kol Nidre "prayer", how can a civilized society allow a Jewish person to be a witness in a justice court?

Who would be stupid enough, if they knew about this "prayer", to enter a business arrangement with a Jewish person?

Kol Nidre shows us, the rest of the world, that the "Chosen People" have, because of their religion and worldview of Judaism/Zionism no morality, no ethics, no holds over their behaviour.

The article in the wikipedia dances around the issue, with rabbis obfuscating and making the issue extremely complex, stating what oaths may be broken and which not - where, in fact, the text of the "prayer" is very simple to comprehend to anybody who is over 12 years old.

Any vow or oath ("Hey, I will repay this loan - honest!") that will be taken in the future is null and void.

Of course, a Jew can choose to honor the oath or a promise - but there is no mechanism in religion to punish a Jew for cheating, swindling or lying - Kol Nidre makes sure of that.

So, the "Chosen People" concept logically leads to the Kol Nidre concept - since Jews are better than us (everybody else), they may cheat, lie and swindle us as they will.

After reading Wikipedia, read the rense.com article on this subject.

By the by... The "personal" thing thrown in is NOT in the original text, and is simply a cop out by wikipedia and others to twist the words into making it a personal vow (think New Year's resolutions - "I will exercise and lose weight!", that kind of thing).

It is bullshit, added as damage limitation.

Usury

Who says computer games do not teach one anything?

There is a game called Europa Universalis, where the player takes control over a medieval country and tries to make that country great - by trade, by conquest, by diplomacy and finally by war.

Gamefaqs board on Europa Universalis:

Hello, I'm playing IN 3.1 Naples.
I have conquered some minor areas on the Italian Boot, north of me Milan makes an imposing target, to my east the Ottoman Empire has chewed up most of Greece, to the west Sicily is nearly all mine. But I'm having a problem now with money.
I've kept my inflation down as much as possible (1.0) but all three of my advisors are supposed to sutract inflation and they dont seem to be.
also I've had to take out loans in the past and because of that I can't seem to get rid of my current ones. I'm always just a little short of being able to pay them off. So I've begun the practice of taking out loans to pay off loans. That way I atleast replace old loans with high interest with new cheaper loans.

See?

If your kids played less Call of Duty hyper violent, hyper patriotic shoot to kill games, if they played Europan Universalis, perhaps they would learn about usury, how a country gets in trouble with debt and how it results in a death spiral of inflation and usury.

The player posting in the gamefaq board is at a wits end because he MUST prosecute war (the world is made that way - either be a predator or be a victim), but to do that he MUST get loans, which results in inflation and the need to get MORE loans to stave off a financial catastrophe.

Aren't computer games great?

Me, while playing the same game, got to thinking - since the kings and emperors of each country represented by the players were the most powerful people in the world, who was it, exactly, that was loaning them money - at interest?

Who CHOSE to lend such and such a monarch money for war, for building, and who was it who chose AT WHAT INTEREST to loan such credit?

And perhaps the monarchs, the kings, the shahs, the emperors of the Medieval milieu were NOT the most powerful people in the world... The ones who chose whom to loan money, and at what interest (and perhaps whether to loan at all) were the powerful ones.

All this from an obscure PC computer game.

Aren't computer games great?

So, who were these powerful moneylenders, who were making or braking kings, shahs and emperors?

Sarahwoodbury.com: medieval-moneylenders:

Edward Longshankes (Edward I) got himself in debt to various moneylenders in order to fund his wars. During his reign, he fought with his father in the Baron’s War against Simon de Montfort, against Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, the Prince of Wales, against the French, and against the Scots. All of these wars cost money.

In the Middle Ages, a number of money lending options were open to him. He borrowed from the Jews in England until he took all their money and expelled them from England. Christians were forbidden to lend money, so he turned to the Italian banking families.

“In Medieval Europe, moneylenders were needed as everywhere else. However, the situation was complicated by the fact that Christian laws forbade “usury” or the practice of charging interest on loans. In consequence, the function of moneylending was assumed by members of the Jewish communities who were exempt from usury laws and who were not prohibited by their own traditions to lend money to non-Jews. Thus European Jews practically held a monopoly on moneylending.”

But then came the Italians:
“By the middle of the 12th century the Jews, who were leading money changers and moneylenders, had begun to make business loans. Because the business appeared to be lucrative, powerful rivals soon ended the Jewish hegemony. By the middle of the 13th century the Italians from Lombardy had taken over the leadership. They sometimes had the privilege of minting coins. They could solicit deposits, which the Jews were often prohibited from doing. They also managed to get around the church’s edict against interest. They did not make loans and charge interest but bought and sold bills of exchange payable in foreign currency. They were, therefore, merchants in banking who hoped by the difference in exchange to make a profit equal to the interest rate they would have charged for a loan.” http://www.investmentsandincome.com/banks-banking/banking_origin.html

There you have it. First Jews, who had a monopoly on lending at interest (usury), because the (slave) religions of Christianity and Islam forbid this practice, with the wily Italians entering the field later as competitors to the Jewish monopoly.

This historical information leads me to believe that by the Middle Ages in Europe, Jews were already an established power, a financial superpower in fact, with which the (supposedly all powerful, masters of their fiefs and domains) kings, emperors, shahs and princes had to deal.

Of course, as the "Chosen People", there were special rules that the Jews observed when lending money. There was a difference when dealing with fellow Jews and when dealing with Gentiles (non-Jews, "goyim", the cattle).

Myjewishlearning.com: Moneylending:

Biblical law forbids taking or giving interest to “your brother” (a fellow Jew), whether money or food or “any thing.” The Talmud interpreted this very strictly, so much so that even greeting someone from whom you have borrowed, if such greeting had not previously been the custom, is forbidden. [For Biblical law regarding moneylending, see, for example, Exodus 22:24, Deuteronomy 23:20-21, Leviticus 25:35-37.]

The Bible further permitted lending money on interest to a “stranger”, but prohibited it to a fellow Jew (“your brother”). The Talmud observes that even the borrower transgresses the commandment if he borrows on interest…

Originally, the medieval rabbinical attitude toward lending money on interest to Gentiles was very conservative, restricting it to scholars (not only as a means of income but because it was felt that they would be cautious about such loans and limit the interest charged) or to cases where it was absolutely necessary for livelihood.

Ultimately, however, the potential of great profits and the widespread demand for moneylending made it universal among Jews. Mordecai B. Hillel of Germany (b. 1298) wrote that there is no profit in any form of commerce like that to be made in lending money. Ibn Adret in Spain observed that it has become permitted for everyone to charge interest on loans to Gentiles, “and now all have made themselves ‘sages’ in this respect, adding that he heard in the name of Rashi, that this is because taxes have constantly been increased and there is no longer any limit to “because of livelihood” (i.e. in order to meet their tax burden, Jews had no alternative.)

As noted elsewhere, fanciful theories have been advanced as fact with regard to Jews either having been “forced,” or voluntarily choosing to abandon landholding, and with no alternative choosing moneylending as a livelihood. Not one scrap of evidence has ever been produced to support such theories, and in fact there is no evidence. Undoubtedly the above statement by authoritative rabbis are correct: the ever increasing tax burdens, on the one hand, and the relatively large profits to be made with virtually no risk, on the other, encouraged Jews to engage in moneylending on ever larger scales.

However piously Church officials protested against “usury;” they were themselves quite willing to borrow money from Jews. Already in the ninth century we hear of priests selling church vessels to Jews, and later such object were frequently given as pledges for loans, in spite of the protests of the cantonists and civil law

And from Wikipedia article on Usury:

The Old Testament
From the King James Version

[Exodus 22:25] If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

[Leviticus 25:36] Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

[Leviticus 25:37] Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

[Deuteronomy 23:19] Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

[Deuteronomy 23:20] Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Torah

Main article: Loans and interest in Judaism
The following quotations are from the Hebrew Bible, 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation:

If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest. (Exodus, 22:25)^[31]

And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee. Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase. (Leviticus, 25:35-37)

Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it. (Deuteronomy, 23:20-21

Usury leads to corruption - that is why almost all religions have laws against this practice.

Usury leads to the lender having power over the person who received a loan.

A person who received the loan is very willing to listen to suggestions and advice from the lender, especially if the size of the loan repayment is being discussed.

This is true of a lender who is a peasant, a merchant, a king, an emperor or a president.

All the other religions had laws prohibiting usury.

Judaism also had a law prohibiting usury - but only to fellow Jews.

Judaism, as I am trying to make a point here, is NOT a slave religion. It is not concerned with life after death, with living a goodly, godly life - it is concerned with its people HERE AND NOW.

It is a very powerful concept, and coupled with the "Chosen People" concept has given the Jews a big advantage over the competing, yet in reality slave, religions.

So Why Are There So Few Jews

One may ask why there are so few Jews in the world, if the religion/philosophy has so many advantages (mainly, the lack of any prohibition or punishment for wrongdoing done to non-Jews).

Think on this for a moment.

If in the world there were a majority of Jews, if 80% of the world population became Jewish, the "Chosen People"... Jews would not be special anymore. The sect would be ordinary, and, after all, if 80% (or even all the people) of this world became Jews, the "Chosen" part loses its lustre.

God did not choose the goyim - god chose them, the Jews, and only they are worthy enough to be Jews.

Also, on a more prosaic level, if 80% or 100% of people became Jews, who would be left to swindle, to loan usurious loans, to lie, cheat, steal and manipulate...

Graham Hancock Territory

I am a big fan of Graham Hancock and other writers who question the established religious dogma of our history. That does not mean that I agree with the "Ancient Aliens" theories, but in my research I have come to a (personal, non-scientific, but I believe true) conclusion that there was one or more antideluvian (fancy word for before recorded history, perhaps because most references to such history were lost/destroyed) civilization or civilizations which were quite advanced.

For interesting quick takes on the subject, read up on Puma Punku, where it is quite obvious that machine tools were used by (ancients? aliens?) to manufacture quite exact stone blocks.

These blocks of stone are precisely cut, some weighing "85.21 metric tons", and with holes that are definitely made by (modern style?) drills.

Puma Punku does not gel with the "hunters and gatherers" history of our ancestors which we are taught.

An engineer, a quite boring, sober fellow, named Christopher Dunn, did some measurements and observations and came to the conclusion that the Ancient Egyptians (or whoever was there at the time) had access, and used, some technologies which made precision work possible (Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt: Advanced Engineering in the Temples of the Pharaohs). Precision work in materials which we can achieve NOW, in the 2000 plus years, but which we could not make in, say, the 1940's...

The precision of work, the symmetry (which is still existing, go take a look before the moslems destroy the wonderful edifices to human greatness) of the works survived from the antideluvian era is staggering. Simply put, again, the "primitive people" with "copper hammers" and "copper balls" would be incapable of works on the scale of the Pyramids, Karnak, Luxor, Denderah...

The pyramid of Khufu - to built it, there were blocks of stone used, which weighed from 2.5 tons all the way to 80 tons. We are taught that the Ancient Egyptians used pulleys, ropes and water to transport such stones from quarries to the site of the pyramid... And carved by hand, with primitive copper tools.

This insults my intelligence.

There are ruins underwater (as described by Graham in Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization), which, when compared to computer models of floods and glacial ice melting, are where they should not be - because where they are located means that they were flooded at least 17,000 years ago... and our esteemed "specialists" cling to the 3500BC Sumer and Ur civilizations, and simply ignore the massive stone buildings flooded off India's coats and the excavations on Malta (I am leaving off Yonaguni, as this is a controversial topic of whether these structures off the coast of Japan were artificially made or made by natural forces).

There are maps, drawn by cartographers in Medieval Times, who claimed they were using already existing maps, which show in detail North America and Antarctica... the last one is shown as the landmass without the ice, i.e. before the latest ice age (Piri Reis map). The implications of this are staggering - there was a civilization which mapped the Earth BEFORE the latest ice age.

Why am I boring you with all this?

Simply put, there was a quite advanced civilization (or perhaps multiple civilizations) existing on our planet before the Sumer and Ur era.

We have proof of it - in the pyramid 80 ton stones, in Giza precision work on granite (a very hard stone - good luck with your copper hammer ties with rope), in Puma Punku factory assembly line like production of stones...

Myths and Their Cooption

Apart from this physical proof, we have what is called myths about our antideluvian world, echoes of our greatness, masked with stories about gods and children of said gods.

All cultures have their myths - from Russians and Chinese all the way to Pacific Islanders and Native American Indians. These are stories told by storytellers, historians, court scribes, children stories...

The Flood

Lets start with one of the most common myths, "The Flood".

Almost all the ancient cultures of this world, whether based in ancient Mesopotamia, or Native American Indians, have a version of the flood.

All of them.

No, I am not kidding, ALL of them.

List of flood myths

There are very few explanations to this, very few, in fact.

One is that this is a fantasy, but that it has a common source in prehistory - i.e. that there was a first time that this story was told, and then this flood myth became popular and spread to each and every corner of this Earth, from Europe, to Africa, to North America (stories dating before the arrival of the Europeans), to Polynesia (stories dating before the arrival of the Europeans).

The only other explanation was that there really WAS a devastating flood in our past, which was so destructive that ALL humanity has a fearful memory of it.

It was a time that humanity was fighting for survival against nature, against awesome forces to which humanity was helpless and was able to flee towards the higher ground (and many times, the highest ground was not high enough).

Occam's Razor - I go with the second hypothesis. The spread of one story, from one culture to ALL the people in this world, all continents, is possible but unlikely.

Longevity

There are many traditions of longevity - people living for a long time - in most cultures around the world. Wikipedia lists many of them here.

Longevity is another common myth, alongside the flood, which is present in virtually all cultures and in almost every place where humans are found.

The White Bringers of Civilization

There are many stories of men (creatures?) which came, strangers, who brought with them the gift of civilization to people who were primitive. These men (creatures?) were always White, had great powers but relied mostly on persuasion and good deeds to teach the primitives the ways of higher existence (and by that I mean more than the "hunter/gatherer" stage of civilization).

The myth of Viracocha (article here) is one of many:

Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa noted that Viracocha was described as "a man of medium height, white and dressed in a white robe like an alb secured round the waist, and that he carried a staff and a book in his hands."

Viracocha eventually disappeared across the Pacific Ocean (by walking on the water), and never returned. He wandered the earth disguised as a beggar, teaching his new creations the basics of civilization, as well as working numerous miracles.

The walking on water is important, as well as performing miracles - we will come back to this later.

Spanish chroniclers from the 16th century claimed that when the conquistadors led by Francisco Pizarro first encountered the Incas they were greeted as Gods, "Viracochas", because their lighter skin resembled their God Viracocha This story was first reported by Pedro Cieza de León (1553) and later by Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa. Similar accounts by Spanish chroniclers (e.g. Juan de Betanzos) describe Viracocha as a "White God", often with a beard.

This aspect of the story (that of Viracocha being White) is now fought tooth and nail by the powers that be, and I predict will soon disappear from books and online sources.

Incidentally, one of the reasons why Cortez and his Conquistadores destroyed the mighty Aztec Empire while being vastly outnumbered was because the native people believed Cortez to BE Viracocha, returned - after all, he had modern technology, was White, had a beard, and performed miracles (use of muskets, horses, etc).

The myth of a White person - a bringer of civilization - was widespread in the ancient Native American cultures.

One of the benefits of the teachings of Viracocha is still used today.

It is a fascinating story, so please forgive me for indulging myself; Ancient Agriculture at Tiwanaku:

In the closing centuries of the first millennium AD, the farmers of Tiwanaku in northern Bolivia supported thousands of non-food producers by intensive cultivation of local swamps. When the city was abandoned, the farmers dispersed and their innovative swamp agriculture was forgotten. Today, the local Aymara Indians eke out a living from arid hillsides, where irregular rainfall and winter frosts regularly decimate the meager potato crops from the thin soil. Many of them own lands on the Pampa Koani, the lake floodplain, where boggy conditions and severe frosts alternately rot and freeze growing tubers. 1000 years ago, the landscape was very different, for the floodplain was covered with rows of lush raised gardens intersected with canals. The fields literally burst with a bounty of potatoes, more than enough to feed 50,000 people, many of them non-farmers.

Bolivian archaeologist Oswaldo Rivera and his University of Chicago colleague Alan Kolata teamed up some years ago to investigate the thousands of ridges and depressions that covered the plain around Tiwanaku. They soon discovered that they were looking at a vast, abandoned agricultural system and persuaded a local farmer to allow them to dig out the silted canals on his land, to recreate the ancient raised fields. Despite vigorous opposition from his fellow villagers, the farmer agreed, with dramatic results. The potato plants grew higher than he had ever seen. When a severe frost descended on the Altiplano, the villagers watched over their fields all night. The crops in the hillside were ruined, but the potatoes on the raised field below were barely damaged. At dawn, a thin, white mist covered the plot, protecting the precious crop, a fog blanket caused by the heat retained by the surrounding canals. The mist soon burnt off in the warm sun, but returned every night the temperature went below zero.

Therein lay Tiwanaku's hydrological genius, for her farmers devised a simple, highly effective way of protecting their crops, while planting them in exceptionally productive, well watered and easily fertilized soil. Rivera and Kolata found that Tiwanaku's rulers invested vast resources in reclaiming flat altiplano land, especially during and after the great drought of the 6th century AD. By creating ridged fields and carefully conserving the soil, the overseers of huge field systems based on state-founded settlements were able to obtain high crop yields from hitherto unproductive land. Their agricultural systems were part of an extensive network of terraced, stone-walled houses and courtyards, many containing burials. The canals were sophisticated constructions, with a base of cobblestone topped with gravel and impermeable clay, which kept salt from the lake's brackish waters from seeping into the overlying topsoil.

These large field systems supported a population of 40,000 to 120,000 people in the 32 square mile Tiwanaku valley alone. Their productivity may have been as high as 400% more than current yields.

But this "White Bringers of Civilization" is a tangent and has nothing to do with the narrative at hand - I just included it's part of our human history, a very cool part.

And also because, of course, I am a mean spirited racist.

Monotheism

All Abrahamic religions are monotheistic - meaning, that there is one god only in the entire universe.

One god - full stop!

And since all modern (Christianity and Islam) religions spring from the source of the Jewish religion, this has been claimed as one of the reasons why our modern civilization arose and was so successful - monotheism is claimed as verrrry important reason why our modern civilization bloomed (at least that's what my religious history teacher told me when I was a kid).

There is a small problem here, however.

In the Old Testament, there is more than one god.

Skeptics annotated bible:

There is only one god.	There are several gods
Deuteronomy 4:35-39 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (v.35) The LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. (v.39) Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me. 1 Kings 18:39 The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God. Isaiah 43:10 I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 44:8 I am the LORD, and there is none else ... There is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. Isaiah 45:5-21 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. (vv.5-6) There is no God else beside me ... There is none beside me. (v.21) Isaiah 46:9 I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me. Mark 12:29-32 The Lord our God is one Lord. (v.29) There is one God; and there is none other but he. (v.32) John 17:3 That they might know thee the only true God. 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him.	Genesis 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image. Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Genesis 11:7 Let us go down, and there confound their language. Exodus 12:12 And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. Exodus 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? Exodus 18:11 Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods. Exodus 20:3, 5 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. Exodus 22:20-28 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (v.20) Thou shalt not revile the gods. (v.28) Exodus 23:13-32 Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. (v.13) Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. (v.24) Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. (v.32) Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Numbers 33:4 Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. Deuteronomy 3:24 What God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works? Deuteronomy 5:7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Deuteronomy 6:14-15 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords. Deuteronomy 28:14 Thou shalt not ... go after other gods to serve them. Joshua 24:2-14 They served other gods. (v.2) Fear the Lord ... and put away the gods which your fathers served. (v.14) Judges 11:24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? 1 Samuel 6:5 Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods. 1 Samuel 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 1 Chronicles 16:25 The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. Psalm 82:1-6 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods. (v.1) I have said, Ye are gods. (v.6) Psalm 86:8 Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord. Psalm 96:4 For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. Psalm 97:7 Worship him, all ye gods. Psalm 135:5 Our Lord is above all gods. Psalm 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods. Jeremiah 1:16 I will utter my judgments against them ... who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods. Jeremiah 10:11 The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Jeremiah 25:6 And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt. Jeremiah 46:25 I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods. Zephaniah 2:11 The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth. John 10:33-34 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

There is only one god.

There are several gods

Deuteronomy 4:35-39: Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (v.35) The LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. (v.39)
Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.
Deuteronomy 32:39: See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me.
1 Kings 18:39: The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.
Isaiah 43:10: I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 44:8: I am the LORD, and there is none else ... There is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
Isaiah 45:5-21: I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. (vv.5-6) There is no God else beside me ... There is none beside me. (v.21)
Isaiah 46:9: I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me.
Mark 12:29-32: The Lord our God is one Lord. (v.29) There is one God; and there is none other but he. (v.32)
John 17:3: That they might know thee the only true God.
1 Corinthians 8:6: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him.

Genesis 1:26: And God said, let us make man in our image.
Genesis 3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.
Genesis 11:7: Let us go down, and there confound their language.
Exodus 12:12: And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.
Exodus 15:11: Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?
Exodus 18:11: Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.
Exodus 20:3, 5: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
Exodus 22:20-28: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (v.20) Thou shalt not revile the gods. (v.28)
Exodus 23:13-32: Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. (v.13) Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. (v.24)
Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. (v.32)
Exodus 34:14: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Numbers 33:4: Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.
Deuteronomy 3:24: What God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works?
Deuteronomy 5:7: Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
Deuteronomy 6:14-15: Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you)
Deuteronomy 10:17: For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords.
Deuteronomy 28:14: Thou shalt not ... go after other gods to serve them.
Joshua 24:2-14: They served other gods. (v.2) Fear the Lord ... and put away the gods which your fathers served. (v.14)
Judges 11:24: Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?
1 Samuel 6:5: Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods.
1 Samuel 28:13: And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
1 Chronicles 16:25: The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods.
Psalm 82:1-6: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods. (v.1) I have said, Ye are gods. (v.6)
Psalm 86:8: Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord.
Psalm 96:4: For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods.
Psalm 97:7: Worship him, all ye gods.
Psalm 135:5: Our Lord is above all gods.
Psalm 136:2: O give thanks unto the God of gods.
Jeremiah 1:16: I will utter my judgments against them ... who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods.
Jeremiah 10:11: The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.
Jeremiah 25:6: And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt.
Jeremiah 46:25: I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods.
Zephaniah 2:11: The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth.
John 10:33-34: The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
1 John 5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

And then of course, there are the

Nephilim

Wiki: Nephilim In the Hebrew Bible

The term "Nephilim" occurs just twice in the Hebrew Bible, both in the Torah. The first is Genesis 6:1–4, immediately before the story of Noah's ark:

"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

The second is Numbers 13:32–33, where the Twelve Spies report that they have seen fearsome giants in Canaan:

"And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

So, apparently god, the one and only ruler of the universe, the mack daddy, the alpha and omega, the creator, had sons, you see... and these sons were horny bastards, and they had mucho sex with human women (which begs the question - nephilim were not human, hein?).

And these nephilim were physically different from men - in fact, their descendants were taller, so that Jews who tried to spy on them were immediately recognized as spies because they were much smaller than the apparently tall descendants of nephilim.

Plagiarism

So what is the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament?

It includes the Flood Myth (present in all ancient cultures of the world and in their myths and religions).

It includes mutiple gods (or nephilim... or whatever).

It also has the Creation Myth, which is also present in all other cultures of the ancient world (research this one yourself, you lazy bastards, this one is too easy).

The Tree of Knowledge? Wiki: Ancient Assyrian.

Eden, antideluvian paradise of ancient humanity, land of plenty? Wiki: Babylonian and Sumerian myths (histories?).

How about the cute story of how baby Moses was hidden from vengeful Pharaoh and thrown into the river in a basket (if you, heathen anti-christ, don't know your bible, read here)? Wiki: Akkadian history:

Sargon survives as a legendary figure into the Neo-Assyrian literature of the Early Iron Age. A Neo-Assyrian text from the 7th century BC purporting to be Sargon's autobiography asserts that the great king was the illegitimate son of a priestess. In the Neo-Assyrian account Sargon's birth and his early childhood are described thus:
My mother was a high priestess, my father I knew not. The brothers of my father loved the hills. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates. My high priestess mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me.

The point I am making is this. Basically, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, which is written in the Old Testament is myths and legends and stories and histories of OTHER people.

Humanity has had a long history, many of which records were lost.

The flood, the ancient civilization representatives (gods?) teaching humanity, the superhumans (sons of god? nephilim?) having pornos with the most beautiful human women, the myths of Creation... all of these stories existed in other cultures, were widely known, and were simply stolen by the Jews into their Bible.

This was wholesale plagiarism.

The one difference between the old myths and religions was that the Jews disposed of "gods" and made one super, uber, mack daddy "god" (singular), but they fucked it up, because as the above section titled "Monotheism" shows, when they whole sale copied other cultures religious texts and stories, they included "gods" (plural) in their stories.

What a fuck up.

Oy vey.

And the concept of monotheism - of one god?

Did Jews come up with it on their own?

Of course not.

Jewishencyclopedia.com:

Resemblances Between Zoroastrianism and Judaism.
The points of resemblance between Zoroastrianism and Judaism, and hence also between the former and Christianity, are many and striking. Ahuramazda, the supreme lord of Iran, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, endowed with creative power, which he exercises especially through the medium of his Spenta Mainyu ("Holy Spirit"), and governing the universe through the instrumentality of angels and archangels, presents the nearest parallel to Yhwh that is found in antiquity.

But Ormuzd's power is hampered by his adversary, Ahriman, whose dominion, however, like Satan's, shall be destroyed at the end of the world. Zoroastrianism and Judaism present a number of resemblances to each other in their general systems of angelology and demonology, points of similarity which have been especially emphasized by the Jewish rabbinical scholars Schorr and Kohut and the Christian theologian Stave.

There are striking parallels between the two faiths and Christianity in their eschatological teachings—the doctrines of a regenerate world, a perfect kingdom, the coming of a Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting.

Both Zoroastrianism and Judaism are revealed religions: in the one Ahuramazda imparts his revelation and pronounces his commandments to Zarathustra on "the Mountain of the Two Holy Communing Ones"; in the other Yhwh holds a similar communion with Moses on Sinai. The Magian laws of purification, moreover, more particularly those practised to remove pollution incurred through contact with dead or unclean matter, are given in the Avestan Vendïdād quite as elaborately as in the Levitical code, with which the Zoroastrian book has been compared (see Avesta).

The two religions agree in certain respects with regard to their cosmological ideas. The six days of Creation in Genesis find a parallel in the six periods of Creation described in the Zoroastrian scriptures. Mankind, according to each religion, is descended from a single couple, and Mashya (man) and Mashyana are the Iranian Adam (man) and Eve.

In the Bible a deluge destroys all people except a single righteous individual and his family; in the Avesta a winter depopulates the earth except in the Vara ("enclosure") of the blessed Yima. In each case the earth is peopled anew with the best two of every kind, and is afterward divided into three realms.

The three sons of Yima's successor Thraetaona, named Erij (Avesta, "Airya"), Selm (Avesta, "Sairima"), and Tur (Avesta, "Tura"), are the inheritors in the Persian account; Shem, Ham, and Japheth, in the Semiticstory.

Likenesses in minor matters, in certain details of ceremony and ritual, ideas of uncleanness, and the like, are to be noted, as well as parallels between Zoroaster and Moses as sacred lawgivers; and many of these resemblances are treated in the works referred to at the end of this article.

Zoroastrianism (Ancient Persia, before the moslem insanity) was monotheism before Judaism.

Fancy that.

And, of course, there are more similarities between Zoroastrianism and Judaism, as the above quote from Jewish Encyclopedia states.

Basically, the Old Testament was a hatchet job, a quick copy and paste for a relatively unimportant people whose tribe was being kicked by everybody else.

Ancient Propaganda

If it was just plagiarism, the damage done to our history would not have been that great - heck, if that was so, we should be praising the Jewish scribes for preserving ancient texts, myths and histories (Yep, I believe the Flood was a real catastrophe which impacted all of humanity).

But the Old Testament was not just plagiarism - it was perhaps the first instance of propaganda, of twisting facts to suit one's desired narrative.

The Ancient Jews were an not so powerful, backward tribe, which kept losing wars to its powerful neighbors - who were all superpowers of the ancient world.

Hebrew Bible: Plagiarized Mythology and Defaced Monotheism:

While geography was the reason behind the development of the brilliant civilizations of both the Egyptians and the Sumerians, it was on the other side, and ironically enough, the main cause for the Hebrews’ misfortune.
Delivered to the savagery of the clans and Squeezed in a land barren and hostile between the ancient superpowers without any chance of military resistance or evolving further beyond the nomadic/unsettled structure, the Jews turned to metaphysics and began to fantasize.
In an atmosphere of despair and rage, especially after the Romans ruthlessly crushed what was seen as the last Hebrew disobedience (66-70 CE) the Jewish religious megalomaniac Messianic fantasies prospered.
The powerlessness of the Jews found an outlet in the myths and invented a glorious national history- something similar to what modern day Zionism did – avenging long years of ostracism and cruelty and dragging their enemy’s names through the dirt.
In the Bible, the Hebrew scribes unleashed the dagger of malevolence and took a stab at the superpowers of the ancient world, namely Egypt, Sumer and Babylon.

Through a prism of total prejudice and deeply seated grudge the Hebrew scribes wrote, page up and page down, not what really happened in ancient times, but rather what they wished had happened.
So, in their scrolls, the Hebrew scribes depicted Babel (Babylon) as the (hot bed of vice) with its tower in ruin, where in reality it stood 90 meters high, and Egypt as the land of slavery and tyranny, devastated by Yahweh’s gruesome punishments in the aftermath of which Egypt’s Pharaoh and his army drowned, where in fact, Egypt stood, for uninterrupted 3000 years, as one of the ancient world’s superpowers.
At that time, something quite weird, that only analytical psychology could explain, started taking place in the Hebrew Bible.

Everything the Israelites desperately longed for, namely a mythology with fascinating stories like that of the Sumerians, a religion with big temples like that of the Egyptians … and yes, a piece of land they could call home like everybody else, the Hebrew scribes made damn sure it was granted to them on the pages of their bible.
And in the process of making up a virtual/counterfactual history for the Israelites, the bible scribes had to simply rewrite the ancient Near Eastern history in a way that would make room for their tribal patriarchs to fit into the story.
Replacing Ziusudra with Noah, Enki with Adam, Sargon of Akkad with Moses and Aten with Yahweh, the Hebrew scribes gave the world one of its most inconsistent and confusing books ever. In a cunning way, the Hebrew scribes, as they wrote down the scripture of their Bible, had plagiarized the ancient Near Eastern wisdom and claimed it theirs.
Copying the ancient and profound Egyptian/Mesopotamian mythology by a bunch of mysterious Hebrew scribes was, from my perspective, the beginning of deterioration of the human religious thinking.

They have molded it into a tribal thing; the universal nature of the Egyptian gods, e.g., Amun, Aten, had been twisted and refashioned to function only as the Hebrews’ own exclusive god, and hence the Hebrews as his own chosen people. And in a way this dominating concept of favoritism/nepotism has, and for the first time in the history of mankind, introduced/nurtured the idea of religious extremism.

The one and only invention of the Jews in their newly designed religion for themselves was the concept of "Chosen People". No other civilization, no other tribe, no other nation, no other race of people had the chutzpah to claim that their god (or gods) have chosen them as the most important people on Earth.

Only the Jews were so conceited, so hateful toward other peoples, that they made their yahweh make them a "Chosen People", an elite upon this Earth.

As the Hebrew scribes were tramping over the history of the ancient Near East they rewrote/invented a mythical table of nations (sons of Noah) that, at the end, and through a long cycle of selective favoritism, came down and as expected to favoring the sons of Shem (founding myth of modern day Semitism)
And hence, the world through the tribal lens of the Israelites was only conceivable as Jews vs. Gentiles, This lingering duality complex that denied the Jews, till this very day, the ability to assimilate anywhere outside the psychological orbit of the tribe.

“Jew and Gentile are two worlds, between you Gentiles and us Jews there lies an unbridgeable gulf…There are two life forces in the world: Jewish and Gentile…I do not believe that this primal difference between Gentile and Jew is reconcilable…” – You Gentiles, page 9, by Maurice Samuel

In his famous book, Moses and monotheism, Sigmund Freud concluded that monotheism was not a Jewish but an Egyptian invention, descending from the cult of the Egyptian sun god Aten. Moreover, upon applying his psychoanalysis to the myths/stories of the Hebrew bible, Freud not only argued that Moses was an Egyptian priest but he was also perplexed by how the whole story of Moses/Exodus, according to the oedipal pattern of analysis, was inverted and didn’t make sense the way it had been told. In other words the Hebrew myths/stories didn’t seem original.

What Judaism actually added to the world’s religious thinking is something totally different and, at the same time, inherently harmful. Through their tribal and somehow shallow collective mentality, the Hebrews had planted the root of religious dogmatism and fanaticism when they allowed for the absurd idea of God’s chosen people to flourish and permeate the religious thinking from then on.

Unfortunately that religious extremism passed on to Christianity, which was supposed to act as a counterbalance to Judaism’s tribal vulgarity, until it reached its worst case in Islam.

Judaism's Gift to the World

Stop!

Full stop!

What Dr. Ezzat has said is profound, and must be repeated here, and expounded upon.

"Unfortunately that religious extremism passed on to Christianity, which was supposed to act as a counterbalance to Judaism’s tribal vulgarity, until it reached its worst case in Islam."

The Jewish religion is a pathetic mish mash of copied and pasted material from all known (to them, at the time) religions and myth stories, with the twist of "one god" (which they fucked up, as I stated above) and intolerance to others (gentiles).

What is more pathetic than Judaism?

Why, Christianity and then Islam, of course.

Think about it.

The original Abrahamic religion was a hatchet job, done haphazardly, a copy and paste plagarism with a small change of one-god and the big change of the concept of "Chosen People".

What do we make of a copy of a copy, then, Chrstianity?

This pathetic sect, which copied a copy, and made it into a slave religion ("turn the other cheek"), is perhaps only worsted by Islam, which is a copy of Christianity (a bad copy).

But the one thing that Islam got right was the hatred of "the other", the unbeliever...

Both Islam and Judaism have special words for not us, unbelievers, not part of our sect, and have special laws on how to deal with them - which include deceit, lying, blending in and then, when sufficient power is reached, conquest.

This hatred, implanted in Islam - and expurged in Christianity, thank god(s) - is the "gift" that we, our modern civilization, are still dealing with in the Middle East, in Europe (Moslems in France, Spain), in USA (Jews taking over from WASPs and running the country to their own benefit).

Where did this religious intolerance come from?

Where did this hatred come from?

Lets analyze Jewish holy texts, the Old Testament, Deuteronomy and The Book of Numbers.

Deuteronomy

It amazes me that most of my friends, and family, who call themselves "Christians", have not really read the Bible. I would have thought that perhaps reading your religion's holy book(s) would top the agenda of a true believer, but, alas, most are satisfied with the priests explaining and interpreting biblical stories to them every Sunday.

I used to attend church, and one of the things which got me (in the gut) was how a story from the bible was read and how my local priest totally misinterpreted it, and used it to justify a point about modern life which the story from the bible had nothing to do with.

I encourage everyone to read the bible; it is fascinating stuff, containing many of humanity's old history (the "myths", which are really fragments of real human history, plagiarized by Jewish scribes) and perhaps the first examples of propaganda (i.e. lying about Babylon, Akkadians and enemies of the Jews).

I recommend that you read the Old Testament, aka the Jewish Bible, as the so called "New Testament" was the elite rulers of Europe at the time rewriting actual history and making Christianity into a slave religion, to make the populace more pliable.

The fact that the rulers/elites at the time liberally discarded books which conflicted with the concept of "slave religion" (such as the Gnostic Gospels for example, among other works banned) makes me question the historical accuracy of the "New Testament" and "King James Bible" even more than the hatchet job of the ancient Jewish scribes, who simply copied and pasted ALL that was available to them.

The most interesting part of the Old Testament is, to me, Deuteronomy.

Don't fret - I will make it easy to follow.

First, the "D" word is Greek, and means "2nd law" (as in, the second book of the ancient Jewish scribes, as stated in the holy wikipedia).

The full text of the "2nd law" is here, in Jewishvirtuallibrary.org; Deuteronomy - open it on the second webpage for easy reference.

Don't run off to watch cartoons - I said I will make it easy, and I will - promise! (Kol Nidre, just kidding, you silly goyim, this will be complicated, lol).

First, Deutoronomy means "2nd law" - emphasis on the word "law".

This is less of a holy text per se, this is a law which the Jews must follow.... or else.

Go to the Deuteronomy text and find the word "curse" in it.

We find gems such as this:

11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; 11:27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: 11:28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

Obey, or else!

23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever: 23:4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

Hatred.

Incidentally, who are these Amon and Moab people?

This is important - more on that in a little bit.

27:11 And Moses charged the people the same day, saying, 27:12 These shall stand upon mount Gerizim to bless the people, when ye are come over Jordan; Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Joseph, and Benjamin: 27:13 And these shall stand upon mount Ebal to curse; Reuben, Gad, and Asher, and Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali.

More hatred.

27:14 And the Levites shall speak, and say unto all the men of Israel with a loud voice, 27:15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.

No worshiping of other other idols. Makes sense.

Incidentally, who are the Levites?

This is EXTREMELY important; more on that in a little bit.

The next section is frothing at the mouth anger.

No, really.

27:16 Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.

27:17 Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen.

27:18 Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way. And all the people shall say, Amen.

27:19 Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.

27:20 Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.

27:21 Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen.

27:22 Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.

27:23 Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen.

27:24 Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen.

27:25 Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Obey us, or else... the other Jews will kill you.

Glory to god... or perhaps, glory to somebody else... More on that in a little bit (the mystery thickens).

28:12 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.

Hello!

Here we have usury defined in a VERY ancient text.

Imagine - perhaps the most powerful tool of geopolitics in such an ancient text.

How ancient?

Wiki answers:

The Book of Deuteronomy has traditionally been attributed to Moses, writing around 1400 BCE.

However, biblical scholars say the Book of Deuteronomy was really written during the seventh-century-BCE reign of King Josiah, by an unknown author now known as the Deuteronomist. It contains the same style and relatively modern Hebrew as the integrated series now known as the Deuteronomic History (Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 2 Kings).

It appears that Deuteronomy was the book of law that 2 Kings 22:8 describes as 'found' by Hilkiah, the high priest, in the Temple, presumably to give the book the appearance of great antiquity.

Stop!

Full stop!

A high priest found, or rather, "found" this "ancient" text and attributed it to Moses, the father of Judaism.

Really?

Yes, really.

Lets BibleStudyTools.com, everybody!

2 Kings 22:8-18

8 The high priest Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord." When Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, he read it.

9 Then Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king, "Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workers who have oversight of the house of the Lord."

10 Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "The priest Hilkiah has given me a book." Shaphan then read it aloud to the king

And yada yada yada.

Look everybody, look what I (the high priest) have (hath?) found.

It's a holy book!

Yeeeeeeeeah.

Written by Moses.

Yeeeeeeeeeah.

And it sets new laws and shit, mainly, how the Jews should obey us, the high priests.... uh, I mean, god, of course....

Yeeeeaaaaaaaaaah.

This is shades of Mormonism, people.

Which makes Deuteronomy... a fraud.

Basically a high priest "found" this "ancient" tome, stated that Moses wrote it, and Judaism went from there.

This explains the not-so-holy structure and writing style of this "2nd law", which has many curses and punishments for the people (Jews) for not obeying.... god...

Wait a second.

For not obeying... the high priest(s).

Ah, now the picture is cleared!

Crystal clear, eh?

Which explains the amount of "curses" and punishments for those Jews who do not obey the high priest.... I mean, god.

28:13 And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them: 28:14 And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Obey!

28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: 28:16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.

28:17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.

28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

28:19 Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

28:20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

28:21 The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.

28:22 The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.

28:23 And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.

28:24 The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

28:25 The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.

28:26 And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away.

28:27 The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.

28:28 The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:

28:29 And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.

28:30 Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.

28:31 Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them.

28:32 Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand.

If you do not obey me, the high priest, uh, I mean... god... all this bad shit will happen.

I will command other, good, obeying, Jews to do all this bad shit to you..

Up to and including selling your sons and daughters into slavery.

Apart from, you know, the Lord smiting you and shit like that... just in case that never happens, well, there is the sons and daughters sold into slavery bit, and also the "we will kill your farm animals out of spite" bit (28:31), and your wife will be made to sleep with another man (28:30), and your house will be taken over by someone else... why, perhaps your wife and your house will be taken by none other than god.... I mean, high priest....

And from there on until the end, until the fucking end, it goes on and on and on that not obeying god... high priest(s) will result in curses, in woe, in loss of material shit (grapes, fruits, sheep, etc)...

And this is a fucking holy text?

A holy scripture?

Do Christians read their bible at all?

Do they understand it?

Incidentally, remember how I promised to delve into the Levites before?

Here we go!

Levites, or the Ancient Elders of Zion

When I used to go to church, I was always amused by the priest reading a story from "Leviticus".

The sheep never wondered who a Leviticus was, just nodded their heads and sang the hymns.

The subject of Levites is fascinating, as, while Jews practicing Judaism is a small sect, the Levites are the elite of that sect.

Wiki on Levites:

In Jewish tradition, a Levite (pron.: /ˈliːvaɪt/, Hebrew: לֵוִי, Modern Levi Tiberian Lēwî ; "Attached") is a member of the Hebrew tribe of Levi. When Joshua led the Israelites into the land of Canaan, the Levites were the only Israelite tribe that received cities but were not allowed to be landowners "because the Lord the God of Israel himself is their inheritance" (Deuteronomy 18:2).^[1]^[2] The Tribe of Levi served particular religious duties for the Israelites and had political responsibilities as well. In return, the landed tribes were expected to give tithe to the Levites, particularly the tithe known as the Maaser Rishon or Levite Tithe.

Got that?

These are the elite of Ancient Jews, the... high priests.

They do not own land, they do not work - instead, they are supported by tithes from other, working (or usurious lenders) Jews.

Basically, parasites - like Catholic priests, or Buddhist monks.

So, a high priest - a Levite - "found" an "ancient" "holy" text, the "2nd law" so to speak, written by, uhh, Moses (yeeeeeaaaaaah) and which said text was mainly "obey the high priests, the Levites, or else... curses from God, and also, we will sell your kids into slavery, make your wife a whore, take your wife - and probably kill you).

And of course:

31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

See?

Moses himself made us, the Levite high priests, into the elite over you, the ordinary Jews.

Moabites and Ammonites

A silly tangent.

I also promised to delve a bit into this tangential subject. Simply put, these peoples were cousins to Jews, but were a competing tribe.

I guess I must do so.

Sigh.

Deuteronomy states:

23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever: 23:4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

We hates Ammonites and Moabites!

We hates them!

End of a tangent.

The Chosen People

Where did that "Chosen People" part come from?

When did god, YHWH, himself, the mack daddy, state that the Jews are the bestest of all people on this planet, nay, in the universe?

Why, in Deuteronomy.

7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Yeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaah.

And we, the Levite high priests,will tell you, ordinary Jews, what to do, how to behave, we will guide your whole life, we will rule you, because otherwise god will curse and punish you.

As a boon, we will tell you that you are very, very special, that god, the mack daddy, the one and ONLY god, considers YOU special, and loves you very, very much.

Basically, because the Levites could not give any tangible benefit for the rest of the Jews to obey and worship them (uh, I mean, YHWH, god), they simply said that Jews are the "Chosen People", the most liked by the mack daddy himself.

I mean - what else could they give the rest of the Jews for all the tithes and for allowing the Levite priestly caste to live like kings off the labour of other Jews?

Yet More Bible Study: Book of Numbers

Yey!

Isn't this exciting?

Are we having fun yet?

Yeah?

Now lets delve into the Book of Numbers.

Wiki:

Numbers begins at Mount Sinai, where the Israelites have received their laws and covenant from God and God has taken up residence among them in the sanctuary. The task before them is to take possession of the Promised Land. The people are numbered and preparations are made for resuming their march. The Israelites begin the journey, but immediately they "murmur" (complain or kvetch) at the hardships along the way. They arrive at the borders of Canaan and send spies into the land, but on hearing the spies' report the Israelites refuse to take possession of Canaan and God condemns them to death in the wilderness until a new generation can grow up and carry out the task.

The usual shit.

The high priests... I mean.... god... yeah... told the lazy Jews to conquer the fertile land (the Promised Land) but they kvetched and complained (after all, it wouldn't be the high priests, the Levites, who would be off to the wars and dying - THEY would be COLLECTING the tithes, from the spoils of war).

So the high priests... I mean god... cursed the lazy Jews and they were mightily disappointed at the Jews' self preservation instincts.

So... we already know the story of how "Deutoronomy" was, err, found, by a Levite high priest.

What's the story with the "Book of Numbers"?

Same shit.... same story... same fraud.

By the same people.

The elite of the Jews, the Levite high priests.

Jewishencyclopedia.com:

There is abundant evidence that the Book of Numbers was not written by Moses, and that it was not contemporary with the events which it describes. Throughout Moses is referred to in the third person, and in one passage (xii. 3) in terms which have long been felt to preclude Mosaic authorship. One passage only, namely, xxxiii. 2, lays claim to the authorship of Moses; but this is so closely related to others which are clearly later than Moses, and, indeed, the latest in the Pentateuch, that it is evident he did not write it. It has been abundantly demonstrated that the same great sources, J, E, and P, which furnished material for the other books of the Hexateuch, furnished the material for Numbers also. Even D appears in one passage.

"D", "J", "E" and "P" are the unknown authors who wrote the, er, "holy" text.

It came after Deuteronomy, and is basically a continuation of the laws imposed upon the Jewish people by their overlords, the Levite sect of high priests.

The Levite priests claimed, of course, that the "Book of Numbers" was written by Moses, just like the "Deuteronomy" was written by him.

Yeeeeaaaaaaaah.

So, lets just jump in with both feet in!

Lets read a comforting story of murder.

25:2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

25:3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

25:5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.

25:6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

25:7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

25:8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

So what does this charming children tale tell us?

What's the message of this holy story, to be read by Christian priests to their ignorant church goers (to be fair, I never heard THIS "holy" story in my church - it would be perhaps too much for a typical suburbanite)?

The ancient Israelis found the women of Moab VERY attractive, and were so smitten that they forgot to pay the tithe to the Levites and even went so far as to worship the Moab gods.

So says the holy wikipedia:

According to the Torah, the Israelites, after spending a short time in the plain of Moab, begin to involve themselves with the Moabite women. Consequently, under the influence of Moabite culture, the Israelites begin whoring after the Moabite gods, and join themselves to Baal Peor (Hebrew בעל פעור Ba‘al P^ə‘ôr), in the Septuagint Beelphegôr, a baal associated with Mount Pe‘or.

Not good - for the Levites.

They were losing their "flock" to another tribe - perhaps the Moabite women were REALLY sexy, and their gods did not have as many curses on their worshippers as the Levites' creation YHWH.

Also, perhaps the Moab gods did not ask for so much tithe, gold and shit to give up to their priesthood as YHWH did.

Perhaps.

In case you have trouble following the action, wiki is here to help us, the ignorant heathens:

YHWH orders Moses to gather the chiefs of the people and hang up the idolaters before Yahweh to turn away Yahweh's anger. The scene then abruptly shifts from concerns about Moabites to those about Midianites. A man — Israelite Zimri, the son of Salu — brings a Midianite woman Cozbi into the camp in the sight of Moses, where the people are weeping. Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, thereupon rises up with a spear, follows the man into the chamber and thrusts the spear through both the man and woman, who were evidently in the act of copulation.

Wait a moment.

What's a Midianite, again?

Yet another tribe.

And since they are not Jewish - we hates them!

And if we don't kill them, as our Elders of Zion, the Levite high priests command us to, well, then, there will be curses from god.

According to the (in my view manufactured much later by the Levite high priests) history, the act of killing a Jewish man who was having sex with a non-Jew (well, she was killed too) resulted in:

The plague, from which 24,000 had died, then ceased to take life. A war with Midian follows later.

In my prejudiced view, the second sentence is correct... the first, about the plague, was a manufactured myth by the priesthood.

Here is born the Levite Elders hatred of Jews having relations with non-Jews.

This was a danger to them, as Jews could be swayed to gentler gods and, er, sexier women.

Effectively losing the Levites their slaves... I mean, fellow Judaism practicioners.

And who wouldn't be tempted?

Would you rather have sex with a super sexy Moabite or Midianite woman and pay lip servive to some idol in the corner of the hut, or would you rather go to war and give the spoils to the Levites' high priests?

I would choose to make love, not war, myself.

The main thing to understand is that the whole "only fuck and marry Jews" thing, which is observed by Jews to this day started then, in the "Book of Numbers" references I quoted.

Before this Moses (significantly, he was a Levite, a high priest caste, also, or so it is claimed... by the Levites) had two wives: one of whom was a... Medianite.

Wiki:

Zipporah was one of the seven daughters of Reuel/Jethro, the Midianite priest or prince, who is also called Jethro (Exodus 3:1, 4:18, 18:1-2 ff.) and Hobab (Judges 4:11). While the Israelites/Hebrews were captives in Egypt, Moses killed an Egyptian who was striking a Hebrew, for which offense Pharaoh sought to kill Moses. Moses therefore fled from Egypt and arrived in Midian.

One day while he sat by a well, Reuel's daughters came to water their father's flocks. Other shepherds arrived and drove the girls away so they could water their own flocks first. Moses helped the girls and watered their flock.

Upon their return home their father asked them, "How is it that you have come back so soon today?" The girls answered, "An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds; he even drew water for us and watered the flock." "Where is he then?" Reuel asked them. "Why did you leave the man? Ask him in to break bread." (Exodus 2:18–20)

Moses stayed and lived with the Midianite and his family. Reuel gave him his daughter Zipporah in marriage and, in due time, she gave birth to Gershom and then to Eliezer.

So.... ummmm...

Let me get this straight.

The Levite high priests claimed that Moses wrote "The Book of Numbers".

Cool.

But... Moses married a Medianite woman (she was his 2nd wife - incidentally, this subject is totally skipped in the main Wiki article on Moses: some Levite worshippers did some censorship on wikipedia, I reckon).

So, he married a Medianite.

And yet, in the new and improved edition of laws, after Deuteronomy, Moses is A-OK with Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, taking a javelin and in cold blood killing a Jewish man and his Medianite lover/wife.

He approves of it.

See the contradiction here?

The Levite Elders were at ths point - when the "Book of Numbers" came out - establishing their preeminence over Moses laws - over the original YHWH laws - overwriting Moses (gods?) laws with their own.

Overwriting god's laws with their own.

"Deuteronomy" was a "get-your-feet-wet" kinda deal - "Book of Numbers" went the whole hog.

"Deuteronomy" can be summarised as "god will curse you if you disobey us, the high priests, whaaaaaah".

"Book of Numbers" can be summarised as "give us your shit, Jew", where the Levites broke with the tradition of Moses, the tradition of religious and racial tolerance, where marrying non-Jewish women was quite accepted (Quite accepted practice in Jewish history before the Book of Numbers switcharoo by the Levites - Moses did it himself, and Deuteronomy was A-OK with Jews taking wives from defeated tribes).

And the "Book of Numbers" replaced tolerance with hatred, and religious intolerance, and the marrying non-Jews was now forbidden.

Observe what the, er, "holy" text of "Book of Numbers" is really about:

Full text of "The Bible, King James version, Book 4: Numbers" ,

04:031:030 And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.

Give us, the high priests, your stuff.

Give us money, spoils of war, farm animals, well, shit, just give us everything.

04:031:047 Even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.

See?

Moses, the father of our religion, himself gave shit to the Levites.

Who are you, you, ordinary Jew, to not give us, the Levite priestly caste, your stuff?

04:031:047 Even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.

04:031:048 And the officers which were over thousands of the host, the captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, came near unto Moses:

04:031:049 And they said unto Moses, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one man of us.

04:031:050 We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.

04:031:051 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all wrought jewels.

04:031:052 And all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the LORD, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels.

You see... god needs shekels, and jewels, and gold, and chains, and rings, and earrings, and other assorted shit...

Yeeeeeeah... god needs, YHWH neeeeeeds all this shit...

So, um, give all this stuff to god... um, I mean, the Levite high priests.

Yeaahhhhhhhhhhh....

So, the Elders of Zion, the Levite priestly caste, at this point of our story (of history) strengthened their power over ordinary Jews.

The Jews were made to pay vast sums of money from wars against neighboring tribes, which they were made to fight because the Levites commanded them to.

The Levites, when they wrote the "Book of Numbers", stood Judaism on its head, and replaced Moses' tolerance (Moses himself had a Medianite wife, the legendary King Solomon, according to the Ammon wiki, had a Moabite wife) with hatred.

With hatred and religious intolerance and an "us versus them" mentality.

Gone were the days of Jews happily marrying Moabites, or Ammonites, or Medianites, or any other tribes.

Now all that is forbidden.

Now there is only holy war, and hatred of others, and spoils of this holy war to be given to god... uh, I mean the Levite high priest caste... the Elders of Zion.

04:032:018 We will not return unto our houses, until the children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance.

04:032:019 For we will not inherit with them on yonder side Jordan, or forward; because our inheritance is fallen to us on this side Jordan eastward.

04:032:020 And Moses said unto them, If ye will do this thing, if ye will go armed before the LORD to war, 04:032:021 And will go all of you armed over Jordan before the LORD, until he hath driven out his enemies from before him,

04:032:022 And the land be subdued before the LORD: then afterward ye shall return, and be guiltless before the LORD, and before Israel; and this land shall be your possession before the LORD.

04:032:023 But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out.

Now there is only war, and more profit and spoils for the priestly caste, and Moses became a war monger.

04:034:002 Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land of Canaan; (this is the land that shall fall unto you for an inheritance, even the land of Canaan with the coasts thereof:)

04:034:003 Then your south quarter shall be from the wilderness of Zin along by the coast of Edom, and your south border shall be the outmost coast of the salt sea eastward:

04:034:004 And your border shall turn from the south to the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass on to Zin: and the going forth thereof shall be from the south to Kadeshbarnea, and shall go on to Hazaraddar, and pass on to Azmon:

04:034:005 And the border shall fetch a compass from Azmon unto the river of Egypt, and the goings out of it shall be at the sea.

04:034:006 And as for the western border, ye shall even have the great sea for a border: this shall be your west border.

04:034:007 And this shall be your north border: from the great sea ye shall point out for you mount Hor:

04:034:008 From mount Hor ye shall point out your border unto the entrance of Hamath; and the goings forth of the border shall be to Zedad:

04:034:009 And the border shall go on to Ziphron, and the goings out of it shall be at Hazarenan: this shall be your north border.

04:034:010 And ye shall point out your east border from Hazarenan to Shepham:

04:034:011 And the coast shall go down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain; and the border shall descend, and shall reach unto the side of the sea of Chinnereth eastward:

04:034:012 And the border shall go down to Jordan, and the goings out of it shall be at the salt sea: this shall be your land with the coasts thereof round about.

04:034:013 And Moses commanded the children of Israel, saying, This is the land which ye shall inherit by lot, which the LORD commanded to give unto the nine tribes, and to the half tribe:

War, war, and more war, because, god REALLY wants this fertile land which is occupied by other folks - so, lets kill them and take it. And while we're at it, give all your shit to your high priests.

Oh, and if any of you Jews want to pull a Moses or a King Solomon and marry a non-Jewish woman:

04:036:003 And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance.

"Book of Numbers" means total dominance of the Levite Elders of Zion sect over the rest of Jews, continuing the trend from "Deuteronomy".

In the next part (when I get to it) I will analyze more Jewish history, during the Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome times, and how did these people become the political and financial (one equals, or leads, to the other, always) powerhouse of the world.

Toodles.

PS
I feel sorry for the Ancient Israelites, the poor tribe who were dominated and overpowered by the sly Levites and made to be basically slaves to their will.

Do you wonder if such a relationship exists in modernity?

Are there Levites - the Elders of Zion - the ruling priestly sect still calling the shots in modernity?

Stay tuned.

Short article on our American "democracy"

2012-12-30T19:53:00.003-08:00

This article nails it.

Short, sweet, and to the point.

The four business gangs that run the US

We are all born equal

2012-12-11T10:41:00.001-08:00

Lately, on reddit, I have gotten into several arguments on this topic.

Simply put, we are (of course, duh!) NOT all born equal.

Some are born blind, or sick, or weak, some are born with different body types, there are diseases which are very predominant and occur often in some races while the same disease is nonexistent in other races. Some are born with big dicks, some with smaller ones, some are born with excess testosterone, making them prone to violence and "acting first, thinking later" than others, some are born smarter than others.

It is the last two, and especially the last one, that science has trouble researching - hell, acknowledging.

Yes, they are outliers, and there are some extremely smart black people, and some very stupid White people.

But, being a normal Joe Schmoe, it is easy to see differences between races and that we are NOT created equal.

Compared to Einstein, or Skladowska, or Plato, I... I am not that smart.

Compared to me, an average negro is... not that smart.

How about some proof?

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

Full text of the article follows:

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.
The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."
The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.
"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.
"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

In their article, Rushton and Jensen also address some of the policy issues that stem from their conclusions. Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups. They emphasized that their paper pertains only to average differences. They also called for the need to accurately inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics and evolutionary biology.
Rushton and Jensen are well-known for research on racial differences in intelligence. Jensen hypothesized a genetic basis for Black-White IQ differences in his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article. His later books Bias in Mental Tests (1980) and The g Factor (1998), as well as Rushton's (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, show that tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework.

Being a normal Joe Schmoe, it is easy to see differences between races and that we are NOT created equal.

And our leaders, our politicians, our school superintendents should clearly acknowledge the differences and treat different races differently.

Just like doctors, who already acknowledge racial and genetic differences, treat different races differently (different tests for different diseases are ordered for blacks, Whites, Asians, jews, etc to test for more common diseases for a given race).

I am not saying lock all black people in a ghetto.

I am saying that the first step is ACKNOWLEDGING differences and go on from there, in our schools, in our workplaces, in our daily life (but especially in our schools - not ALL people, black, White or Asian SHOULD be on a college track, and trying to make it so that inner city black kids of drug dealers and drug users are on the same college track as, say, Asian kids, is insane).

Cunt

2012-12-09T22:09:00.002-08:00

What kind of people run the Europe?

The unelected bureaucrats from Brussels and IMF, that's who.

There is no sovereignty in most European nations. Back in the bad old days (good old days, actually), countries had their own currency. And depending on their situation, they could borrow more, or less, or run rampant inflation, or print money, or whatever was needed by a given country.

No more.

Now that power rests exclusively with the bureaucrats in Brussels, from EU and IMF.

Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.

Indeed. Per Wikipedia, this quote is attributed to one Mayer Amschel Rothschild, a jewish banker from Germany. Using stolen (embezzled) money he created a dynasty which, together with similar elite families, control America's and Europe's money supply.

And effectively control those regions and their people.

So what's occurring now, when the European politicians so glibly sold out their countries' independence to an evil cabal of, well, jews.

Greek Hospitals Suffer In Ailing Economy, by Joanna Kakissis:

The economic crisis in Greece is strangling the country's hospitals, where budgets have been slashed by more than half. As a result, nearly all doctors in both public and private hospitals have seen their pay cut, delayed or even frozen.
"On top of that, we lack basic supplies to do our jobs," says Vangelis Papamichalis, a neurologist at the Regional Hospital of Serres in northern Greece and a member of the doctors union here. "We run out of surgical gloves, syringes, vials for blood samples and needles to sew stitches, among other things."
Last week, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control said these shortages will contribute to hospital-acquired infection rates in Greece, which are already among the worst in Europe.

"We're seeing children with severe malnutrition," he says. "We're seeing children who have fainted in school from hunger. Depression is common because their parents are unemployed."
His next patient is a 3-day-old infant girl with a cleft lip. He gives the baby's parents tiny syringes and shows them how to relieve her nasal congestion with saline.
"We ration supplies, medicine, everything," he says. "Sometimes we pay out of our own pockets to buy them."
Veliotis has been a pediatrician for eight years but makes just under $2,000 per month, after a 30-percent pay cut.

Papamichalis, the neurologist, says his pay has also been cut; he now makes the equivalent of $1,600 a month and often works 100 hours a week. On a busy morning recently, the bearded, serious, 40-year-old doctor checks out a patient's brain scan, then confers with a nurse about a backlog of medicine.
The state hasn't paid bills to pharmacies, so his epilepsy patients often wait days for their medication.

For example, last year, Papamichalis tried to save a 40-year-old man in the emergency room after he suffered a massive stroke.
"Because we don't have a stroke unit, we couldn't relieve his thrombosis. He died," he says, shaking his head. "I was so upset because if I had the resources to do what I needed here, this man could have made it."

Look, having been in italy, I personally experienced the Mediterranean culture of laziness and furbo (gaining stuff slyly by bending the law and/or cheating others, as long as it is done with minimum risk to oneself). It was an amazing experience to experience italy for a month and to see what is REALLY going on there.

Look, italians and Greeks ARE tax dodgers extraordinaire. The Euro made it possible for both the country, its institutions, its international banks and even its people to borrow while the bush bubble was ongoing.

But when the bubble burst, the party was suddenly over, and the iron fist of "democracy" escaped the velvet glove.

Ireland, UK, Portugal, Greece are being dictated by citizens of other countries (really, members of the cabal) on what to do - the name of the game is austerity.

Austerity, simplest non bullshit definition - cutting social funds, infrastructure and anything that benefits the common citizen while simultaneously assuring that the bankers (responsible for this mess in the first place) receive the highest compensation and profits possible (record profits, in fact).

So we have, in Greece, hospitals running out of stuff - you know, syringes, surgical gloves, needles for stitches...

Situations like this usually happen during or right after a war...

But we have the magic of austerity at work here.

And just to ram the point home, how does the head of the IMF (International Monetary Cabal, whose mission is to run the world for fun and profit) comment on this situation?

Asked whether she was able to block out images of Greek mothers being unable to get access to midwives or patients unable to obtain life-saving drugs, Ms. Lagarde replied: “I think more of the little kids from a school in a little village in Niger who get teaching two hours a day, sharing one chair for three of them, and who are very keen to get an education.
“I have them in my mind all the time. Because I think they need even more help than the people in Athens.”

And there you have it.

black children from africa are much, much more closer to her heart than White European children.

More deserving.

Worth saving, as opposed to those White people.

Cunt.

Look, despite my loathing of the Mediterranean mindset, its laziness, ineptness, stupidity, rampant corruption and acceptance of daily stealing and daily acts of "furbo", the fact is that those are (goddamnit! fuck it!) European people!

WHITE EUROPEAN people!

People like me!

This is the 1st world, with trains, airplanes, roadways without holes in them, offices, restaurants, cafes, hospitals, street lights, culture... when they finally get off their lazy asses, italians DO have a pride of workmanship (sometimes... I still loathe those motherfuckers, and it does pain me to admit this) and it shows - in food, in roads and highways, in restoring unique ancient and medieval works of art.

Show me anything like that in Africa!

Go on, show me a country in Africa that has all that!

South Africa, you say?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Wrong-o!

That was when White people were running the show, now, South Africa looks like this:

The Death of Johannesburg

Go ahead, click the link, look at the downfall of civilization (multiculturalism in action, so praised and fought for by "our" - hahaha, our, as if they are your or my people - elite).

Look at Jeppe Street, the bus depot, and especially Joubert Park.

Compare and contrast this to 1st world people - Europeans, Japanese, Chinese (yes, China is super dirty, including hospitals, but I would still prefer to go to a Chinese provincial hospital than any african one).

Despite their flaws, despite furbo, these people ARE worth saving.

One thing I observed in italy was the magnificent, tremendous (in size and functionality) public works buildings, including Centrale Milano train station. Eye popping, and really buildings made in that era have made a lasting impression on me.

And do you know when these were build?

That's right - during the reign of one Mussolini, a fascist, no nonsense regime.

When a tough guy who knows what he is doing takes over, even italians are capable of tremendous accomplishments (after all, look at Ancient Rome, Milan and Fiorentina and Florence during the Medieval period).

All that is required is effective leadership.

Leadership, which, other than making laws on what can be named a Feta cheese and what can be named Pamesan, the EU is NOT providing (Austerity is not fucking leadership. It is not a monetary policy, it is the destruction of the middle class).

After all, their hearts are not with White European people - they would much rather help the africans, who will NEVER, EVER reach the heights of 1st world civilization: whether European, Japanese or Korean or Chinese (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Taipei to name a few awesome places).

africans who, given incredible amounts of monies, of help, for free, gratis - manage to destroy civilization, like locusts.

Whether it is in USA (Detroit, South Side of Chicago, St. Louis, and any other majority black city or town or suburb)...

or Haiti... google for yourself how, after a natural disaster of 2010 earthquake Haiti is STILL recovering, people are STILL starving, and the country needs aid desperately, while their next door neighbor (non black) Dominican Republic, which is sharing the same fucking island, which was hit by the same disaster, is doing very well, thank you... WHY is that, ask yourself and, if you are brave and want to end your career early (whatever it is) other people...

or Africa...

or... anywhere, really, where black people are the majority.

Lets discover just how much closer africa is to "our" (haha, our) elites' hearts than White Europeans.

Budget hawks circling EU development aid, November 7, 2012, by Laura Mayer:

The revised “negotiation box” for the EU’s 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF), presented by the Cyprus EU Presidency at the end of October, will serve as the basis for the European Council’s discussions. It includes, for the first time, concrete numbers for each of the main budget headings. Overall, the Presidency proposes a €50 billion cut to the European Commission’s €1 trillion proposal, i.e. a 5% decrease. Cuts have been proposed for every budget heading (see Figure 1) except “Heading V” (the EU Institutions’ administrative expenses) hinting as to where there might be room for further cuts. “Heading IV” for “Global Europe”, which includes development funding, faces proportionally the biggest cut of all headings – a 7.3% reduction, from €70 billion to €65 billion (Figure 1) compared to the EC’s proposal.

The bold emphasis is by the author, and is in the original linked article.

So, EU, in a midst of a terrifying financial crisis, is cutting aid to africa (and others) from €70 billion to €65 billion.

I wonder how much would a project to buy syringes, stitches, and medical equipment to donate it to needy Greek doctors, who literally watch their patients die because they do not have it, would cost?

A few tens of million euros, probably.

But, alas, such an aid programme is beyond the scope, responsibility and indeed the capability of EU.

Aid to africa, though - that is another matter altogether.

Bonus
Why is Lagarde a cunt?

Because, while she is chastising Greeks and others over not paying their taxes, she herself is not paying any taxes.

Anger over Christine Lagarde's tax-free salary, Independent, UK, Wednesday 30 May 2012:

The managing director of the International Monetary Fund is paid a salary of $467,940 (£298,675), automatically increased every year according to inflation. On top of that she receives an allowance of $83,760 – payable without "justification" – and additional expenses for entertainment, making her total package worth more than the amount received by US President Barack Obama according to reports last night.
Unlike Mr Obama, however, she does not have to pay any tax on this substantial income because of her diplomatic status.

Is cunt the right word, you think?

PS
Totally off topic.

Go read the article below this one.

That's right - the one about WW2 and America, and especially learn about the ABC conferences, which happened BEFORE Pearl Harbor, from January 29, 1941 to March 27, 1941, and where America and Britain agreedon taking Hitler out FIRST in the event of America being at war with both Japan and Germany.

ABC-1 is a fucking bombshell of a revelation, and needs to be shouted from the rooftops, and pounded into our students (and professors) heads.

I will quote the Wikipedia page in full, because google'ing for "ABC-1 conference" shows VERY few entries online.

Secret discussions between United States and British military staff members on American, British and Canadian (ABC) military coordination in the event of U.S. entry into World War II. The conference took place in Washington, D.C. from January 29, 1941 to March 27, 1941.

The US-British Staff Conference Report of 1941 established the general military principles, resources, and deployment strategies for a joint Allied military strategy. The plan assumed that if the U.S. went to war with Germany, it would likely go to war with both Italy and Japan as well. The general principles of agreement stated that:

America's territorial interest was in the Western Hemisphere

The security of the British Commonwealth must be maintained in all circumstance including the retention of a Far East position

Security of sea communications between Allied Powers was essential

Offensive policies included:

The "early elimination" of Italy as an Axis partner

Support of neutrals and underground groups in resisting the Axis

Sustained air offensive to destroy Axis military power

Build-up of forces for the eventual offensive against Germany and the capture of positions from which to launch that offensive

The Atlantic and European areas were the "decisive theater" and as such would be the primary focus of US military efforts, although the "great importance" of the Middle East and Africa were noted.

Finally, if Japan entered the war, military strategy in the Far East would be defensive. Although the ABC-1 agreement was not a military alliance, it nevertheless signified that the United States was preparing to enter the war on the side of the Allied powers, that the United States would make every effort to maintain the security of the British Commonwealth, and that the United States military was modifying existing war plans (e.g. the RAINBOW plans) to incorporate military integration and cooperation with other nations.

And then Pearl Harbor happened... even though American intelligence had by then broken ALL the Japanese codes and was reading communications between naval fleets, admirals, politicians, ambassadors and generals.

In case Wikipedia is taken down (or that specific page is taken down), I want the record of this aggressive, offensive war plan agreed by Americans and British BEFORE Japanese attack to have its place in the net.

Part 2 of When Did America Enter WW2 is coming up shortly.

I will work on a specific writeup of ABC conferences (1 and 2) and its impact on the world today (as well as the deaths of the sacrificed sailors and marines at Pearl Harbor) in a later article, as it deserves an article of its own.

If you want specifics, read up on History of the Army: CHAPTER XII Co-ordination with Britain.

You will never look at a WW2 book, class or professor the same ever again.

When did America enter WW2? Part 1

2012-12-07T13:07:00.005-08:00

As you might know from reading this blog, I am an amateur historian - very amateur. I try to use sources available on the web (which includes historical documents, statistics and mainstream historians' books and research) to explore different areas of history and compare what I discover to the mainstream version, the popular narrative and the "schoolbook history".

There are two articles which fit this mold:

Icebreaker and Barbarossa: Unknown World War 2: my article on Stalin's role in starting WW2, and how German invasion was really a preventive war. Includes embedded documentary "March of the Liberators", which is REALLY worth watching.

Modern History - Hurricane Katrina, Savagery, Racism and Combat Operations, 2005: This is the covered up story on how American Army conducted combat operations post Katrina in New Orleans. Again, this was not a rescue operation - this was a combat op, as written up in the Army Times article from 2005: Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans. The behaviour of black people post Katrina, the mass rapes, mass murders, was covered up, as well.

I want to go back to WW2, perhaps my favorite historical subject, and after exploring Soviet Union's role in it, the time has come to discover the role of the United States of America. Specifically, when exactly did America join the war? In Soviet history, and "schoolbook version", which states that despite Soviet soldiers invading and then annexing Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, part of Romania, part of Poland, part of Finland in 1939 and 1940, the Soviet Union only joined the war after the unprovoked invasion by Nazi Germany in 1941.

Similarly to the Soviet history, in American history we are taught that USA only joined the war in 1941, after an unprovoked attack by the Japanese on our Pacific Fleet.

Lets explore this topic a bit...

When did America enter World War Two?

Wordy Preamble

A few weeks before the First Gulf War - the one where we and our allies liberated Kuwait (which was invaded because they were drilling for oil with angled shafts i.e. drilling into Iraqi oilfields) - there was lots of discussion about whether there will be war or there won't be.

Will we invade or will it all fizzle and be resolved politically?

Meanwhile there was a steady buildup of hundreds of thousands of troops on the Iraqi border.

While listening to such a news report on TV (Will they invade or will there be a political solution?), my father said the prophetic words: "Of course there will be war. Look at the thousands of soldiers over there. Mobilization means war - always this has been so in history".

Only later did I learn that this has always been so, and only later did I learn about the great Soviet strategist's work, Marshall Shaposnikov, who wrote "Mozg Armi" (The Brain of the Army), in which he postulated just such a logical argument - that mobilization always means war, that the process, for many reasons, is irreversible. His book is much better than Western dilettantes of the era, such as one B.H. Liddel Hart, whose main argument was to advocate to "Strike where the enemy least expects" and wrote whole books about it (No shit, Sherlock. What an idiot. And he is idolized in the Western military and by Western military historians still.).

A country decides to prosecute a war when it decides to mobilize. During the 1920's and 1930's (and then the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's and 1980's and...) the term "gunboat diplomacy" was used by historians, the public, the newspapers.

What it meant was that America, in pursuit of the "Monroe Doctrine" (i.e. all the countries in our hemisphere are OURS to exploit and do what we want - any European power coming here will be fought, whether by military or covert op means or political pressure, unless we approve of them being here, and any little country in the Caribbean or Latin America, Grenada, Dominican Republic, etc etc. which will get too "uppity" will have a few gunboats and marines send in to sort out what's what, and to show them the error of their ways.

Mainly, this was done by killing or arresting the government which wanted to give the peasants too many benefits and/or wanting a country's natural resource to benefit their citizens and not the profit margin of an American corporation.

After said killing, the next step was giving the political power to a country's landowner elites, who were always dutiful in exploiting their country's natural resources and keeping the peasant population's wages and benefits down, to bring maximum profit to American corporations (read up on the "United Fruit Company" - that is another part of American history very much covered up and not taught in our schools).

Sending a gunboat, or a small fleet, with an accompanying horde of marines, amounted to a "mini-mobilization" and always, always resulted in a "mini-war". Sending a gunboat in always resulted in combat, in an American invasion (one exception - Japan - the force sent was much too small to subjugate that large country, but big enough to accomplish America's political and corporate goals).

But such a gunboat diplomacy only worked with weak countries - Latin America, Caribbean, even Japan got a dose when USA decided to send a certain Admiral Perry to "open up" Japan.

What happens when stronger countries needed some "gunboat diplomacy"?

America could not simply send a gunboat or two and a few hundred marines to 1940's Germany and Japan... or at least, the number of gunboats and soldiers needed was on a much, much bigger scale. Perhaps bigger stuff were needed - things like aircraft carriers, battleships, thousands of tanks...

During the 1930's and 1940's, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the American president.

When did he decide on military action?

When did FDR decide to enter World War 2?

In short, when did the nation mobilize?

Because mobilization means war.

Always.

When Did America Mobilize?

The simple answer is: Monday, January 08, 1940 at exactly 06:00:00 GMT. Congress appropriated $16 billion dollars for defense needs, and enacted the first ever peacetime draft in American history.

16 billion in 1940's dollars is equivalent to about 15 times more in 2011 (source: inflation calculator).

This was a staggering amount of money, in a country which was still suffering economically and financially. People were poor, people were hungry, the farmers were ruined after the dustbowl ecological catastrophe and the middle class was destroyed in the Great Depression.

The amount of money was big news, but even bigger news was the "peacetime" draft. A nation which drafts its citizens expects war, and not just any small war (gunboat diplomacy) but a major, important and perhaps life changing war.

When Did Roosevelt Declare War?
From Historyarticles.com, FDR's Undeclared War:

In the White House at 2130 on 29 December 1940, an audience of twenty sits expectantly on wobbly, gilt wooden chairs before a desk drilled with holes for the wires of seven microphones. On the desk are two sharpened pencils, a blank notepad, two glasses of water and an opened pack of Camels. Among the invited guests are matinee idol Clark Gable with his wife, blonde Carole Lombard. She wears a “simple black afternoon dress” and a funnel-shaped black hat and veil. Sixty-nine year-old Secretary of State Cordell Hull, fingers his pince-nez ribbon. Print and broadcast reporters casually smoke. And in the first row, dressed in a gray-blue evening gown, Sara Roosevelt awaits her son, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32^nd President of the United States.

All over the country, unnecessary activity comes to a halt as millions of families gather in their living rooms next to bulky, polished-wood Philco, RCA, and Emerson radio consoles. Five minutes before the broadcast, attired in a dark blue serge suit and black bow tie, the President glides into the oval Diplomatic Reception Room on the rubber tires of a small wheelchair, amiably greets guests and clears his throat. Ready to deliver one of the most important speeches in his political career and in the lives of 132 million fellow citizens, FDR begins his 16^th fireside chat, entitled “On National Security.” “Never before…has our American civilization been in such danger as now,” he says in the familiar rolling resonance. “By an agreement signed in Berlin, three powerful nations, two in Europe and one in Asia, joined themselves together…that if the United States of America interfered with or blocked the expansion program of these three nations – a program aimed at world control – they would unite in ultimate action against the United States.”

And why, he asks like a schoolteacher, does the European war concern the United States?

“If Great Britain goes down, all of us in the Americas would be living at the point of a gun.” There are those who say that the Axis powers have no desire to attack the Western Hemisphere. That is the same sort of wishful thinking which has destroyed the powers of resistance of so many conquered peoples…the vast resources and wealth of this American Hemisphere constitute the most tempting loot in all of the round world.” Wiping his broad forehead with a handkerchief, the fire crackling in the white marble fireplace in front to his right, Roosevelt finishes the thirty-seven minute talk with a ringing plea to arm faster, to build more planes and ships. “We must be the great arsenal of democracy.” FDR’s call to arms has unwaveringly committed America to save Britain from defeat, no matter the cost and regardless of the risk.

Re-read this part again:
“By an agreement signed in Berlin, three powerful nations, two in Europe and one in Asia, joined themselves together…that if the United States of America interfered with or blocked the expansion program of these three nations – a program aimed at world control – they would unite in ultimate action against the United States.”

Simply put, President Roosevelt named the enemies of America in this part of the speech. Effectively, this was an open declaration of war against Germany, Japan and Italy.

This was a declaration, perhaps not of official war, but an open declaration that Germany, Japan and Italy were now "officially/unofficially" enemies of the United States and that America would act to help their enemies, namely, the United Kingdom.

It meant that all kinds of aid would be given to the UK, all sorts of financial, military materiel and intelligence information would be given to allow that country to help it with its fight with Germany.

But America went much, much further than just aid.

When did America Plan the War?

FDR was as good as his word. We all know about the famous "Lend Lease" deal (if you don't, perhaps this is not a blog for you). All kinds of aid was given to the UK and the Commonwealth, some official, some unofficial.

Meanwhile, FDR was in negotiations with the British on the future war with, on the one hand, UK and USA, and on the other side, Germany, Japan and Italy.

Called ABC-1, or the U.S.–British Staff Conference, it was similar to the Molotov Ribbentrop pact in its secrecy and in not informing the public of its secret procotols.

And these were eye popping.

The conferences (yes, plural, there were many) were between political representatives of America and Britain, and took place from January 29, 1941 to March 27, 1941 i.e. long before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

From Wikipedia:

The US-British Staff Conference Report of 1941 established the general military principles, resources, and deployment strategies for a joint Allied military strategy. The plan assumed that if the U.S. went to war with Germany, it would likely go to war with both Italy and Japan as well. The general principles of agreement stated that:

America's territorial interest was in the Western Hemisphere

The security of the British Commonwealth must be maintained in all circumstance including the retention of a Far East position

Security of sea communications between Allied Powers was essential

Offensive policies included:

The "early elimination" of Italy as an Axis partner

Support of neutrals and underground groups in resisting the Axis

Sustained air offensive to destroy Axis military power

Build-up of forces for the eventual offensive against Germany and the capture of positions from which to launch that offensive

The Atlantic and European areas were the "decisive theater" and as such would be the primary focus of US military efforts, although the "great importance" of the Middle East and Africa were noted.

Finally, if Japan entered the war, military strategy in the Far East would be defensive.

Again, please, please, please remember - these conferences took place from January to March, 1941, before the USA was attacked, before "The Day of Infamy".

The main things to understand is that, first, Germany was to be "taken out" first, and that, if Japan attacked America, America would still hold to the policy of "Germany first".

Even such specifics as taking out Italy, an obvious weak link in the Axis Powers, to weaken Germany, while staying on the defensive in the Pacific, were pre-planned.

The second thing was that "Security of sea communications between Allied Powers was essential", meaning that the Uboat threat had to be neutralized.

Wikipedia then being wikipedia, the article continues "Although the ABC-1 agreement was not a military alliance, it nevertheless signified that the United States was preparing to enter the war on the side of the Allied powers (...)."

Full stop!

The ABC-1 undoubtedly, 100%, without a question WAS a military alliance between America and the United Kingdom.

And this alliance was agreed upon, with specifics, ranging as far as "taking out Germany first, before Japan" and "taking out Italy to weaken Germany" and "sustained air offensive to destroy Axis military power" as well as combatting the Uboats in the Atlantic.

Not only has America declared war, now it had specific war plans for it.

Provoking Japan

In the previous chapters, we have learned when America declared war (when it mobilized the country for total war and implemented draft - January 08, 1940) and what plans it had for the conflict (the ABC-1 conference; VERY specific strategic plans, agreed upon in January-March 1941).

Having gotten the nation on a war footing, and having agreed on "taking out Germany first", FDR then tried to embroil the country into the ongoing global war (Japan vs. China and Japan vs. Soviet Union, and Germany and Italy vs. UK and the European forces from conquered countries which escaped into England).

While "Germany first" policy was in full effect, this did not mean that Japanese aggression in China could not be used to embroil America into this global war - to this end, certain steps were taken.

Most importantly, and this was a strategic step, America declared an oil embargo on Japan in July 1941.

Japan was almost totally dependent on American oil.

From The Way to Pearl Harbor: US vs Japan, by Yuichi Arima:

Japan was very poor in most of natural resources, and it had to rely on import of these resources to function as a modern state. Among many natural resources, oil was one of the most crucial strategic materials that Japan desperately needed. Japan could not produce oil, within its borders, even for 10% of its domestic consumption. At the time, Japan had relied very much on the US, which supplied Japan about 80% of oil that was consumed in the island-nation.

In other words, the power of life or death was in the hand of the American president.

The ultimatum that America presented Japan was simple as well as brutal: either withdraw from China, or suffer the lack of oil.

Now, The Sino-Japanese War was ongoing from July 7, 1937 (and would not end until the defeat of Japan in WW2). It cost Japan (in total, up to 1945) 1,055,000 dead and 1,172,200 injured. That is over 2 million casualties.

The Japanese were desperate for oil (as most modern countries are - America and UK support the odious, anti-human and terrorist Saudi regime precisely because in return they call the shots on Saudi oil usage and exports).

Continuing with the article:

Japan had also tied an economic treaty with Netherlands, which promised Japan the supply of oil (approximately 13% of the oil need) from the Dutch East India (Indonesia). However, the Dutch broke the treaty and followed the America’s oil embargo in August of 1941 as well.

That meant that no oil was going to Japan.

Remember, Japan "Japan could not produce oil, within its borders, even for 10% of its domestic consumption" and "Japan had relied very much on the US, which supplied Japan about 80% of oil that was consumed in the island-nation".

The oil embargo was the act of refusing water to a man. A man without water will die, after a certain time passes, and becomes more and more desperate. Similarly, a modern nation without oil will die, after a certain time passes, and becomes more and more desperate as time goes on...

This was not the only embargo against Japan.

To combat Japanese expansionism, FDR implemented MULTIPLE embargoes against that country, effectively reversing Admiral Perry's opening of Japan... call it "the closing of Japan."

From the article:

In 1939, the US notified Japan that it would renounce the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation that was signed by both countries in 1911. President Roosevelt, then, went on to the imposition of partial embargo of gasoline for aircraft and scrap-metal on Japan in July 1940. Japan countered the partial embargo by advancing its troops to the northern Indo-China, and the US matched the Japan’s expansion with the addition of more subjects to the list of partial embargo. This vicious circle of retaliations escalated and reached its peak when Japan moved even into the southern Indo-China in July, 1941 and the US replied to it by freezing the Japanese assets in the US and, furthermore, by the complete oil embargo on Japan

As a result, the Japanese leaders found themselves in an extremely difficult situation in which they had to make their decision out of two options: to bow before the US, or to fight a desperate war against the US.

This resulted in Japanese attacking and annexing more and more territories, because the more stuff they lost by being prohibited by trading for it, the more they needed to take it - by force.

And finally, the complete oil embargo meant death of that country - in about...

The oil stock Japan had was only for a year and half.

What were the options open to Japan at this desperate time?

They could withdraw from China, which would result in the end of the oil and other embargoes, which would result in Japan gaining life-saving oil in normal trade with the USA.

Or...

They could attack and seize the Netherlands East Indies, now Indonesia, which was a colony of the Netherlands. And the Netherlands, since 1940, were themselves taken over by Germany.

Easy pickings (the Japanese already had annexed parts of French Indochina, now Vietnam, after Germany conquered France proper).

Forseeing this event, America acted (Chronology 1940 from indiana.edu).

April 17, 1940, "Secretary of State Cordell Hull warned the Japanese government that the United States would oppose any change in the status quo of the Netherlands East Indies by other than peaceful means".

Now, the two options for Japan were slightly modified.

They could withdraw from China, which would result in the end of the oil and other embargoes, which would result in Japan gaining life-saving oil in normal trade with the USA.

Or...

They could attack and seize the Netherlands East Indies, now Indonesia, which was a colony of the Netherlands, for its oil. And immediately be at war with the United States.

It was then very simple for American leadership to see if war was coming. Simply put, from the time of the embargo, Japan had a limited period of time to take one of two diametrically opposing actions: whether to withdraw from China, or to make war with the Allies (including America) to acquire oil.

Now, American economists probably did not know the exact time left before modern Japan died, but what they did know was, first, that the time was limited (the embargo was working and the island nation did not produce even 10% of oil for domestic consumption, much less to prosecute a war with China, much less with America and UK), and, second, if the decision for war would be taken, it would be as soon as possible - while they still had oil...

So, if there was no war, that meant that Japan would talk to China and make peace, with full knowledge of America. And that this would happen SOON. Which would mean the samurai bushido nation would forfeit it's over million casualties and meekly surrender, without fighting, all its gains in China which took several years to win.

Meanwhile, Japanese soldiers were fighting a brutal war with the Chinese Army, and there was no withdrawal at all...

And that meant...

But this was not enough. To bolster China's resistance to the Japanese, an so called American Volunteer Group was formed by November 1941. This "volunteer" group was made up of American military pilots, led by an American general, using American military airplanes, albeit painted in Chinese air force colors.

The only reason American military was not in combat before the outbreak of "official" hostilities was because the "volunteer group" was not ready before the "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor.

Now, whether the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was such a complete surprise and shock to FDR and the American elites will be explored in another article - but keep in mind, that American intelligence had already broken Japanese codes (including naval and political) by 1940, and were reading what messages were passing between admirals, fleets, ambassadors and Japanese politicians.

End of Part 1.

Remember how in 'The Wire' police played fast and loose with statistics?

2012-11-09T18:41:00.000-08:00

You know, classifying murder as suicide, and assault as burglary, all the better to make violent crime stats better for the old/new mayor?

Glad that that does not happen in the real world, and that 'The Wire' is complete fiction, having no relation to reality.

Injured World Series reveler dies, from Thursday, November 8, 2012.

A 37-year-old man seriously injured while celebrating the Giants' World Series win last week has died of head trauma, police said Thursday.
Sean Moffitt died at San Francisco General Hospital on Oct. 30 after hurting his head during the celebration two days earlier in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, said Officer Gordon Shyy, a police spokesman.
Before losing consciousness, Moffitt told his roommate he had been assaulted by four men with a metal pipe, according to the roommate. But police said Thursday it was more likely Moffitt was hurt accidentally during the revelry.
"The victim may have been involved in celebratory events," Shyy said. "He may have been injured, not necessarily assaulted."

And there you go.

The Unofficial guide to Surviving Italy as a Tourist

2012-11-03T19:42:00.000-07:00

Who this guide is for: if you are an older, retired couple, who at the age of 60 or 70 will realize the dream of a lifetime and about to visit Italy, or if you are a young, hip, know-it-all, who thinks they cannot be scammed - this guide is for you.

FUCK ITALY or My Guide to Surviving Your "Dream" Italian Vacation

Disclaimer: I only visited the northern part, Rome, Firenze (Florence), Venezia (Venice), Milano (Milan), Siena and Pisa and Lucca, because after seeing how shambolic the north of the country is, I had no desire to see the south, which the italians themselves say is WORSE than the north. I have spent 5 weeks in Italy as a tourist/vagabond traveller, so your experience may vary.

My First and Every Other Piazza or First Impressions
The country (the north) was generally very clean. The people were slim, short but good looking. italian women are no beauties on the face, yet the shape of the body (slim and svelte) make up for it. The shape hugging jeans or pants leave very little to the imagination.

Yep, I am a guy.

On each touristy piazza, the first thing you will see (other than the usual horde of tourists) is the Bangladeshi street vendors, with their ever present...well, how do I explain it... they have this toy, which is a jelly like substance, in the shape of a piggy. Once thrown on a hard surface (these guys usually have a wooden block on the ground) they splash, flatten themselves, and then come back to their original shape.

Whoop dee doo.

No one buys their stuff, I have no idea how they survive in italy.

There are a lot of Bangladesh guys in italy.

Next up, there is a horde of Africans, who usually sell knock off purses, made from actual leather and with marquee signs (Prada, Liu Jo, Valentino, Fendi etc) on them. In fact, the joke I made to my girlfriend was that the knock offs purses were made from real leather, were better made and with an actual marquee sign than the expensive boutique store purses, which were made from cheap plastic, shoddily made and with no marquee sign (and costing from 600Euros up).

It is well worth it to buy such a knock off purse for your girl, as the African will start the conversation with the usual and ever present "EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME! MISS, PURSE!" and then the inevitable "60Euros" or so.

To which you should laugh, as the actual price, once you haggle, will go down to 20 or even 15 Euros.

Of course, it is illegal to buy such knock off purses from these African street vendors, and there is a (slight) possibility of being chased by the police.

In fact, you can observe the African guys on every piazza (yes, even in Venezia, I was amazed, the same shit everywhere) with their knock off purses and their ever present "EXCUSE ME!", slooooooowly packing up and trotting off, carrying their purses, when they spot a police car slooooooolwy and laaaaazily driving toward them and, err, pursuing them, at .001 miles per hour. Of course, once the cops clear off, the Africans, who have, err, "run" away with their bags the massive distance of 2 metres, will come back and put their wares again on the floor - no biggie.

In fact, only once did an African guy grab his bags and run off, literally run off, but, alas, the Bangladesh lookouts with their ever present maiale (pig) jelly thrown toy failed to give the signal in time and he was caught.

No biggie, though, the African guy gave the italian undercover some Euros and all was well.

So, Bangladesh guys throwing glow-in-the-dark toy helicopters in the night (which do look cool, I admit, but which no one buys) and/or the pig which flattens and then comes back to its original shape (again, no one buys it - ever) , and the horde of Africans peddling their knock off purses.

So, street vendors are the Bangladesh guys and Africans.

Next up on the totem pole are the Chinese and Vietnamese, who have stores in actual buildings, who sell souvenirs, clothing, trinkets, etc. They also have restaurants (Ristorante Cinoise).

Then, everywhere, there are hotels, hotels everywhere, every few steps.

If you feel unhappy with your hotel, walk a few metres, you will find five others to negotiate your better room and price.

Ristorantes, and, even more common, snack bars, which are really coffee bars, which are really social meet up places to go to with your friends (more on which later), and gelato places.

Boutiques, very, very expensive stores with each firm having its own store (so, a Fendi store, a Dolce and Gabbana store, etc etc) with astronomical prices, with no one inside buying stuff (well, perhaps the Japanese, actually buying a Fendi bag for $1100 Euros).

But, strikingly, no offices, no businesses not specifically catering to tourists.

Note that italians are only present in the very high end boutiques, the ordinary stores and street vendor business being dominated by immigrants - Bangladesh and Chinese and Viets.

italians also work in supermercattos (supermarkets), mostly women workers.

Touristy tip - negotiatiate everywhere, and I mean that, everywhere, except supermakets (supermercatto), and high fashion boutiques. Everything else, including money changing kiosks (fucking ESPECIALLY money changing kiosks) is fair game to haggle.

Trains and Train Stations and the Metro: Ai Traini
The good: trains run on time, with slight delays from 5 to 15 minutes. There are two types of trains, the regionale (regional) and AV (the frecciarosa, the fast trains). The fast trains have assigned seats, and are much, much faster than the regional ones (cutting travel time significantly), but you do pay for their benefits.

The metro is relatively modern (speaking of Rome and Milan) and runs on time, and is one of the good things in italy.

The metro is a separate service from the train service, and runs in a given city and its suburbs, while the trains run all across the italian boot.

The good thing is, in Rome, when buying the ticket for either the metro or the train, the ticket is good for both, within the time limit on the ticket. Also good on the buses. Keep in mind that a 1.5Euro ticket can be used on a train, on a metro (1 transfer, which is enough to use the metro to get to Termini stazione and your train) and a bus, which is a VERY good thing and a good deal for a tourist (Firenze is cheaper, at 1.20Euros).

Which reminds me - the tickets for the Rome metro and regionale trains must be swiped inside a machine, which is a bulky green box hanging on a wall somewhere or other (sometimes harder to find at different stations than others). Failure to validazione (validate) your ticket can, if a conductor shows up to check your tickets, result in a fine (because a ticket is only valid only once time stamped and then only for a few hours).

But of course, on a Sunday in the suburbs, the Tabachi are pretty much closed, and there is nowhere to buy your tickets, so you do what the italians do - you ride for free, and if there is a control, you unobtrusively make your way out towards the exit... Just kidding - on a sunday, there are no ticket controls on buses, so feel free to ride for free. The controls only happen on a normal weekday (if they happen at all), and usually only on a regionale or fast train, very rarely on a bus. Most italians have a peculiarly stamped ticket with a scratched off, unreadable time stamp for the buses, while using the metro forces you to REALLY buy your ticket because you must put said ticket into the machine to enter the gate (just like in, say, NY or Chicago 'EL' train metro). Many italians, especially young students, but also saw grandmas doing this, unobtrusively get up and leave a train when they spot a conductor checking tickets (or there is an announcement in italian to this effect on the train speaker system).

The bad: First, the stations are badly organized and planned (imagine that, in Italy - shocking, no?). For example, in Roma Termini, to get to the Linea B (Metro Line 'B') from the normal regionale/fast train terminal, you must walk for about 25 minutes (no exagerration, try it yourself), in a maze of tunnels and walkways. In fact, you make it first to a metro train stop which at first glance makes you think you have arrived at your destination, but, check yourself, this is Linea 'A' and to get to Linea 'B' direzione Anagnina you have further to go (and more escalator stairs to use).

In fact, I think it took us more to make our way from the metro to the Linea 'B' than the actual time to ride the damn thing to our destination.

The good thing is, the signs are there (the letter 'M') for you to follow, the bad news is it is not all level - you will use (going from memory) four escalator stairs down and one escalator stairs up. There are elevators out there to skip the stairs, but they are so cleverly placed that they are hard to find for the ordinary tourist, and even for the Rome italians themselves.

That is, when the elevators work. Which many times, they do not.

Now, imagine the typical tourist, with one or two carry on/rolling bags to carry along. Elevator is nowhere to be found, so you use the moving escalator stairs to go up or down five or six times. Now, imagine for a moment that some of these escalator stairs do not work. That's right, just like the italians next to you, you will lug your heavy bags up and/or down the normal stairs or the broken escalator stairs.

There is no one to ask for directions, and asking italians anything in English is a topic all in itself, which has its own separate section later here.

Buying Tickets.
Buying tickets for the metro is easy - you buy them at the closest Tabachi shop (which carries things like cigarettes and newspapers and such) - there are no official kiosks to buy them, but whatever.

Buying tickets for the fast or regional trains can be accomplished by either buying them from the Bigletteria (ticket office) or by using the modern touch screen machines copiously scattered throughout the train stations, which save you time and provide convenience, versus dealing with a surly, pretending not to speak English public employee. Using these machines makes perfect sense.

So, of course, this being Italy, if it makes sense, do not do it, it is too suspicious - DO NOT USE THE TICKET MACHINES TO BUY TICKETS!

If you are not a completely clueless older American (an "easy mark" for the italians and gypsies), but somebody with some urban/city experience, take a moment to just stand away from the machines and just observe.

You will notice a group of 3-7 (or more) "helpers" at each main hub station (am talking Roma Termini or Milano Centrale), who, speaking perfect English, dressed in some semblance of a uniform (or not, just wearing normal street clothes), are ready to help you.

They will apporach you, smile, be very, very nice, and help you with using the FAST TICKET machines by answering your questions, helping you spell your destination (San Gimignano is S. Gimignano on the machine, not San Gimignano, for example) and being very pleasant.

And they will speak perfect, flawless English.

In fact, this is what alarmed me and made the DANGER! DANGER! signal flash in my head as I was using the machine myself with my girlfriend - our experience with italians in stores and boutiques has been that they were at best surly, at worst abusive and contemptous of us, scum foreigners interfering with their cell phone texting time, and here was a pleasant, smiling (!!! danger !!!) helpful (!!! very VERY suspicious in italy !!!) man helping us.

I thanked him for his help, but told him that we will be buying the tickets at the Bigletteria, at which point the man snarled, turned around and walked off.

How this thievery works is very simple - these "helpers" help you, even to the point of helping you insert your credit card properly, and while doing so they see your credit card number and, of course, your PIN.

In fact, when using the FAST BIGLETTERIA machines to buy your tickets, when pressing the English flag to choose your language, the first thing to come on screen was the warning "Only ask for help from uniformed personnel, and watch out for thieves".

No, for reals, am not kidding.

I have to wryly laugh when reading on internet forums Americans confused as to how in the world their credit card info was stolen. Wonder no more!

But, in fact, a "helper" DID help us with our train ticket purchase, saving us approximately 90Euros in the process. In fact, we liked him so much we gave him four Euros in change - he was the ONLY nice, pleasant, helpful and speaking perfect English italian person to us, waiting to listen and explain and answer our questions, in all of our time in Italy (we gave him about 4 Euros in change for "coffee", which made him thank us effusively).

When buying tickets, most tourists are unaware of that there are several options when choosing to pay for them. The 'BASE' is the base price, the normal price. But sometimes there are other options for you.

'PROMO', which is short for promozione, is the promotional price, which can mean (in our case) "buy one get one free"... resulting in a fast train costing us less than the very slow regionale train for two people. Press this one first on the machine, and if a price pops up, you are in luck (if it is empty, try other paying options, hit the 'BACK' button).

There are also (going from memory, so it is a bit fuzzy) the 'Familglia' option with a slight discount, and a third one which eludes me.

But wait, here I am describing how to buy tickets from a machine, while specifically telling you to NOT, EVER buy tickets from a machine.

That is correct!

You use the machine to check the train time, train number, and the price, especially if there is a PROMO price.

After writing down this information, THEN you go to the Bigletteria, and make sure you tell the surly, unhelphul public employee ticket seller that you want the 'promo' price, as of course the cunt would never deign to inform you of anything that could be helpful to you, the scum foreigner, especially something like a possible lower price to help save you money.

Boarding the Trains
On larger stations (Milano Centrale, Roma Termini, Venezia, ect) there are many binarios (train platforms). And while showing up at your station ahead of time is a good idea, the thing is, the platform on which the train will roll onto will be unknown until about 5 minutes (or less) before the train is supposed to drive off.

What this results in is this typical for Italy scenario: a large mass of people cluster in front of the electronic sign (make sure it says DEPARTURE/PARTENZA, not ARRIVAL), duly noting their train - time of departure, train number (which you were smart enough to check from the touch screen machine, remember - all trains have specific numbers assigned, make sure you make it to the right one), and of course, the binario - which is blank.

The binario, about 5 minutes or less from the train departure time, is then displayed with a number of the platform that the train rolls onto, which results in a horde of Japanese, Americans, Europeans and italians all racing to get the best seats and to make it onto the train - which, sometimes, could be problematic, as, for example, the train being placed on binario 1 ost, which is (I think) the farthest platform on Roma Termini, and which means that if you are 60 and/or out of running shape, or a fat American, you are screwed...

Of course, on regionale trains, the one who makes it first gets to choose their seat, so run quick and choose wisely - hint, you want to be away from the WC (the toilet) as sometimes the fumes can be a bit much. When it gets colder, you might want to sit in a carrozza (wagon) which has a working heater and windows which are not broken/slighly ajar resulting in a draft, in the summer, the one with the working A/C and broken/slighly ajar windows resulting in a pleasant cooling draft (italians hate drafts, and will NOT open a window, even in record heat).

Choose wisely.

Some More Notes on Transportation and Lack of Culture
In Rome, buy your daily ticket for E1.50 one way and feel free to use it to get your transport on - like I said before, if you chose (wisely) to not live in the centre but somewhere cheaper, in the suburbs, get on the train, then the metro, then the bus for that price.

But, chances are, you will only use the metro (and train if located away from city centre) and the stops are right where you want to be (for example, Colloseo is right on the colloseum, which is right there as you exit, which makes an impression even on a jaded, cynical foreign scum like myself).

Italian cities are SMALL - Rome is considered big, but, really, you can hit the main tourist spots in one day, possibly two, and even getting off the tourist spots to discover the 'real rome', you can walk from one end of the city to the other in a few hours. Firenze (Florence) is much smaller, and Venezia smaller still.

NEVER, EVER TAKE A TAXI. If you do, you are an idiot (if you call for a taxi, and the taxi has to drive to your location, the timer starts at the moment he starts driving toward you, not when you enter the cab - I never used a taxi, just asked the driver about the service).

Stick with the trains, the metro (if available), and buses, if absolutely necessary (note: on buses, the machine to validate your ticket - time stamp it - is on the bus itself, make sure you do so as soon as you enter and grab a seat).

Regarding grabbing a seat - the rudeness of the italians and the complete lack of culture and respect for others will hit you when using the bus. What impressed me in London the most was the stoic but cheerful way everybody made a queue to get on the famous English bus - with a new arrival taking their place at the end of the line, and then everybody calmly boarding the bus in the order they joined the queue - with an older English lady being given preference, of course, by a young man.

Italy is exactly the opposite - everybody races in to get a seat first, in the process trampling (or trying to) over my girlfriend, an older signora and myself in the process.

In a normal country - say, USA, England, any country in Eastern Europe (which I recommend you spend your vacation in, as opposed to the 3rd world country which is italy - pick Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, instead of the shithole I am describing), when a woman, especially an older woman, or a woman with heavy baggage, is standing, a man or a boy WILL get up and let the woman sit in their place.

Not so in italy - here, a student will race onto the bus, and the woman with heavy baggage, or a senior lady, will stoically stand there with her bags. In fact, discovering I am a foreigner, I was asked for 'poste' (seat) by an older lady, who did not, however, ask any italian boy or male on the bus, because, well, they wouldn't let her sit down (I did, making me a sucker in their eyes).

On a bus from Pisa (tourist tip - take the bus to Siena from Firenze/Florence, as the train is somewhat far away from the city, while taking a train to Pisa from Firenze is OK), a lady got on about 1/4 way into Firenze (about roughly 40 minutes left of bus travel time) and no man, no young man, got up to give her a seat - despite the fact that she had two very heavy bags, which kept flopping and rolling and then slamming first into the driver compartment, then into the exit doors near the driver (note - I did not get up either, because at that time, every other thought in my head was 'Fuck italy and fuck italians').

Buses exit strategy - there are three doors, one near the driver, one in the middle, and one in the back. The peculiar italian thing is, the back door is only for entering - not exiting. Which could be a problem if the bus gets so crowded that you just cannot make your way to the middle door (especially with your heavy tourist baggage).

At this point, scream at the driver to open the door, and if it doesn't happen, insert a curse word of your choice and scream until it happens - scream in whatever is your native/chosen language.

Riding a Train or a Bus or Alerta Ladroni!
On every italian bus in Firenze, there is a sign in italian to watch out for thieves. If you are reasonably observant, you should notice that in italy, when riding a train, metro or a bus, ladies keep their purses in front of them, with one hand over the purse.

Men also keep their purses in front of them, or have their hand on them (yes... italian men have purses also).

The backpack in italy should be called a frontpack... for obvious reasons.

Thievery is a BIG problem in italy, as italians are very much thieves. Oh, they will tell you that it is the gypsies who do it, but do not kid yourself.

They are thieves.

We had an opportunity to live in a higher class italian private apartment - one that had Air Conditioning (a rarity), and even an insect/bug screen on windows (which even 4 star hotels DO NOT HAVE) on the balcony and windows.

Also, on the balcony, there were 2 gigantic metal gate doors, which to me seemed more appropriate to a maximum security jail than an apartment.

The entry door had a bolt lock - four bolts on top, one on the bottom...

And of course italians do not steal... it is only the foreigners... riiiiiiight...

And that is the north italy - in the south, I have heard reliable stories of guys on scooters snatching purses off of ladies after dark on a street, with my friend describing being pulled on the pavement for a few metres while she was clutching her purse... And on TV, every other story was about yet another woman who died in Napoli (south italy), shot by the mafia.

On every train ride, and I mean on every single one, a gypsy man, woman or child, came on and on every seat near a passenger put a computer printed note (the same one every time) about needing help, please give some money, and God protects at the end (Dia proteggio!).

That's happened on every train in Rome, every single one we took.

Interestingly, no one gives them money, EVER, and so I think the tactic here is to notice who has a purse not on their shoulder, without a hand on top clutching it, and then stealing it - otherwise this begging does not make sense, as, again, no one gives these fuckers any money, ever.

In the metro, in Milano, kids came on and played accordion or a 7 year old, clutching a Casio electronic keyboard in her hand which was blaring pre-recorded music, begged for money.

And one time in Milano, a really, really annoying old woman gypsy accosted passengers and loudly shouted at them for money so that the kid could have "PAR CIOCCOLATE!! CIOCCOLATE!! PARA BAAAAAMBIIINO!!".

Seriously, gypsies are even bigger scum than the italians.

Well, perhaps I went too far - gypsies are scum, on the same level as italians.

Italian People and Some Notes On Various Topics
When perusing fashion catalogues in America, I was always struck by how ridiculous the models looked (especially men) and by the thought of who in the world would wear such ridiculous get ups.

Well, now I wonder no more, as the answer is - the italians.

A scarf is a necessity for a man, women accessorize and wear top notch clothes. A woman on a motor scooter in high heels, a scarf flying behind her and a helmet on a face with a perfect make up is a common sight. italians' driving is a very interesting thing - first up, there are no rules to follow on the road, ever - with the one exception that going the wrong way is a no-no - otherwise, anything goes.

Men have their eyebrows plucked and painted over - or at least worked on to make them perfect and trimmed.

Most are extremely metrosexual, and extremely effeminate.

To the italians, fashion is king, and so in Ottobre (October), with temperatures in Rome and Firenze hitting 30 degree Celsius (very, very hot), women were wearing high winter boots - because, you see, it was the Fall season, and so you simply MUST wear high winter boots.

I never saw one italian wear shorts - ever. Simply not done.

No flip flops, either - only sneakers at worst, or dress shoes.

On the road you will easily see 50 scooters at one time (and motorcycles, but mostly scooters), who happily make their way in between cars, making a one lane street (going one way) into a three lane street.

italian drivers drive to the point of almost touching other vehicles, with a scooter happily staying 10mm away from a giant tourist bus. Accidents are not that common, despite the insanity of italian drivers.

Some italian streets are very narrow (Trastavere in Rome, the old town in Firenze) and scooters and cars happily drive at a very speedy way along them, by some miracle not hitting any tourists or italians who flatten themselves on the walls.

One time, we saw a Bangladeshi (more on them in a moment) scooter driver get hit by a car (well, we heard the crash first). Curious, we ran to see what happened and saw this Bangladeshi dude with a twisted (obviously broken) leg writhing on the street. italian police showed up, marked the accident site with cones, talked to the (french tourist) driver and passanger of the car which hit the scooter, and then proceeded to talk with contempt to the Bangladeshi dude writhing in agony on the ground, telling him to be quiet. We were curious to note how long it would take for an ambulance to show up, but after 15 minutes we walked off, bored (but it's OK, you see, because the guy writing on the floor was a foreigner, and a Bangladeshi, but mostly because he was a foreigner, and this is italian attitude toward foreigners - they hate non italians).

This happened in Milano, close to the one and only skyscraper building we saw in Italy, so it was not somewhere in the boonies, but a city centre. Of course, it was a Sunday, so I am now wondering if if the ospedale (hospital) was even open, were the ambulance workers at their posts, or if perhaps it wasn't the siesta time from noon to 2...

Speaking of siesta - italian stores, boutiques and banks have official working hours, with a typical example being work from 9-12, then on the next line 14-18 (which means siesta is really a two hour lunch, officially, but unofficially...).

Asking for help in English is a losing proposition. In Rome especially, italians will actually turn away from you when you approach them, before you get a chance to ask them a question (they have powerful tourist detection sense, it seems).

If asked and cornered, an italian will answer 'yo no soy' (I don't know) or, in English, 'I don't know'... and walk off away from you.

In fact, during my second (or so) day of my italian experience, we asked a uniformed employee of the national railway company, Trenitalia, on what platform was our train located, and he told us 'Platform 24'.

Which is hilarious, you see, because when we walked down to the tunnel (this was in Odiense if I recall correctly, and we wanted to go to Viterbo direzzione) there was, of course, no platform 24.

Joke's on us, foreign scum!

(Which incident made me instantly suspicious of the super helpful man hovering near the FAST BIGLETTERIA machine a few days later, as italians are NEVER helpful, NEVER smile towards you, and NEVER selflessly try to help you, foreign scum).

In fact, goto http://subway.umka.org/maps/rome.gif and peruse the train and metro map.

Do you see the train going to Viterbo?

That's my train!

But there is a caveat - you see, there are two types of trains going to Viterbo - one is the normal one, which makes all the stops, and one is the express one, which goes straight to Viterbo without any stops.

Now, you would suspect that an express train to Viterbo and a normal train to Viterbo would have different write ups on the electronic sign board listing all the trains - like the one being marked Viterbo Express and the other just Viterbo.

Nope.

Both just list the train departure time, train number, and destinazione - Viterbo.

But the train itself, it is marked 'EXPRESS', no?

No.

It is marked Viterbo. Just like the other one.

So how in the world would you know whether you are on the normal train which will stop on your station or the express one, which will go straight to Viterbo?

You don't - you ask. Or you are a Roma native, and you know that the express train is on this station at a certain time, while the other kind is on another (this is a country where "nobody knows nuttin', and everybody knows everything").

And when asking italians, please peruse my previous sections on the helpfullness, willingness to help and general niceness of italians toward the foreign scum like myself (and yourself).

Asking for Help and italian pride
When asking for help in English - especially in Rome... Forget about it. Just don't do it - or if you do, try to catch a young person.

Why?

Because italians in general hate, hate, hate foreigners, even if they are tourists who bring bukou money into the country and without which there would be no economy to speak of.

Better yet, try learning italian - quick. I had French in high school, and I caught basic italian very quick, and so should you - it is a very simple language. If you are fluent in Spanish, you should have no problems. If you are an American with no language skills other than English, you are fucked.

Asking for help in my broken italian resulted in many instances in help, effusive conversation and helpful comments. Not every time, many italians were still shits, but rougly 40% were not total cunts when speaking to them in italian.

You see, italians are an extremely PROUD people. They are so proud that they TOLERATE you, foreign scum tourist, amidst them.

Eating Out in italia or Holy Fuck What Did I Just Get Charged For?
Case in point - we went to a italian restaurant in Firenze, close to the Duomo (cathedral, a touristy area). While there, my girlfriend was asking about a Calzone, what's in it, etc, which the proprietor answered in pretty decent English then in italian proceeded to order for her!

After clarifying with my broken italian that she was just asking what's in it, not ordering it (this is typical strong arm ristorante tactic, and of course once ordered you have to pay for it), we got a bistecca (steak) and a tourist menu (spaghetti and more spaghetti crap). We made conversation with the proprietor, which generally consisted of the italian lady stating that her food is the best.

It went something like this:
This steak is good, best in city, EHHHHHHHHH? EHHHHHHHHH? EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?

italians for some reason unknown to me are extremely proud of their shit country and will unequivacally state that whatever is made-in-italy is best. Especially to foreigners, especially Americans.

We paid, we left, and then a day later we were walking like tourists do in Firenze, and we happened upon the same street and restaurant and we saw the lady proprietor standing outside, doing the typical italian restaurant thing for tourists (i.e. accosting tourists to come inside into their establishment).

My girlfriend, God bless her, effusive and nice chatted up the lady we just saw yesterday: "Hello, how are you!".

To which the italian lady turned her head, pointedly ignoring her (and me) and looked into the distance.

You see, italians are NOT your friends, you foreign scum - again, they merely TOLERATE you in their midst.

While you are paying them, they will make an effort to be somewhat nice to you (it is very, very hard for them, unnatural even, so you should appreciate them trying). They will talk to you, in English (sometimes even very good English) and try their best manners on you ("You like this steak, very good, yes? EHHHH? EHHHHHHHHH? EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?").

But after you leave their establishment, after paying, you are a nobody to them.

Personal experience - walking in the suburbs of Rome (Giustiniana area), I saw a lady trying to fuel up her (italian technology, hahahaha) Fiat Punto. She first asked me for help in italian, and then catching on, in English.

She used a rolled up newspaper as a tube into which I poured gasoline, and she had to hold it in a special way, forcefully putting/jabbing it into the gas tank to open up the hole and keep it open (her explanation).

Of course, no italian car stopped to help a woman in distress on the side of the road - but you guessed this by now, of course.

Having helped her, she thanked me, in PERFECT English, and drove off happy. The thing is, italians DO speak English, and many do so very well - they just don't want to speak or help you, foreign scum.

In Venezia (Venice), I was standing on a pier, at night, making film and snapping pictures of the boat traffic at night.

A water taxi pulls up, and I notice the passenger and the italian boat driver chatting amicably. The passenger (a Brazilian, I talked to him after) jumps off, and happily waves to the boat operator and shouts "Good bye, thanks for the..." and...

Notices that the italian totally ignores him, picks up his cellulare (cellular phone) from his pocket, and makes a call, while at the same time driving the boat back, away from the pier, not even looking at the Brazilian dude he was just chatting amicably to a few seconds ago.

You see, the Brazilian dude, while a paying passenger, was a client, and the italian deigned to notice him and even to talk to him (he had a water taxi tour of the grand canal, which I was told runs in the 80Euro range for about 20-30 minute tour).

But after his time was up, he was a nobody, not existing, empty air to be ignored.

In Venezia, there are the famous gondoliers. How romantic!...

...Not.

These guys look surly and unpleasant, and gruffly inform you that their prices are 60 or 80 Euros (do the math on the dollar cost) for a 20-30 minute ride... the time, of course, depending on the whim of the gondolier himself.

I observed the "romantic" gondola rides, and noticed that the gondolier does not talk to his passengers (my girlfriend exclaimed that she expected them to sing to her, like in the romantic movies, the poor naive girl). I saw a gondolier call out loudly to his buddy on a bridge and have a loud conversation with him (the guy from the bridge loudly calling down to the gondola) while the Japanese bufuddled pair sat there mutely.

Banco and Tavolo
Now, you did you research and you know that in italy, there are different prices for the same thing in restaurants and bars, right?

I mean, you know about Banco and Tavolo?

If not (chances are you are an American reading this, an "easy mark"), let me explain.

An espresso coffee (basically a few sips of super strong coffee in a cup made for a Barbie doll) will run you one Euro, but only when standing up.

When sitting down in the establishment, the price changes, from 2, 3 or even more Euro.

This is in EVERY restaruant and snack bar in EVERY italian city - not a regional thing, an italian custom.

In Firenze, on the Santa Maria Novella piazza (near the train station, very touristy area), I went to a restaurant and asked how much for 'uno capucci' (one capuccino).

The lady promptly asked me whether I wanted to sit or stand, and if sitting, where (outside, inside)?.

Then she proceeded to punch the touch screen in front of her furiously, for about a minute. I asked, exasperrated, that I only wanted to know the price for one cappucino coffee, and she replied that that was what she was finding out for me.

A guy showed up, and after asking me the same questions (Standing or sitting? Sitting where?), punched the touch screen for another minute or so and then finally told me the answer - 5 Euros, when sitting outside on the piazza (keep in mind, cappucino costs 1.20 to 1.30 Euros when standing up in a snack bar).

What is a snack bar, you ask?

A snack bar is a particularly italian institution, which serves coffee, sometimes gelatto (ice cream) and with coffee serves cornettos and other pastry products.

It is basically a place to go get your coffee and snack and spend some time to meet up and chat with your friends. A very social place, a meet up place, if you want to sit down and have a good time.

One of the few places where italians feel comfortable to chat up other italians who are not their friends - italians do not feel comfortable nor feel the need to talk to people who are not their friends. American "Hi!" is extremely alien to them, but I went on a tangent here...

A snack bar is also a place to grab a quick sandwich or a cornetto and your shot of espresso (italians are addicted to coffee) on your 2-3 siesta on a normal "working" day (quotation marks, because italians DO NOT work, with a few exceptions).

That said, once you get a lay of the land, you become more savvy, like the italians around you.

You know which snack bars don't care if you sit down or not, and which do make it a point to stick it to you. You know how much a coffee should cost, whether you sit down or stand. For example, in Firenze, next to the Duomo, the Black Bar you pay a low price for your damn coffee and they don't give a shit if you sit or stand or whatever (go to the 3rd floor and watch the piazza and Duomo from the window... the guy in there made little hearts from the milk in our capuccinos, cool beans!)... Same with Cafe Mokarica nearby the Duomo, other side - they don't check when you sit down and don't even order anything.

(Which is actually great for their business, as they are always full and popular and well liked... see italians, it makes sense to not treat your customers like leppers).

You know that you NEVER, EVER, EVER eat in a restaurant in a touristy area, because the prices are outrageous and you will be taken advantage of. How do you know if it's a touristy area?

In a restaurant, do you hear customers speaking in italian? No? Then fuck off from there, you do not want to be there.

Avoid like the plague the italian tourist restaurants, with their stupid printed menus in English. Go a bit farther, and find yourself a nice, cozy italian restaurant or pizzeria (note - not a snack bar, those are places for coffee and cornettos, NOT sandwiches which have been there for a year or so in the frozen section).

That said, italian food sucks. It is so bad, that a pretend-italian chain restaurant in America like Olive Garden is 100 times better than the majority of what you will be able to get in italy.

A real italian meal is divided into sections, premiere piatti (first dish) is spaghetti (and there are multiple types of spaghetti, penne, spaghetti, etc, but it is still the same fucking thing, except to italians). The second is something more serious, some meat (carne), potatoes, that kind of thing. And then dessert.

Fish are extremely expensive, and for a country located basically in the Mediterrenean Sea basically very hard to find. Does not make sense, but, of course, che italia!

(Real italian meals begin at about 8PM, and later, and end late, say, 2AM with a coffee and a cornetto. Now, you may ask, how can these guys go to work the next day, and, I gotta say, that's you thinking like an American (or a German, Czech, Pole, Bulgarian, Englishman), because you think these guys work!)

Do not get the spaghetti, because basically you will get your supermarket bought spaghetti with some tomato sauce thrown on it for 10 Euros or more.

And for the love of God, do not eat in a snack bar, that's just a coffee meet up place!

I recommend two types of food in italia - pizza and kebab. Pizza is made in a real oven, and is relatively cheap (Rome and Firenze, with a pizza going for about 5 to 9 Euros for a whole pizza - tutti pizza. Slim, but actually OK and one pizza will fill up two European people or one American).

Ignore the tourist ristauranti made for idiots (remember - if you don't hear any italian in a restaurant when you sit down, run from there) - go for a kebab.

Run by mostly Turkish guys, for 6.50Euro (or 5.50Euro in different places, depending on a city) you can get a big portion (compared to the italian restaurant for idio.... tourists) of vegetables, fries, shavings of chicken or maialo (pig) carne (meat), which is a VERY good deal in italy.

A kebab is a place where many italians go for a REAL meal (not a snack bar coffee + cornetto social occasion) when they are on the go and want a quick bite (they get the kebab piadme, which is a kebab to go in a bun).

And, best of all, in a kebab place, there is no SERVIZIO nor COPERTO charge.

Now, you have done your research and know all about SERVIZIO and COPERTO, right? Right?

Servizio is basically a fee for a "service" given to you in a restaurant. It covers the waiter's tip, the plates, the setup of the table, the napkin - everything.

So, basicallty a tip - so if you, foreign scum, especially talking to my fellow Americans here, see a servizio fee on your bill, DO NOT TIP.

In fact - do not tip in italy, EVER.

A coperto fee is something else - before a meal, in italy, the waiter places a basket of bread on your table. Of course, like I was told by a cashier in a Conad supermercatto, "Non c'e gratis en italia" - nothing is free in italy), it is not free - hence, the coperto fee.

Now, the way I understand it, the law in italy is such that a servizio fee must be written on a menu to be legal (so when perusing the tourist restaurant's menu, look towards the bottom, where in very, very small letters, there will be written "servizio 20%" - which is outragous, as the highest it should be is 10%, FYI).

A coperto, or, in full, pane en coperto (bread in a covering, coperto can be a sleeping blanket, a mail envelope or this), does not have to be listed on the menu, so in effect it is a surprise fee tagged at the end of your meal.

Italians many times do not get this fee, but you, foreign scum, will surely see this.

In fact, in a 4 star hotel, I saw the waiter take a bread basket from one table to another - even while the guy at the first table was still finishing his meal! And this was a 4 star hotel (in Milano, Bischeglie in fact).

So, my standard operating procedure, was to ask first what the servizio and/or coperto was, and if told something unacceptable, to get up and leave without a word... with the italian waiter usually swearing at me, sometimes even in flawless English.

That is why my first choice was kebab places (remember - no servizio nor coperto) and then pizza (cheap and very good, from the over, much better than the restaurant food peddled to the tourist idiots).

Ricivuto Fiscale, or Hello, Gardia di Finanza Nice Person
While in italy, we never, ever, EVER, received a real bona fide receipt for a purchase. Not in a gelato shop, not in a hostel, not in a 4 star hotel. Never.

A real receipt for a good or a service should have on it the VAT "value added tax" (EVO in italian, but I am not sure, as, again, I have never received a proper receipt, perhaps it is IVO, I do not know).

Read up on this on here, a GREAT web page: http://www.walksofitaly.com/blog/travel-tips/how-not-to-get-ripped-off-eating-in-italy

The thing is, there is a special police force in italy, the Guard of the Finances (Gardia di Finanza). They are supposedly tasked with pursuing italians who do not pay all the taxes they owe (which, in my experience, is 100% of all italians living in italy). Here's the deal - on a train, I read up an italian newspaper and saw big news - Gardia di Finanza closed 2 kebab shops in Rome! Huge article on that!

Whoa!

Every hotel, every store, every boutique - none of them gave us a real receipt. And the scary Gardia closed 2 kebab shops (foreign scum, serves them right, no?).

Our friend (a non italian we met in italy, a very charming lady) told us that the Gardia accosted her as she was leaving a store. They asked her for the receipt of a purchase she made at a store, and failing to procure it, she was fined, after they went to the store and the store clerk found her purchase on the computer. She was fined.

So, a tip - KEEP ALL OF YOUR RECEIPTS. The Gardia may accost you and ask you to present one, some or all of them upon their demand - and the fines are for each purchase you cannot prove. Happens rarely, true, but remember, you are foreign scum, and are better targets than the italians.

Churches, Pay to Enter, Foreign Scum
If you are a christian, you may be familiar with the story of Jesus chasing off the money changers from the temple.

Peruse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

A church is a holy place, a place for worship or quiet contemplation. And generally, that is true in most countries - except in italy.

In Rome, it is true, entry to all churches is free (amazing, ain't it).

But in Firenze, or Milan, to enter a cathedral costs you money. Guess that whole gospel thing about Jesus cleansing the temple went right over the italians' heads.

There are security guards, there are tickets to buy, ticket controls. All to enter a church.

I was flabbergasted (and I am not the biggest christian out there...), shocked and offended.

But here is another tourist tip - every duomo, every church has an entrance for free (gratis) if you just ask them and tell them that you want to just pray.

Here is the interesting thing - while the tourists crowd into a densely packed mass in the tourist cordoned section, we made our way in the empty, no tourists just us, section. Which in many instances had better relics and art pieces than the tourist, pay-to-enter section.

Now, it is true, the security guards may choose to not let you enter the pray-only gratis section - it is their call. That is where learning italian comes in handy - asking the question in italian, knowing how to ask and what words to use, pays dividends. In fact, while we were let in, I saw italians being escorted out to the pay-to-enter tourist section.

Changing Money in italy and General Shopping
Holy fuck! Holy fucking shit on a stick!

We went to every bank we could find, in Rome, asking to change money, from American dollars to Euros and asking what the rate is, could you tell us please? We wanted to avoid the rip-off money changing kiosks.

In every bank (and I mean EVERY bank, in Rome) we were told that they either do not change money, while in one bank, the employee told me that I would receive 'approximati' such and such sum for my dollars.

Now, in a normal country, a bank employee telling a client that he will receive an "approximate" amount of euros for his set number of dollars would be unacceptable and, frankly, embarassing to a bank.

But this is italy!

Money is changed in a Cambia, a money changing place. Now, every cambia has an electronic screen with a set number of buy/sell for a particular currency.

Do not pay attention to this number.

The biggest mistake I saw tourists (especially clueless, naive, "easy mark" Americans) make is to go to a first Cambia and change money there (after all, the official rate is always the same, right?).

Talk to the representative. At first, they will tell you the rate on the electronic board (or worse... two times, we were quoted US$100 that we would get for giving them 115Euros... we were buying dollars back and selling Euros when going back to America... the rate at the time was about 0.76 dollars to 1 Euro... We basically were flabbergasted and then we laughed).

Then, when you talk to the rep, usually a woman, the rate will get better.

When you threaten to walk out, the rate will get a whole lot better.

The rate, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the electronic sign on the wall listing the establishment's official rate, but you figured that out by now, haven't you?

Basically, think of a Cambia Money Exchange place as another bazaar stall - you can and SHOULD negotiate for the best rate.

What we did was we walked around to each and every Cambia (the ones marked "Fast and Best" were the slowest and worst, typical italia) and found one that gave us the rate very close to the internet rate, which only the banks use.

We got a paper after our first money change which LOCKED THE RATE for us for several days. Despite protestations by other reps to the contrary, we insisted and gotten the rate we locked for several days, using the piece of paper we have gotten.

Of course, the ladies still tried to fib and cheat and changing the rate or adding to it, but, whatever, we didn't do too badly... unlike the 99.99% of the clueless tourists using the service.

Shopping in italy is an experience, especially for someone from a country which has a philosophy of a business where "our client is our number one priority!".

In italy, the mantra seems to be "our client is a bother and a pest and an enemy".

Buying some silly souvenirs and t-shirts from an italian tourist trap store we were treated to a surly man who glared at us for distrubing him. Buying gelato, the attitude was "Here you go, fuckers" as we were handed our ice cream. Surly was the best attitude we could get from italian shop employees, especially when talking in English.

We have gotten a whole lot worse.

Note, that when speaking in my broken italian, the attitudes have gotten a whole lot better. When asking for a price of sweets in Venezia, insisting on the price being 6 Euros (and the shopkeeper saying 7, checking for us, and they were right). We were joking, laughing and having a good time ("Sei, sete Euros... non che diferido!") and she liked us so much that we got a free cornetto out of it. Go figure.

In another store, Conad supermercatto, a loud and obnoxious guy accosted us, basically pressing himself upon my girlfriend, shouting that he is security, and where did we get the other bag (actually, in another Conad store, we went to this one to get some bottled water because we forgot to buy it in the other one).

After loudly shouting to "NOT LET THEM OUTSIDE THE ROPA!" and "DO NOT LET THEM OUTSIDE!" and making a huge scene, with everybody looking (it was at the cashier), after us physically pushing him away from us and telling him to "RELAX, BUDDY!" and "Calm down!", and finally, exasperated, telling him that we will deal with him after we make our purchase...

We go in, show the asshole our receipt from the other store, and my girlfriend asks him to apologize, or just say excuse me, or just be nice.

"NO EXCUSE, I AM SECURITY!".

"Fuck you, buddy"!.

"FUCK YOU PARA TI!".

This was the one time in italy I lost my cool and used a swear word. It was just too much, with us being treated like thieves, and with a huge screaming guy (well... actually a short guy, italian men are very short) yelling at us with everybody looking...

Of course, us being us, we went to that store again, and we had another plastic bag on us. The sheepishly looking security guy snapped to attention, put a store issue bag over my gf's plastic bag, locked it, and explained that that was typical for italy, see, no need for a "fuck you", etc...

Whatever buddy, enjoy your country, as I will never, willingly, enter it again.

And last, while giving a cashier a 50Euro note, we were screamed at because the cashier wanted a lower denomination. Screaming at the top of her voice, she stormed off to change our 50Euro banknote.

Glaring at us, and still shouting and gesticulating, she gave us our change.

italians are such lovely people.

Ferbo, Short for Ferbuzzo, Or How to Scam Others and Hotelling in Italia
Perhaps I am spelling it wrong, but 'ferbo' is an italian concept of scamming others, but doing so in a sly way, expending as little effort as possible ("italian style").

Almost every store purchase we made, if we talked loudly in English, the cashier tried to scam us. This was accomplished by adding items we did not buy onto our receipt.

Tourist tip - always check your receipts, every time you pay, before you leave an establishment. Every establishment - even supermarkets and high fashion boutiques.

But it is not just us - we saw the cashier at a supermercatto put in QTY 2 Yogurt for a lady ahead of us, while she only had one damn yogurt on the cashier's tray.

So, ferbo for everyone, but foreign tourists make such easy marks, so especially for you.

When reserving a hotel, prepaying the first night, we were told that we will get a room upstairs, which is "the same" like the room we saw on that level, just missing the fridge and safe.

The next night, we show up, and discover that while the room we were shown had carpets, a decent TV, looked nice.

The room at the top floor, well... no carpets, plastic floor, looked somewhat nasty, and, best of all, was not part of the hotel - it was a Soggiorno Touristico (a tourist house, basically worse version of a hotel).

When pointing this out to the hotel keeper, he screamed that "THE ROOM IS SAME!" and "YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES TO PAY ME!".

Which we sheepishly did, because having prepaid the man for first night, we knew we would not get that money back (or majority of it back) due to cancelling reservation or some such... and it was not such a bad room, it had its own bathroom with shower stall (a big thing in italy, as hostels, and one star and sometimes two star hotels, do not have that "luxury"), a working (barely) TV and clean beds.

So, a tip - always know what you are getting, and NEVER pre pay unless you know the hotel is good and the rooms exactly what you want.

Some hostels (for example, Hostel Ciao in Firenze) rival the one and two star hotels in cleanliness and niceness.

After being spoiled by living in America, hotels in italy were a revelation.

In our country, we take things like working A/C, heater, light, having your own bathroom and shower you can fit in, TV, having anti-bug screens on your windows, for granted.

In italia, not so much...

First, no hostel, hotel, even 4 star level, had anti-bug screens on windows.

When it got colder, the hotel turned the heater in each room on, having proudly informed us that they turned the boiler on (I guess the people protested, we didn't bother, our teeth grinding against other teeth from the cold).

But, the heating, like most in italy, is for show... ferbo style. The heating is turned off at 11PM, and not turned on until roughly 6PM next night.

The thinking is, I guess, that the tourist will fall asleep in the heat and not notice the rapid drop in temperature after 23:00...

Basically, the truth is, the worst kind of motel in America is much, much better than the majority of hotels in italy, with a normal Motel 6 being equivalent to a 4 star hotel in that shithole of a country.

Going back to the concept of ferbo, it is so bad, especially for tourists, that we studied every receipt, looking for extra charges or prices for items not corresponding to the listed price on them.

Basically, we expected to be scammed/cheated everywhere we went, and in many cases were not disappointed.

People In the Know or No One Knows Nuttin' (But Everybody Knows Everythin')

italia is a country for "people in the know". Even in a stupid gelato store, when buying ice cream in Rome, if you are "in the know", you will ask for "panna" (whip cream) which is delicious, made from real milk, whipcream, which is put on top of your ice cream.

It is gratis (free), but you get it only if you ask for it.

Most tourists don't, and so don't get it.

In fact, when I asked for "panna", I have gotten a nod from a girl gelate server and a "Ahhhhhh, you know about panna".

See, only for those in the know.

All of italy is like that. It is a country only for "people in the know". Tourists, foreigners, and even italians travelling to a different city/region are the enemy, to be taken advantage of, to cheat and steal from.

And, of course, the naive, clueless, trusting Americans are a favorite target.

In Firenze, you can buy metro/bus tickets in a quartet (4) saving 10 cents (I know, I know, peanuts, but still).

In a train station, you can buy PROMO tickets saving you 1/2 of the price.

In certain snack bars (coffee bars) spots, you can buy coffee for a stand-up price and then sit down, but again, you as a tourist won't know it and will pay 5Euros for a cappucino or 4 for an Espresso.

You must know whether you are going into an express train or the one that will stop at your station, as they are both marked the same, on the train and the electronic sign.

And on and on and on...

My final Thoughts on Italians and Final Thoughts in General on Italy
How do I say this nicely...

italians are scum.

They are lazy, arrogant, extremely proud of their shitty, 3rd world country (the north of italy is shitty, the south, to which I was afraid to go to, actually IS a 3rd world country).

The complete lack of culture, of respect towards others, especially foreigners and tourists, is appaling.

They are not the "warm", "talkative" people - they are cold, to each other but especially towards foreigners, and rude, to each other, but especially foreigners.

They care much more about the impression they make physically (the marquee clothes they are wearing, the shoes, the jeans, the 1980's style Vanilla Ice hairstyles) than their behavior or attitude.

To be fair, they are clean, non smelling, and dressed in nice clothes (except for the youth, who are dressed sometimes in dreadlocks and smelly rags). Ladies do not wear jewelry (remember - thieves everywhere), but if they do, they wear metal rings (no bracelets), perhaps a thin gold (or gold like) necklace with a holy symbol.

Many do indeed look like they stepped out of a fashion magazine - that is to say, ridiculous to a normal person.

Physically women and especially men are short, slim (very few fat italians in north italy that I saw), and their diet explains it - the women, trying to keep in shape and be sexy, are on a diet of espresso coffee or two, a cornetto or two and a pack of cigarrettes per day. The men eat a cornetto and drink an espresso and do not eat too much (speaking of northern italy here).

The laziness beggars description - you must see it to fully appreciate it.

The customer service is nonexistent - again, the mantra here is "our customer is a pest interrupting our cellulare texting time, our enemy".

Like in America, the youth are addicted to their smart phones.

On a train, or a bus, on a street, in a store - italians do not talk to each other. They try very hard to not get into each other's way, not because they respect the other's privacy, but because they do not want the bother/trouble.

This leads me to another thing I noticed - they are bullies, shouting loudly and want to be offensive, but are basically cowards.

A glare from me was enough to silence any man in italy, a soft word was enough to shut them up.

There are no tall building in italy - none. There is only one skyscraper in italy, in Milano, that I saw. The tallest building I saw in Rome was 10 stories high. I assume it is because the workmen who build them steal a percentage of the building materials, and building structures higher than that may result in yet another "leaning tower of Pisa".

You pay to enter the churches, but you also pay for everything else. And so, in Pisa, you pay 15Euros to enter the tower (torre) itself, then 10 for entry to the museum, then 10 for something else... Ferbo. The museums are extremely small, and totally, completely, not worth it. In Paris, I was extremely impressed by my visit to the Louvre, which for a fair price was a life chaging experience, and took all day to explore. italian museums (if one can call it that) have a few art pieces each, and are scattered all over the country/each city. Basically, they try to get as much money off of you as they can, with as little effort as possible (that is the "italian style").

We chatted up a pleasant young woman, a student, in a hostel, who reserved a room for the night for 30Euro. Of course, after coming in, she was told that there were no rooms, but if she wanted to stay, well, the price was 40Euros (or 45, I have trouble remembering).

True "italian style" on display.

Italians run when hearing English, and loathe tourists, especially from America, and make it a point to tout how everything italian is better (EHHHHHH? EHHHHHHH? EHHHHHHH?) while they wear clothes that have" USA" written on them.

In fact, all kids have backpacks that say "Eastman USA", wear American Nike sneakers (fun fact - went to a Foot Locker, asked for sneakers made from actual leather, they do not have them in italy... the prices for normal plastic shoes are from 80Euro to 130Euro, for a piece of shit pair that in America would run you about US$30-60...).

Went to a store and saw a silly clothing line with a prominent "San Diego" on every piece of clothing. In fact, most italians wear shirts with an English phrase or marquee firm on them, but, sometimes lacking basic English speaking and reading skills, the results sometimes are comical - as in, the phrase is funny and the cloth would never be worn by an English speaker, as the phrase on the cloth makes no sense or is offensive.

In fact, while the italians wear jeans and clothes with American/English phrases (many ladies have fashionable scarves in the colors of the American flag, for example, a very common thing), only the foreigners wear clothing that have italian flags and/or "ITALIA" written on them. The boutiques and expensive stores all sell American fashion, or at least fashion with English language writing on them, and only the street vendors sell the "ITALIA" and "Universita di city-you-are-in sweaters and t-shirts for tourists.

So, they hate foreigners, Americans especially, but wear clothes with "USA" on them, and even wear American flags as scarves. Sweaters with a heart enclosing an American flag are common. In fact, I made a joke that it is easy to spot an italian versus an American tourist - an American tourist will wear clothing with an italian flag and "italia" on them, while an italian will wear clothing with "I love America" and an American flag or even "San Diego".

Well, it's not a joke, it's the truth.

(Also, American tourists are easy to spot because, well, they are extremely fat, especially compared to the svelte, slim italians and Japanese tourists).

On TV, there are American shows (CSI, other cop shows, etc) with full italian dubbing. I even saw Letterman with subtitles (surreal, I know).
Better yet, I saw a fully dubbed Price is Right... with a super fat black woman (you know, the ones they choose for Price is Right, the one who runs to the podium and her ta-ta's are a health hazard to those nearby) fully dubbed into italian, and Drew Carey speaking italian, fully dubbed also.

Fucking surreal.

Comic books are mostly Westerns, with the action taking place - where else - in America.

Pathetic.

These lazy fuckers are so jelaous of America, they all yearn to live here, yet being stuck in the shithole they live in they take it out on American tourists and other foreigners.

The prices in boutiques are surreal and completely nonsensical - for example, in the Ferrari store in Firenze, sunglasses made from plastic with a prominent "Made in China" logo on them (alongside the FERRARI logo) cost a cool 480Euros (this is the same type of sunglasses, made in China, that you can buy in a Dollar Store over here).

After talking to our non-italian friends being forced by circumstance to live in that shithole, the truth is that italians buy their stuff from bazaars, in Rome in Trastavere, for example, every Sunday if I am not mistaken, which have the same plastic shoes that you can buy from a boutique for over 80Euros, in the bazaar for 5Euros...

Factories routinely falsified their production figures, with roughly 10% being siphoned off to the black market, landing in the bazaars and stores, with this "secret sale", but, again, only for "people in the know".

Perfume, costing an arm and a leg (if you buy actual Fendi perfume bottle in America, it is cheaper over here than in italy, which is a theme - italian things are cheaper in America than italy) is bought on the black market, with bottles being marked TESTER (which means they are used by customers in a store to test for the smell, except in this case they are fraudulently marked and sold on the black market - typical italia, this).

Police stop the most expensive cars in Rome near the Colloseo, checking if the drivers paid their taxes.

And of course, you have heard of the italian cruise ship captain who, to impress a waiter, run his ship too close to land, ripping the bottom of the vessel, then promptly abandoning ship first and refusing to come back to supervise the evacuation (of stupid, naive American tourist passengers, after all), despite being commanded to do so by the italian navy.

That is italy in a nutshell - incompetence, bravado, showing off and cowardice.

That about sums it up.

I was watching italian news, and there was a report that italian women are less employed than other European women - in fact, only women in Pakistan and other 3rd world moslem shit holes are employed less.

Which is surprising, as in a supermercatto in Rome, in Firenze, it is mostly women who are cashiers and employees, while the men only sit in their security cubicle, looking at cameras (I suppose, so that foreigners do not steal, as of course italians are not thieves, of course).

It is women who work in the Fendi, Prada marquee boutiques, not men.

It was a rarity for me to spot men working.

So, if the rate of employment of women is on par with Pakistan, where women, because of moslem culture, are forbidden to work... well...

Of course, perhaps they based the report of women employment rates on the taxes paid by women... that would explain it.

Che italia!

So You Have Decided to Go To Italy After All
First, I want to say, if you have decided to go to italy after reading all this, Fuck You!

Instead of spending your dollars in the Carribean, where you are treated like a king (or a queen), or in a normal European country, like England, or Czech Republic, or Poland, you choose to go to that shithole of a country after all.

So, again, Fuck You.

Having said that, here are a things to do and experience in that human filth scum pond.

If you are visiting Rome, do go to the tourist area, and see all the touristy spots - The Fountain of Trevia, the Colloseum (if you choose, spend Euros to go inside, if you want, not necessary, but cool), the Pantheon (one of the very few buildings from the times of Ancient Rome that survived, and it is free to enter as it is a church, and Rome churches are gratis entry).

In fact, in Rome, go to every church you stumble upon, even ones not listed in your silly tourist guide, as most of them are amazing from an architectural point of view (even to my jaded, cynical American self).

Panteon and Roman Forum are OK to go to, even though they do cost an arm and a leg (as usual, the italians try to get as much money off of you as possible). But, again, for "people in the know", there are free tours of both, led by an American student, sponsored by a tour agency. Yes, you read that right - free tours, saving you, oh, 30 Euro per person (and that is just entry fee - a guided tour costs you much, much more).

The funny thing was, as Brad, the American student, was organizing the tour (getting the people to join in), we had people run off, scared, as something for free in italy sounded too much like a scam ( I can't blame them, I was suspicious myself).

So, there are free tours, but again, only for "people in the know".

The Panteon is mostly ruins, with basically walls made of bricks predominating the scenery, and an odd surving column rising up from the ground, and one surviving building from Roman times, alas with a no entry for tourists.

If it is not a free tour, it is your call if you want to enter or not - if you are on a wheelchair, or are old, DO NOT enter, as there are (like in the majority of italy) no provisions for disability or older folk easy access, it is hills and lots of stairs.

The complex of Roman Forum and Panteon is probably worth it to splurge on.

Baths of Caracalla - much less so.

Do avoid the Terme di Caracalla - the old Roman times bath, exercise gym and spa complex is gigantic, but it is just ruins, basically big walls made from bricks - nothing to see there, the entry is again (no surprise) expensive, the audioguide you tote along doubling the price.

Just walls rising out of the ground (whoop dee doo).

Pay attention to all around you - there are palazzos you can visit, with their own charming collection of statues, paintings and painted ceilings in italian cities, and tours of them are many times free, but if you don't know italian, you will miss them.

Do go to the Trastavere section of the city - charming, very narrow streets, old buildings, italian cars and motor scooters driving within 10 mm of your body - good times. Do go to the Via Scuola, find the pizzeria run by two young guys with Roma soccer team posters - perhaps the best pizza in Roma.

Do drink the water located all over Rome in metal taps rising out of the ground - this is water straight from the mountains, using aqueducts from the Roman times (that it was not improved upon, and is running continously, effectively wasting all this water on the ground, is typically italian).

But watch out - water in Rome has chalk in it, and whether using water in your hotel bathroom or the "aqua potable" (water ready for human consumption), I recommend first filling up a bottle, and then using only the water, being careful to toss the chalky deposit on the bottom, before boiling it or drinking it.

The water in the streets from the water fountains "aqua potable" - you may want to check for chalk by first filling up your water bottle.

The best water we found in Trastevere, which together with the best pizza, the smaller number of clueless tourists, the narrow, charming streets and gelato store (also on Via Scuola, but really they are all over) makes it my favorite place to go to in Rome.

Do go to the non tourist section of Rome - I recommend the Pyramide metro stop. Do go to the nearby shops and check the prices - compare them to the price for the same items you would pay in a touristy area.

Do walk all over Rome - it is a VERY small city (not counting the suburbs) and in a few days you will be able to walk all over it, from one end to the next.

Feel free to buy the knock off purses from the African guys - hell, they are so well made, they are actually better manufactured than the real, plastic stuff you can buy off of boutiques for a thousand Euros.

Visit the park and Villa Borghese - it is one of the few museums worthy of your money.

Do visit the Citi di Vaticano - I don't care if you are Catholic, the Vatican museum is the best in Rome, and perhaps all of italy.

The basilica is an architecural marvel, like the Firenze or Milano Duomos.

Tourist tip - on every last Sunday of every month, museums in Rome are free (note that Vatican, I think, is excluded), so perhaps visit Villa Borghese and the park, making it a nice, lazy Sunday.

Do visit Firenze (Florence), it is charming with its small, narrow streets - but watch out for the scooters riding out of the next corner at full speed.

Do visit every church, especially the Duomo, to pray only, of course, not to be a tourist, perish the thought.

From Firenze, take the train to Siena, which is a charming city, again, very narrow streets, think Roma Trastavere but the whole medieval city is like that, and then Pisa.

Firenze and Siena are my two favorite cities in italia.

Siena, though, is a hilly place, where you will walk either up or down, but it is well worth it.

Pisa is a tourist trap - go there, snap a few pictures of the stupid tower, avoid the museums (if you must go on top of the torre, do so, but why, really?).

Firenze is in Toscana, which is, I admit, a very nice country from an aesthetic point of view.

In case you have time, after Siena and Pisa, take some train rides to other small towns, like Lucca, or San Gimignano, for example.

Short range train travel is very cheap, running you a measly 6Euros or perhaps 11Euros or so, so take advantage of it.

Do visit Venezia, it is something else, with no motor scooters, no cars, with canals being used for transportation (you won't see a garbage boat in any other place than Venice, will you now, with a working crane and all?).

Shockingly, Bangladeshi and African street vendors are here, also... Go figure.

Venezia can get pricey, so the "people in the know" grab a hotel in Mestre, which is on the other side of Venice, where hotels run much cheaper than in Venezia... and it is just a 5 minute train ride on a bridge which runs from Venice to the mainland.

In every touristy city there are guys in the train stations whose job is to find you a hotel room (from which they get a cut). Some of them are official, they even have a badge which states (in italian) that they are authorized to work as such in a given station.

Do talk to these guys, and tell them what you want - a super pricey dream hotel, or just a bed and a shower (or just a bed) and they will get you what you want, if possible, gratis for you.

Milan is not a touristy city - the Duomo (cathedral) is bigger than the one in Firenze (and the one in Firenze is gigantic) but that's about it for the touristy stuff there. Milano is the finance city of italy - think Wall Street, NY - and so is not specifically made for tourists, unlike, say, Rome or Firenze.

Do buy the gelato, in Rome, especially, and do ask for panna on top. Do not buy gelato in Lucca, because it sucks there for some reason.

Do not buy cornettos in a snack bar, or any sandwiches (how long have they been there?). Do buy a cake named Baba (pretty decent rum sponge cake) and buy any bakery products with real, actual panna (not crema anything, you want real whipcream made from milk).

All other cakes suck.

Do make your shopping at the supermercatto, especially bottled water, which is cheap (30 cents to 1Euro, with 1.10Euro for the super popular San The, which is San Benedetto water with infusion of tea).

Buy some cheeses, but especially buy some veggies and fruits - in America, we irradiate all our imported fruits and veggies, which makes them lose all taste and most vitamins.

In italia, tomatoes smell naturally, and are fucking delicious, and have actual taste, unlike in America (Wow, I actually said a nice thing about italy!). Ditto for other veggies and fruits.

Do not buy an italian sausage, like a Toscana Surpressa, or any other sausage surpressa, because a surpressa (a "surprise") means you don't know what kind of meat you are getting in there...

italian macelleria (butcher shop) is gross, disgusting, incredibly gross and disgusting, with chickens and another kind of bird, with orange feet, black meat, over frozen... just ugh... gross. Pigeons also sold there, I believe. Ugh.

Do not buy prosciutto crudo, it is gross and disgusting. If you want some kind of a ham, buy prosciutto cotto, it's... OK.

Sometimes, if you are lucky, a store will have a porca something, which is a whole pig cut into one big slab, and a guy ready to cut portions for you.

Do buy supermarket pizza, it is freshly made and not bad and can be eaten cold.

But mostly, italian sausages and ham-like products are full of fat and disgusting.

And last but not least, do buy gelato, it is the one thing I will miss here back in the states - I wish it could be replicated here, as the ice cream in this country does not compare to their gelato.

The outrage missing over the Romney tape

2012-09-19T22:35:00.000-07:00

So a yahoo got into a Romney (current presidential candidate in the Yoo Ess of Ey, if you have been living under a rock and don't comprende) cool kids party, and taped the whole shebang, the noise of clattering forks and knives and all that... oh... my!

Rowdy!

Apparently Romney said something oooopsie that he shouldn't have said.

What is our mainstream media so much in a tiffy about?

Lets take a peek at the controversy, nay, at the incredibly juicy, giving and giving more gaffe, as showcased by America's bestest Action Gay Pundit Man! (What gravitas on that noble face; wow!).

Whoa! People will vote goodies for themselves!

That is definitely NOT how American "democracy" works!

There is absolutely NO pandering in our politics, perish the thought!

(Note that Mitty speaking in front of this audience is not pandering, it is campaigning, you knave! Big difference!).

Again - Whoa! People will vote goodies for themselves!

This definitely does not explain why Republicans are the party of millionaires, and Democrats are the party of black people. It's all a mystery and definitely needs more research by our crack head university professors - especially those in the Afro-is-best departments nationwide!

(Now, I said that Republicans are the party of millionaires, NOT billionaires, but that idea is way too complicated and I am too much of a moron to figure it out, and it makes my head and brain go ouchie, so nyaaah).

What a big boo boo this speech was! What a huge gaffe!

CNN Action Opinion blogger man: What a gaffe!

CBS Political Hotsheet, oh my, what a gaffe!

NPR, snicker, snicker, gosh, that sweater sure itches my neckbeard here in the hot LA studios with broken air conditioning, tee hee hee, gaffe!

Gaffe! Gaffe! Gaffe! Gaffe! Gaffe! Gaffe! Gaffe!

You should know by now that our media is obsessed with sound bites - short, juicy statements by a big guy (tm) that they can latch onto, to either promote or destroy him.

The media's representatives chose to latch onto this specific part of the Romney super sikrit tape.

But the man spoke before and after this little tidbit. Perhaps he said something else that could be a gaffe, to be milked, made fun of, highlighted and showcased to our ADD mass-media-addled brains?

Why, he said something like, about, the, umm...

This question and answer segment was not highlighted, showcased (or even showed) by our mass media.

Therefore, this is

Not a gaffe! Not a gaffe! Not a gaffe! Not a gaffe! Not a gaffe!

(and definitely not that important).

Bonus Content is a bonus, bonus

This dinner shindig was not in Israel, nor in Palestine (huahuahuahuahua), so why would an American concerned citizen be asking about the Middle East - specifically the Palestinian Israeli conflict?

Of course, when I go to talk to my friends about stuff as our families mingle, THE HOT TOPIC of conversation is The Palestinian Israeli conflict- both in the women group, with the kids on their knees (and all over the floor) and the men group, with their (our!) beers (and other adult beverages), standing together and forming a circle (the men, not the alcoholic drinks, although one time a few weeks ago...).

Yes, some douchebags talk about Romney, how they like him over Obama, some retards talk about Obama being a great man, others talk about losing their jobs and crying, about wanting to kill themselves, but, really, THE HOT ISSUE is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is THE most pressing, most talked about problem in America today.

Interestingly, and totally intruding with the flow of the blogpost - who was that man asking "Romney the CEO Action Man!" (who promises no taxes to the top 0.1%; his voter base); and, really, what was that incredibly fun party that we were privy to watch?

Well, lets start that the dinner at this party was somewhat pricey, reportedly in the range of

"$50,000-a-plate" (Wall Street Journal Blog) and that it took place in Florida (Wall Street Journal Blog).

There will now follow a trademarked, incredibly insightful, eye opening, life changing

American Goy Analysis (tm!).

Apparently, in America, specifically in Florida (or at least willing to travel there to not be square), there are some very rich people, able to pop $50,000 the same way that you spring $1 for that delicious Snickers bar that has been in that machine for a few good months (Mmmmm! Really satisfies! OK, your 1 minute lunch break is over, now back to work, slave!).

And these people, the VERY rich Americans, specifically in America, Americans living in America, are very, VERY, VERY concerned about the Palestinian Israeli Conflict; it is THE issue for them.

It's a mystery (why that is)!!!!!1111111

I am sure some of you intrepid readers have figured it out and will clarify for my dumb, Slav dumbass (Borat was right about us Slavs, oy... we dumb and anti semitic, grunt).

Chicago Teachers' Union: The Causes of the Strike or What it's like to teach black kids, for real y'all

2012-09-18T19:00:00.005-07:00

CNN, dated September 17, 2012:

The Chicago teachers strike drags into a second week, after a representative group of the Chicago Teachers Union decided over the weekend not to end the walkout even though union leaders and school officials had reached a tentative contract deal.

The strike in the third-largest school system in the country is affecting more than 350,000 children.

A quick primer:

Q. What's the sticking point?

A. Among the major issues, the teachers are negotiating over the length of the school day, objecting to their evaluations being tied to performance and fretting about potential job losses.

Why would teachers object to their pay being based on their performance.

Well, first, DUH! Wouldn't you love it if your work pay (and not being fired) was NOT based on how you well or badly you worked?

Secondly, you should feel a little bad for the overweight land whales in red union shirts parading on your TV screen during "news" shows.

Q. Why are teachers objecting to evaluations tied to performance?

A. The union says student performance is directly linked to conditions in the home or neighborhood, making it unfair for teachers to be punished if students don't do well in the the classroom for those reasons.

About CPS, stats and facts:

Student racial breakdown

African-American: 41.6%

Latino: 44.1%

White: 8.8%

Asian/Pacific Islander: 3.4%

Native American: 0.4%

Would you like your pay to be based on trying to teach these kids?

How about your pay being based on how well they do on tests?

A brave teacher, on a blog that has his name on it (!!!) has posted the reality (the original article was deleted, so I chose to put the whole writeup, it is WELL worth reading).

What It is Like to Teach Black Students
by Christopher Jackson
MartyNemko.blogspot.com

Until recently I taught at a predominantly black high school in a southeastern state.

The mainstream press gives a hint of what conditions are like in black schools, but only a hint. Expressions that journalists use like “chaotic” or “poor learning environment” or “lack of discipline” do not capture what really happens. There is nothing like the day-to-day experience of teaching black children and that is what I will try to convey.

One of the most immediately striking things about my students was that they were loud. They had little conception of ordinary decorum. It was not unusual for five students to be screaming at me at once.

It did no good to try to quiet them and white women were particularly inept at trying. I sat in on one woman’s class as she begged the children to pipe down. They just yelled louder so their voices would carry over hers.

So many of them seemed to have no conception of waiting for an appropriate time to say something. They would get ideas in their heads and simply had to shout them out. I might be leading a discussion on government and suddenly be interrupted: “We gotta get more Democrats! Clinton, she good!” The student may seem content with that outburst but two minutes later, he would suddenly start yelling again: “Clinton good!

Anyone who is around young blacks will probably get a constant diet of rap music. Blacks often make up their own jingles, and it was not uncommon for 15 boys to swagger into a classroom, bouncing their shoulders and jiving back

They were yelling back and forth, rapping 15 different sets of words in the same harsh, rasping dialect. The words were almost invariably a childish form of boasting: “Who got dem shine rim, who got dem shine shoe, who got dem shine grill (gold and silver dental caps)?” The amateur rapper usually ends with a claim—in the crudest terms imaginable—that all womankind is sexually devoted to him. For whatever reason, many of my students would often groan instead of saying a particular word, as in, “She suck dat aaahhhh (think of a long grinding groan), she f**k dat aaaahhhh, she lick dat aaaahhh.”

So many black girls dance in the hall, in the classroom, on the chairs, next to the chairs, under the chairs, everywhere. Once I took a call on my cell phone and had to step outside of class. I was away about two minutes but when I got back, girls had lined up at the front of the classroom and were convulsing to the delight of the boys.

Blacks, on average, are the most directly critical people I have ever met: “Dat shirt stupid. Yo’ kid a bastard. Yo’ lips big.” Unlike whites, who tread gingerly around the subject of race, they can be brutally to the point. Once I needed to send a student to the office to deliver a message. I asked for volunteers, and suddenly you would think my classroom was a bastion of civic engagement. Thirty dark hands shot into the air. My students loved to leave the classroom and slack off, even if just for a few minutes, away from the eye of white authority. I picked a light-skinned boy to deliver the message. One very black student was indignant: “You pick da half-breed.” And immediately other blacks take up the cry, and half a dozen mouths are screaming, “He half-breed.”

For decades, the country has been lamenting the poor academic performance of blacks and there is much to lament. There is no question, however, that many blacks come to school with a serious handicap that is not their fault. At home they have learned a dialect that is almost a different language. Blacks not only mispronounce words; their grammar is often wrong. When a black wants to ask, “Where is the bathroom?” he may actually say “Whar da badroom be?” Grammatically, this is the equivalent of “Where the bathroom is?” And this is the way they speak in high school. Students write the way they speak, so this is the language that shows up in written assignments.

It is true that some whites face a similar handicap. They speak with what I would call a “country” accent that is hard to reproduce but results in sentences such as “I’m gonna gemme a Coke.” Some of these country whites had to learn correct pronunciation and usage. The difference is that most whites overcome this handicap and learn to speak correctly; many blacks do not.

Most of the blacks I taught simply had no interest in academic subjects. I taught history, and students would often say they didn’t want to do an assignment or they didn’t like history because it was all about white people. Of course, this was “diversity” history, in which every cowboy’s black cook got a special page on how he contributed to winning the West, but black children still found it inadequate. So I would throw up my hands and assign them a project on a real, historical black person. My favorite was Marcus Garvey. They had never heard of him, and I would tell them to research him, but most of them never did. They didn’t care and they didn’t want to do any work.

Anyone who teaches blacks soon learns that they have a completely different view of government from whites. Once I decided to fill 25 minutes by having students write about one thing the government should do to improve America. I gave this question to three classes totaling about 100 students, approximately 80 of whom were black. My white students came back with generally “conservative” ideas. “We need to cut off people who don’t work,” was the most common suggestion. Nearly every black gave a variation on the theme of “We need more government services.”

My students had only the vaguest notion of who pays for government services. For them, it was like a magical piggy bank that never goes empty. One black girl was exhorting the class on the need for more social services and I kept trying to explain that people, real live people, are taxed for the money to pay for those services. “Yeah, it come from whites,” she finally said. “They stingy anyway.”

“Many black people make over $50,000 dollars a year and you would also be taking away from your own people,” I said. She had an answer to that: “Dey half breed.” The class agreed. I let the subject drop.

Many black girls are perfectly happy to be welfare queens. On career day, one girl explained to the class that she was going to have lots of children and get fat checks from the government. No one in the class seemed to have any objection to this career choice.

Surprising attitudes can come out in class discussion. We were talking about the crimes committed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and I brought up the rape of a young girl in the bathroom of the Superdome. A majority of my students believed this was a horrible crime but a few took it lightly. One black boy spoke up without raising his hand: “Dat no big deal. They thought they is gonna die so they figured they have some fun. Dey jus’ wanna have a fun time; you know what I’m sayin’?” A few black heads nodded in agreement.

My department head once asked all the teachers to get a response from all students to the following question: “Do you think it is okay to break the law if it will benefit you greatly?” By then, I had been teaching for a while and was not surprised by answers that left a young, liberal, white woman colleague aghast. “Yeah” was the favorite answer. As one student explained, “Get dat green.”

How the world looks to blacks

One point on which all blacks agree is that everything is “racis’.” This is one message of liberalism they have absorbed completely. Did you do your homework? “Na, homework racis’.” Why did you get an F on the test? “Test racis’.”

I was trying to teach a unit on British philosophers and the first thing the students noticed about Bentham, Hobbes, and Locke was “Dey all white! Where da black philosophers’?” I tried to explain there were no blacks in eighteenth century Britain. You can probably guess what they said to that: “Dat racis’!” One student accused me of deliberately failing him on a test because I didn’t like black people.

“Do you think I really hate black people? “Yeah.” “Have I done anything to make you feel this way? How do you know?” “You just do.” “Why do you say that?” He just smirked, looked out the window, and sucked air through his teeth. Perhaps this was a regional thing, but the blacks often sucked air through their teeth as a wordless expression of disdain or hostility.

My students were sometimes unable to see the world except through the lens of their own blackness. I had a class that was host to a German exchange student. One day he put on a Power Point presentation with famous German landmarks as well as his school and family. From time to time during the presentation, blacks would scream, “Where da black folk?!” The exasperated German tried several times to explain that there were no black people where he lived in Germany. The students did not believe him. I told them Germany is in Europe, where white people are from, and Africa is where black people are from. They insisted that the German student was racist and deliberately refused to associate with blacks.

Blacks are keenly interested in their own racial characteristics. I have learned, for example, that some blacks have “good hair.” Good hair is black parlance for black-white hybrid hair. Apparently, it is less kinky, easier to style, and considered more attractive. Blacks are also proud of light skin. Imagine two black students shouting insults across the room. One is dark but slim; the other light and obese. The dark one begins the exchange: “You fat, Ridario!” Ridario smiles, doesn’t deign to look at his detractor, shakes his head like a wobbling top, and says, “You wish you light skinned.”

They could go on like this, repeating the same insults over and over.

My black students had nothing but contempt for Hispanic immigrants. They would vent their feelings so crudely that our department strongly advised us never to talk about immigration in class in case the principal or some outsider might overhear.

Whites were “racis’,” of course, but they thought of us at least as Americans. Not the Mexicans. Blacks have a certain, not necessarily hostile understanding of white people. They know how whites act, and it is clear they believe whites are smart and are good at organizing things. At the same time, they probably suspect whites are just putting on an act when they talk about equality, as if it is all a sham that makes it easier for whites to control blacks. Blacks want a bigger piece of the American pie. I’m convinced that if it were up to them they would give whites a considerably smaller piece than whites get now, but they would give us something. They wouldn’t give Mexicans anything.

What about black boys and white girls? No one is supposed to notice this or talk about it but it is glaringly obvious: Black boys are obsessed with white girls. I’ve witnessed the following drama countless times. A black boy saunters up to a white girl. The cocky black dances around her, not really in a menacing way. It’s more a shuffle than a threat. As he bobs and shuffles he asks, “When you gonna go wit’ me?”

There are two kinds of reply. The more confident white girl gets annoyed, looks away from the black and shouts, “I don’t wanna go out with you!” The more demure girl will look at her feet and mumble a polite excuse but ultimately say no.

There is only one response from the black boy: “You racis’.” Many girls—all too many—actually feel guilty because they do not want to date blacks. Most white girls at my school stayed away from blacks, but a few, particularly the ones who were addicted to drugs, fell in with them.

There is something else that is striking about blacks. So many of them seem to have no sense of romance, of falling in love. What brings men and women together is sex, pure and simple, and there is a crude openness about this. There are many degenerate whites, of course, but some of my white students were capable of real devotion and tenderness, emotions that seemed absent from most blacks—especially the boys.

Black schools are violent and the few whites who are too poor to escape are caught in the storm. The violence is astonishing, not so much that it happens, but the atmosphere in which it happens. Blacks can be smiling, seemingly perfectly content with what they are doing, having a good time, and then, suddenly start fighting. It’s uncanny. Not long ago, I was walking through the halls and a group of black boys were walking in front of me. All of a sudden they started fighting with another group in the hallway.

Blacks are extraordinarily quick to take offense. Once I accidentally scuffed a black boy’s white sneaker with my shoe. He immediately rubbed his body up against mine and threatened to attack me. I stepped outside the class and had a security guard escort the student to the office. It was unusual for students to threaten teachers physically this way, but among themselves, they were quick to fight for similar reasons.

The real victims are the unfortunate whites caught in this. They are always in danger and their educations suffer. White weaklings are particularly susceptible, but mostly to petty violence. They may be slapped or get a couple of kicks when they are trying to open a bottom locker. Typically, blacks save the hard, serious violence for each other.

There was a lot of promiscuous sex among my students and this led to violence. Black girls were constantly fighting over black boys. It was not uncommon to see two girls literally ripping each other’s hair out with a police officer in the middle trying to break up the fight. The black boy they were fighting over would be standing by with a smile, enjoying the show he had created. For reasons I cannot explain, boys seldom fought over girls.

Pregnancy was common among the blacks, though many black girls were so fat I could not tell the difference. I don’t know how many girls got abortions, but when they had the baby they usually stayed in school and had their own parents look after the child. The school did not offer daycare.

Aside from the police officers constantly on campus, security guards are everywhere in black schools—we had one on every hall. They also sat in on unruly classes and escorted students to the office. They were unarmed but worked closely with the three city police officers who were constantly on duty.

There was a lot of drug-dealing at my school. This was a way to make a fair amount of money but it also gave boys power over girls who wanted drugs. An addicted girl—black or white—became the plaything of anyone who could get her drugs.

One of my students was a notorious drug dealer. Everyone knew it. He was 19 years old and in eleventh grade. Once he got a score of three out of 100 on a test. He had been locked up four times since he was 13.

One day, I asked him, “Why do you come to school?”

He wouldn’t answer. He just looked out the window, smiled, and sucked air through his teeth. His friend Yidarius ventured an explanation: “He get dat green and get dem females.”

“What is the green?” I asked. “Money or dope?” “Both,” said Yidarius with a smile.

A very fat student interrupted from across the room: “We get dat lunch,” Mr. Jackson. “We gotta get dat lunch and brickfuss.” He means the free breakfast and lunch poor students get every day. “Nigga, we know’d you be lovin’ brickfuss!” shouts another student.

Some readers may believe that I have drawn a cruel caricature of black students. After all, according to official figures some 85 percent of them graduate. It would be instructive to know how many of those scraped by with barely a C- record. They go from grade to grade and they finally get their diplomas because there is so much pressure on teachers to push them through. It saves money to move them along, the school looks good and the teachers look good.

Many of these children should have been failed but the system would crack under their weight if they were all held back.

How did my experiences make me feel about blacks? Ultimately, I lost sympathy for them. In so many ways they seem to make their own beds. There they were in an integrationist’s fantasy—in the same classroom with white students, eating the same lunch, using the same bathrooms, listening to the same teachers—and yet the blacks fail while the whites pass.

One tragic outcome among whites who have been teaching for too long is that it can engender something close to hatred. One teacher I knew gave up fast food—not for health reasons but because where he lived most fast-food workers were black. He had enough of blacks on the job. This was an extreme example but years of frustration can take their toll. Many of my white colleagues with any experience were well on their way to that state of mind.

There is an unutterable secret among teachers: Almost all realize that blacks do not respond to traditional white instruction. Does that put the lie to environmentalism? Not at all. It is what brings about endless, pointless innovation that is supposed to bring blacks up to the white level. The solution is more diversity—or put more generally, the solution is change. Change is an almost holy word in education, and you can fail a million times as long as you keep changing. That is why liberals keep revamping the curriculum and the way it is taught. For example, teachers are told that blacks need hands-on instruction and more group work.

Teachers are told that blacks are more vocal and do not learn through reading and lectures. The implication is that they have certain traits that lend themselves to a different kind of teaching.

Whites have learned a certain way for centuries but it just doesn’t work with blacks. Of course, this implies racial differences but if pressed, most liberal teachers would say different racial learning styles come from some indefinable cultural characteristic unique to blacks. Therefore, schools must change, America must change. But into what? How do you turn quantum physics into hands-on instruction or group work? No one knows, but we must keep changing until we find something that works.

Public school has certainly changed snce anyone reading this was a student. I have a friend who teaches elementary school and she tells me that every week the students get a new diversity lesson, shipped in fresh from some bureaucrat’s office in Washington or the state capital. She showed me the materials for one week: a large poster, about the size of a forty-two inch flat-screen television. It shows an utterly diverse group—I mean diverse: handicapped, Muslim, Jewish, effeminate, poor, rich, brown, slightly brown, yellow, etc.—sitting at a table, smiling gaily, accomplishing some undefined task. The poster comes with a sheet of questions the teacher is supposed to ask. One might be: “These kids sure look different, but they look happy. Can you tell me which one in the picture is an American?”

Some eight-year-old, mired in ignorance, will point to a white child like himself. “That one.”

The teacher reads from the answer, conveniently printed along with the question. “No, Billy, all these children are Americans. They are just as American as you.”

This is what happens at predominately white, middle-class, elementary schools everywhere. Elementary school teachers love All of the Colors of the Race, by award-winning children’s poet Arnold Adoff.

These are some of the lines they read to the children: “Mama is chocolate … Daddy is vanilla … Me (sic) is better … It is a new color. It is a new flavor. For love. Sometimes blackness seems too black for me, and whiteness is too sickly pale; and I wish every one were golden. Remember: long ago before people moved and migrated, and mixed and matched … there was one people: one color, one race. The colors are flowing from what was before me to what will be after. All the colors.”

Teaching as a career

It may come as a surprise after what I have written, but my experiences have given me a deep appreciation for teaching as a career. It offers a stable, middle-class life but comes with the capacity to make real differences in the lives of children. In our modern, atomized world children often have very little communication with adults—especially, or even, with their parents—so there is potential for a real transaction between pupil and teacher, disciple and master.

A rewarding relationship can grow up between an exceptional, interested student and his teacher. I have stayed in my classroom with a group of students discussing ideas and playing chess until the janitor kicked us out. I was the old gentleman, imparting my history, culture, personal loves and triumphs, defeats and failures to young kinsman. Sometimes I fancied myself Tyrtaeus, the Spartan poet, who counseled the youth to honor and loyalty. I never had this kind intimacy with a black student, and I know of no other white teacher who did.

Teaching can be fun. For a certain kind of person it is exhilarating to map out battles on chalkboards, and teach heroism. It is rewarding to challenge liberal prejudices, to leave my mark on these children, but what I aimed for with my white students I could never achieve with the blacks.

There is a kind of child whose look can melt your heart: some working-class castaway, in and out of foster homes, often abused, who is nevertheless almost an angel. Your heart melts for these children, this refuse of the modern world.

Many white students possess a certain innocence; their cheeks still blush. Try as I might, I could not get the blacks to care one bit about Beethoven or Sherman’s march to the sea, or Tyrtaeus, or Oswald Spengler, or even liberals like John Rawls, or their own history. Most of them cared about nothing I tried to teach them. When this goes on year after year, it chokes the soul out of a teacher, destroys his pathos, and sends him guiltily searching for The Bell Curve on the Internet.

Blacks break down the intimacy that can be achieved in the classroom, and leave you convinced that that intimacy is really a form of kinship. Without intending to, they destroy what is most beautiful—whether it be your belief in human equality, your daughter’s innocence, or even the state of the hallway.

Just last year I read on the bathroom stall the words “F**k Whitey.” Not two feet away, on the same stall, was a small swastika.

The National Council for the Social Studies, the leading authority on social science education in the United States, urges teachers to inculcate such values as equality of opportunity, individual property rights, and a democratic form of government. Even if teachers could inculcate this milquetoast ideology into whites, liberalism is doomed because so many non-whites are not receptive to education of any kind beyond the merest basics.

It is impossible to get them to care about such abstractions as property rights or democratic citizenship. They do not see much further than the fact that you live in a big house and “we in da pro-jek.” Of course, there are a few loutish whites who will never think past their next meal and a few sensitive blacks for whom anything is possible, but no society takes on the characteristics of its exceptions.

Once I asked my students, “What do you think of the Constitution?” “It white,” one slouching black rang out. The class began to laugh. And I caught myself laughing along with them, laughing while Pompeii’s volcano simmers, while the barbarians swell around the Palatine, while the country I love, and the job I love, and the community I love become dimmer by the day.

I read a book by an expatriate Rhodesian who visited Zimbabwe not too many years ago. Traveling with a companion, she stopped at a store along the highway. A black man materialized next to her car window. “Job, boss, (I) work good, boss,” he pleaded. “You give job.”

“What happened to your old job?” the expatriate white asked. The man replied in the straightforward manner of his race: “We drove out the whites. No more jobs. You give job.”

At some level, my students understand the same thing. One day I asked the bored, black faces staring back at me. “What would happen if all the white people in America disappeared tomorrow?”

“We screwed,” a young, pitch-black boy screamed back. The rest of the blacks laughed.

I have had children tell me to my face as they struggled with an assignment. “I cain’t do dis,” Mr. Jackson. “I black.”

The point is that human beings are not always rational. It is in the black man’s interest to have whites in Zimbabwe but he drives them out and starves. Most whites do not think black Americans could ever do anything so irrational. They see blacks on television smiling, fighting evil whites, embodying white values. But the real black is not on television, and you pull your purse closer when you see him, and you lock the car doors when he swaggers by with his pants hanging down almost to his knees.

I have been in parent-teacher conferences that broke my heart: the child pleading with his parents to take him out of school; the parents convinced their child’s fears are groundless. If you love your child, show her you care — not by giving her fancy vacations or a car, but making her innocent years safe and happy. Give her the gift of a not-heavily black school.

Mr. Jackson now teaches at a majority-white school.

Some more "edumacation" for you:

White teacher in LA

U.S. Department of State has an "Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism"

2012-09-16T12:30:00.005-07:00

No kidding.

Wikipedia on the subject.

The Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Affairs (DRL) at the United States Department of State. It is headed by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS). The office "advocates U.S. policy on anti-Semitism both in the United States and internationally, develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism."

The Office was created by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. Gregg Rickman was sworn the first SEAS on May 22, 2006. The office has remained opened since the beginning of the Obama administration. On November 23, 2009 a new special envoy, Hannah Rosenthal was sworn into office by Obama administration. Rosenthal is former head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and former executive director of the Chicago Foundation for Women.

There is no department to protect American interests and American citizens, however.

Not needed.

Interestingly, there is no department to protect african, European, moslem or any other ethnic or religious group.

Lets delve in, shall we?

Law web page at Cornell University, fragments (you are encouraged to read the whole short page at Cornell):

22 USC § 2731 - Monitoring and combating anti-Semitism

(a) Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism
(1) Establishment of Office
The Secretary shall establish within the Department of State an Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism (in this section referred to as the “Office”).

(b) Purpose of Office
Upon establishment, the Office shall assume the primary responsibility for—
(1) monitoring and combating acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement that occur in foreign countries;

(c) Consultations
The Special Envoy shall consult with domestic and international nongovernmental organizations and multilateral organizations and institutions, as the Special Envoy considers appropriate to fulfill the purposes of this section.

What we have here is an office of State Department whose function is to support Jews worldwide. In pursuit of this function, its officials can meet and work with officials from other countries, independently from other State Department organizations.

State Department Official Page:

Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism

The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism advances U.S. Foreign Policy on anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews. The Special Envoy develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

The Special Envoy was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, and is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). DRL produces the State Department's annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and the Special Envoy provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.

So what have they been up to?

Travel to Hungary

July 19-22: Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal was in Hungary met with Hungarian Government officials, Parliamentarians and representatives from the Jewish and Roma communities

Yes, the poor gypsies, hated by all Europeans, for absolutely no reason at all other than bigotry and the general evilness of White people.

Travel to Germany

July 9-12; 15-19: Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal visited Germany, where her father was honored by the City of Mannheim, she participated in the Centropa Teachers Academy, and met with German government officials, non-governmental organizations, and youth in Berlin.

Meeting the anti-fa and other assorted PC fascists in Germany and giving encouragement to youth organizations.

Splendid.

The previous head honcho was one Gregg Rickman (a non Jewish last name if I ever saw one, n'est ce pas?).

Here is his biography:

Gregg Rickman was sworn in as the Secretary of State’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism on May 22, 2006. In this position, he is responsible for the global monitoring of acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement and the creation of policies to combat such acts.

From 1995-1998, he directed the three-year United States Senate Banking Committee investigation,

And what a good job he and his ilk have done investigating our (well, calling banksters "our people" is STRETCHING the truth a bit, as they themselves consider themselves NOT of our people and are a separate racial/religious cult) own beloved banksters!

including five Congressional hearings, into the disposition of assets of Holocaust victims held by Swiss banks since World War II, ending with a $1.25 billion settlement on behalf of the survivors.

Ah, the crux of the matter!

As to whether ANY Holocaust survivors have gotten any of these monies, please peruse my previous research, The Holocaust Industry.

He has served as the Director of Congressional Affairs at the Republican Jewish Coalition, where he worked on legislative issues of concern to the Jewish community including anti-Semitism, counter-terrorism, and immigration.

Got it!?

Got it!?

The issue that are the most important to elite Jews are anti-semitism, counter-terrorism AND IMMIGRATION.

How much clearer does it need to be spelled out?

Most recently, he served on the staff of the House International Relations Committee where he served first on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia and handled numerous issues including anti-Semitism and Holocaust restitution

Shakedowns.

Money.

Again.

Am shocked.

Please give me any other ethnic and/or religious group which has its own department concerned with its welfare at our(?) American (???) State Department.

9/11

2012-09-12T00:25:00.010-07:00

Probably my first and last post on 9/11.

Nothing much other than this short (and very caustic) video needs to be said.

Well, perhaps a short explanation about the quip of "this man never existed, and what he has to say is unimportant".

Mr. Barry Jennings.

Oh, he died, suddenly on August 19, 2008.

Jenningsmystery.com.

Here he is just after the 9/11 incident: video from ABC news.

Any questions?

Yes?

One more for good measure.

This is 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out (2012 documentary), shown on PBS Colorado; not allowed to be shown at any other PBS or other MSM stations (this was pulled).

I can't stop.

This shit is just too funny.

One last glorious piece.

"If you can believe that".

Even the news anchor was flabbergasted at the level of hutzpah on display here.

And the most funny and talented writer honour goes to

2012-09-09T23:10:00.003-07:00

An African.

No, not an african-American.

A bona fide African.

From Nigeria.

Read this shit:

How to get foreign friends

You love all things foreign. But despite the repeated olive-oiled anointing your pastor gave you and your passport, you failed to get a Visa. You failed thrice- to America, Canada and Britain. You lost a lot of money trying. After the long gruelling processes, nothing. Not even when you genuinely secured admission to some small college in London. Or took loans to make your bank account like a solid how-the-hell-can-I-disappear-in-your-country account. God will judge those people who saunter into your country when they please but make you scream your life history at humiliating interviews through a glass that looks like those in prisons in American movies. If only they would have the decency to give you a Visa.

You thought of South Africa but after hearing about the deportation of an award winning writer going for the Caine Prize Workshop, you say to yourself, ‘God forbid that I let a fellow black man humiliate me like that’. Especially not one who until the 90’s still carried around a pass in his own country. God will look into the matter of the South Africans.

God knows you have tried.

You can still mix with Americans. Imagination is a powerful thing. You can have a taste of Canada and all those creamy countries whose Visa’s you have coveted. All here in Nigeria. Granted, the foreigners who come here may not always be the cream of the lot, but beggars cannot be choosers. You will manage the ones here in Abuja. You will enjoy their company so thoroughly that your Visa rejections will cease to hurt. After all, is it not people that make a place? My job is to help you learn how to mix with and enjoy the company of foreigners from creamy countries, right here in Nigeria.

You need packaging. Don’t look like something they will be scared of. Wear nice clothes and nice foreign perfume. Something they can relate to. Have a business card that says you do something important or interesting. Nothing introduces you like a nice glossy business card. Work on reducing that heavy accent.

You need to know where to meet foreigners. I can tell about Abuja at least. Go to play readings and art exhibitions organized by embassies. It doesn’t matter if you do not really care about plays or if you think Australian art is just a waste of space. Join the hash. The hash is plenty of white people running or walking, wearing similar colours, drinking plenty beer and doing things you will find very strange. Don’t be a bush person. Google the hash and learn their terms. Find out what ‘Hares’, ‘On-on’, or ‘Down-down’ mean. Sometimes there is a small fee you pay. Don’t be stingy. Pay up and mix with foreigners.

Watch foreign channels and foreign news to get great conversation starters. So say you meet someone from Belgium, begin by asking her if she is from the Flemish, French or German part. That tells her immediately that you know her country. Then add some random bit of news you recently Googled like, ‘So what’s this I hear about Brussels planning to fine offensive language?’ She will be pleasantly shocked and proceed to give you a lecture about her country, which will soften the ground for future engagements.

When speaking to a foreigner, don’t scare them away with your alien views and thoughts. To maintain foreign friends you need to have foreign thoughts and habits. When you meet British people for example tell them how much you love tea. Say it as if you have always loved tea, as if what you sucked from your mother’s breast was tea. You will be shocked at how quickly you will bond. It doesn’t matter that until recently you did not know that Milo and Bournvita are not tea.

Do not do stupid things like admit that you really do not like homosexuals. You will be blacklisted and all hopes of getting a Visa, or foreign friends, will be lost forever.

Never ask for favours. That scares them away. Don’t ask for a job or a loan or a lift. As much as they may appear to be in this country to help poor black Nigerians, they do not want needy black friends. Buy your own drinks.

Say you are a poet. Apart from being sexy, a poet is always considered a higher human species. It does not matter that until you read this article you might have asked if Wordsworth was the name of a store. Don’t disgrace me. Read. You will see how their eyes will light up once they realize you appreciate the sophisticated things of life.

When you attend a social function organized by white people, do not show up like you do to your Uncle’s house, empty handed. Go with something. A bottle of wine. A box of chocolates. That is proper behaviour.

Never, in a moment of frustration, talk about leaving the country. This is disastrous to any friendships you may want to cultivate. Especially if your target works in an Embassy. They will avoid you like flies avoid Kerosene. Pretend like if heaven was outside Nigeria, you couldn’t care less. They will feel safe.

Make statements that show you have respect for animals. If he talks about his pet or frets about not finding food for the cat, Archibald, that he brought from Connecticut, be attentive and sympathetic. Remember the cat’s name. Ask after Archibald whenever you meet again.

While you are doing all this, avoid fellow Nigerians, like cockroaches avoid light. They understand your hustle and will do their best to truncate it. You cannot afford that. You cannot afford some nosy Bulus telling your oyibo friend, Mr. Carter whose dog Quentin, you religiously ask after, that during Christmas in your village in Kaduna South, you routinely welcome visitors with peppered dog meat.

There is so much I can tell you, but try these. Before long you will have so many foreign friends, that memories of Visa humiliations will vanish from your consciousness. And who knows, you might even stumble upon someone- from the Visa section of a cool country- whom God will use to finally bless your hustle.

Fucking glorious, that is.

You want more (and I know you do, you wanker).

His fucking blog.

Perhaps the funniest (yet true) writing out there.

Democracy in the modern era

2012-09-06T21:19:00.036-07:00

In case you just want to laugh, start the video at 1:54.

This is how democracy really works in our modern era. The video is from the Democratic National Convention, where an extraordinary thing happened. A vote was taken to "suspend the rules" "to permit an amendment" to the platform adopted last night.

The vote was to, in other words, break the rules.

The vote following that one was even more interesting.

There was an extraordinary reason for breaking the rules.

From 1:09, start watching and watch intently, please.

This was a vote on god - that is, a vote if god is "central to the American story" (shrug, whatever that means, a non issue "fringe" issue) and "informs the values that we expressed in our party's platform" (Wut? Is that even in English? Even if grammatically incorrect, it does not even make sense as a statement).

But no matter.

This was put beforehand, to mask the more important matter.

Israel (in America, god is much less important than Israel, of course).

"In addition, president Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel".

This is the main thing.

The fun begins at 1:54.

Watch the confused, flabbergasted and then angry reaction of the wax marionette, the filthy political apparatchik looking like a mix between a male version of Snooky and Madame Tussaud's wax model.

But the naysayers can come back with the "it's just a political convention, man, it doesn't really matter there - it's all theater, anyway".

Correct.

So lets move to another example of how democracy works in our modern era.

Once upon a time in 2008, there was a vote in Euroland concerning something called the "Lisbon Treaty". Perusing the official Treaty of Lisbon page, I have no idea what the treaty was all about - I did note the very cute picture of babies spread about in a circle, apparently being made ready for sacrifice to the mammon devil. And the obligatory black baby is present also - this is, after all, what European Union is also all about - unrestricted immigration policy for its members.

Several google attempts later and after studying the much better wiki informational page, I gathered that the main point of this treaty was to further centralize the European Union - more power to the internationalist bureaucrats in Brussels, much less power to the local, national governments.

The treaty, after bickering and backhand deals, was supposed to be duly ratified but then

Ireland happened.

BBC article, from 2008:

Voters in the Irish Republic have rejected the European Union's Lisbon treaty in a vote by 53.4% to 46.6%.

The poll is a major blow to leaders in the 27-nation EU, which requires all its members to ratify the treaty. Only Ireland has held a public vote.

The European Commission says nations should continue to ratify the treaty, designed to streamline decision-making.

The treaty was designed to "streamline" decision making - because all that arguing about policies, that whole democracy nonsense... It is much better for the decisions to flow from the top of the pyramid to the scum at the bottom.

An earlier, more wide-ranging EU draft constitution failed after French and Dutch voters rejected it in 2005.

For some reason those pesky Europeans did not want to give up too much sovereignty to the bureaucrat caste.

Imagine that, huh?

But no worries.

In our democracy, just like in the above embedded video, if you don't succeed - try, try again, until the voters vote correctly.

Or the people who count the votes, "count correctly".

Spiegel, from 2009:

It's official, the Irish will head to the polls again in October for a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the deal that would see the European Union's biggest reform in years

Prime Minister Brian Cowen said that he was confident that voters would approve the treaty this time around. Last year, Irish voters' rejection of the treaty plunged the EU into a deep state of crisis.

A survey conducted at the beginning of June indicated that 54 percent of Irish voters would now vote in favor of the Lisbon Treaty and 28 percent would vote against it. Last June, 53 percent of Irish voters rejected the original draft of the treaty.

In mid-June 2009, however, Ireland successfully won legal guarantees at an EU summit in Brussels that Dublin's sovereignty on defense policy and taxation as well as the right to preserve its strict abortion ban will be left intact.

Got that?

Fuck the abortion policy (although I am a big fan of individual states in America and each nation in Europe setting its own policy on these "fringe" non-important issues).

Ireland won concessions on its own national defense policy and taxation rules.

Which means that all the other countries who approved it do not have their own national defense nor taxation policies - these are now controlled centrally.

"Streamlining" the decision process was, after all, what the Lisbon Treaty was all about.

Fortunately, Ireland has learned its lesson, and is now taking it up the ass (sorry - arse) just like the rest of the child like, pathetic Europeans:

Ireland votes for discipline despite pain as it approves EU financial plan, this time dated 2012:

Ireland has ratified the EU fiscal pact, providing some cheer for European leaders amid the eurozone crisis.

A clear 60-40 vote by the only electorate in Europe allowed to have its say on the treaty backed the EU reform programme aimed at imposing budget discipline on all 27 states of the union.

Budget discipline.

Ireland no longer decides on its own budget.

The bureaucrats in Brussels (and Washington, and New York, and Tel Aviv) do that for them.

It is much easier when the decision making process is "streamlined", you see.

Isn't democracy grand?

Bonus Goy musings

Just a quick thought - the way the whole European Union was pushed through and then used for certain parties' benefits was a study in modern democracy also.

In the beginning, nations begged to join the EU and the Euro, as each new nation that joined soon experienced tremendous economic growth and prosperity.

Lets take Ireland, as an example - as the European Union started to flex its muscle, and throw monies wither and thither at European nations, Ireland received 10 billion Euros for its infrastructure in the 1990's.

Money makes money, and this infusion helped.

Also, Irish policies were changed to be more business friendly (low corporate tax rate of 12.5%, for example).

Apart from that, when a country becomes "hot" (similar concept to a stock becoming "hot" and idiots sitting in front of a computer quickly buying their market share), investors flock to invest their money.

Again, money makes money.

And in our modern era, money making money creates economic bubbles, as laws do not keep pace with "financial instruments", er, innovation, shall we say.

And so, Ireland went from this:

CNN: Ireland's economic tiger is the envy of Europe

Other countries look enviously at an Ireland that has transformed itself in one generation from a threadbare country on Europe's periphery to the second-richest (on a GDP-per-capita basis) in the European Union. Scarcely a week goes by without a national delegation visiting Dublin to learn how the Celtic Tiger was conceived and, more important, whether it can be cloned.

There is no consensus about the ingredients of Ireland's success.

"There are many components to Ireland's success story," says John Fitzgerald, a professor at Ireland's Economic and Social Research Institute. The usual suspects, he and others point out, include development funds from the EU; low corporate taxes; the success of the Irish Development Authority in persuading multinationals to take advantage of those low rates; and the ability of the Irish education system to provide the skilled workforce needed for a modern, knowledge-based economy. It didn't hurt, either, that Ireland's catch-up came at a time of strong global expansion.

(Pssst! Basically it was a time of global economic boom - the 90's - and Ireland had perhaps the lowest corporate taxes in Europe)

to this:

Telegraph, UK, Ireland's Celtic Tiger economy is dead, and its cubs are thinking of emigrating.

Thirty years after his uncle escaped poverty by leaving Ireland for ever for New Zealand, 25-year-old Jason Kenny is preparing to follow in his footsteps and head Down Under in search of a new life.

Until Mr Kenny was laid off from his job as an electrician on an upmarket residential development, part of Dublin's extraordinary property boom, he had never expected to have to emigrate. His generation had only ever known prosperity in the Celtic Tiger years of economic growth.

But earlier this year the property bubble burst, forcing thousands of construction workers out of jobs and putting the brakes on consumer spending - so sharply that last month Ireland became the first eurozone nation officially to declare that it had slipped into recession.

The development he worked on in the suburb of Tallagh is a symbol of the New Ireland - smart apartment blocks with shopping centres, trendy bars, a Starbucks and gyms, all handily connected to the city centre by a fast new tram.

Unfortunately, the bars, restaurants and coffee shops were empty and the apartment block had a giant To Let sign hanging on the outside. In the circumstances of today's Irish economy it may have been put up more in hope than expectation.

Construction has ground to a halt, but consumer spending is also sharply down and the high-skilled bio-tech, IT and electronics sectors which powered the Celtic Tiger have also been hit by demoralising closures.

What happened?

Well, the boom years were over (it's cyclical, and people in the know take advantage of these wild swings in our global economy).

But, more importantly, the European Union made a decision to introduce the "Euro", the new European money, to replace the old monies that each nation was using.

That happened in 1999, January 1st to be exact.

Wikipedia on Celtic Tiger (1990s-2007):

By 2000 the Republic had become one of the world's wealthiest nations, unemployment was at 4% and income tax was almost half 1980s levels. During this time, the Irish economy grew by five to six percent annually, dramatically raising Irish monetary incomes to equal and eventually surpass those of many states in the rest of Western Europe.

Spiffy.

The big problem is that there is a reason why each nation sets its own monetary policy.

With the "Euro", the policy was set continentwide - the decisions streamed from the top, from Brussels, to its member states.

Ireland’s decision to join the euro brought ruin to the nation, yes, from Daily Mail:

During the 1990s Ireland made tremendous economic progress based on low corporate tax rates attracting international investment. Competition was brought in crucial industries such as airlines.

But then in 1999 the disastrous decision was made to join the euro with its ‘one size fits all’ interest rate policy.

The trouble is that one size does not fit all. Halving interest rates in Ireland meant that prosperity that had been built on sound foundations became a bubble. The public sector became bloated with the pretence that it could be afforded with the phony boom.

Andrew Lilico, now an economist with the Policy Exchange thinktank, could see the trouble coming. He wrote a warning in the European Journal back in 2001. He put: ‘In January 1999 Ireland joined the euro, and Irish interest rates halved to 3 per cent, despite strong growth in Ireland, because interest rates were from then on set for the Eurozone as a whole and inflation was not a concern for France and Germany.

‘Irish inflation promptly, and unsurprisingly, took off. Consumer price inflation was actually 4.0 per cent (twice what was expected) between Jan 1999 and Jan 2000, and averaged 5.6 per cent during 2000, reaching 6.8 per cent in October.’

He added that ‘the fundamental divergence will re-assert itself in time.’

Allister Heath, editor of City AM, takes up the story: ‘After that, the die was set: encouraged by ultra-low European interest rates, the banks lent (recycling vast foreign capital inflows), house prices boomed, the construction industry surged and foreign workers moved in (reversing Ireland’s history of net emigration).

‘Nervousness eventually crept in, prior to the US sub-prime crisis. House prices slowed at a time when oil prices were still rising and the Irish recession commenced. The European Central Bank – preoccupied with the rest of the Eurozone – hiked rates, Irish house prices crashed, credit inflows reversed and banks started to go sour. Eventually, the rest of the world entered recession.’

You see, this housing bubble was not just an American thing - it was global (yes, inevitable plug for my How the financial crisis came about article from 2009 - still relevant, by the way).

Each nation - and there are ONLY two types of nations: a country is either a manufacturing, producing nation or a buying, getting into debt one - has before set its own monetary policy, based on, well, whether a state was a manufacturing/selling or a buying one, as well as the state of global and its national economy at the moment.

It's not rocket science - duh!

This of course includes setting interest rate, the money creation, rules for financial regulations etc etc.

Imagine if the FED, the most famous private corporation in America, was given its marching orders from Brussels, Belgium.

Even we Americans are not THAT stupid.

When the European nations foolishly surrendered all this to "streamline decision making" (effectively ceasing being nations - "Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws", infamous quote from Mr. Amschel Rothchilds), they lost all sovereignty.

And Ireland went into this with open eyes (well, they did resist once) for the price of a "fringe" issue, incredibly unimportant in our world, of abortion. They voted yes.

And guess who sets the policy - the strong (the manufacturing nations) or the weak (the buying nations)?

But fuck this whole "nations" shit.

The process is even more streamlined now, with the gloves off, with no more hiding in the shadows for the puppets to play their roles.

Then in 2008 the mistake of joining the euro years earlier was compounded by another event of similarly disastrous magnitude. There was an unaffordable bank bail out. There was a blanket guarantee - not to the depositors but for all the banks creditors. Vast liabilities became underwritten by the Irish state. This has meant that Ireland is now effectively insolvent - it is dependent on the European Central Bank.

Game.

Set.

Match.

And now, my stupid European friends, now you will take it up the ass (or arse, if you prefer), from the elite ruling caste who rule over the whole continent - and THEY will decide your fiscal policy, your financial, health and tax laws, your interest rates, your money supply, and, of course, your austerity measures - which, in layman's terms, is exactly how far will the fist travel up yours.