Athenian-Style Slave-Maker Alert

Standard

Jeff Sallot wants to enslave thousands of young refugees (who are desperate to flee violence) by turning them into military slaves who are forced to fight for Canada and serve no other purpose. He suggests keeping them in large holding facilities where they can be monitored.

“Why not train thousands of young refugee men in Canada and send them back to fight? We have a lot of geography and a number of military bases that can be used for training.

Say we offer these Syrian and Iraqi men this deal: If you want to come to Canada you have to agree to a rigorous military training regime to fight the caliphate. You say you’re fleeing ISIS. Well, here’s your chance to do something about ISIS — and Canada will help you.

Able-bodied single men who refuse the deal would drop to the bottom of the list. Or we could admit them conditionally, keep them in holding facilities until a more thorough screening process can assure Canadian officials the men are not a security risk. I think most of them would take the deal.”

(via http://ipolitics.ca/…/bombs-arent-working-to-beat-isis-we-…/)

This guy is a slave-making impulse away from suggesting that we make a deal with Blacks desperate to flee Africa that they can come to Canada as long as they work for us for free. Most will take the deal, he’ll say, because they are so desperate to flee their tragic situation and it’s only logical that we exploit them unfairly. Furthermore, we can pack them as close together as we can in large cargo ships so we can get a maximum number of workers at one time.

Charlie Hebdo Has the Right to Free Speech—As Do We.

Standard

Charlie Hebdo has the right to utilize free speech.  However, sane members of the general public should employ their rights to free speech to condemn Charlie Hebdo’s juvenile fetish for trivializing the death of Muslim children.

Charlie Hebdo will say they are actually making social commentary.  Again, this is easy to test:  Would they ever depict the death of French or American children in the same fashion?  Of course not.

Thus, Charlie Hebdo’s true motive is to toy around with images of dead Muslim children.  I’m sure they think they are being very clever by disguising it as social commentary, but their true motives are pretty clear.

“Christians Walk on Water…Atheist Children Sink.”

Standard

Charlie Hebdo says they are making a religious critique by displaying a Christian walking on water while a Muslim child drowns.  In my opinion, Charlie Hebdo merely wants to display images of Muslim children drowning to desensitize Westerners to the death of Middle Eastern children.

Charlie Hebdo is creating imperialist propaganda.  They know that most Westerners are still Christian and they are exploiting Christianity to turn Christian Westerners against Muslim Middle Easterners as a way to maintain imperialism.  They are also trying to show that the life of a Muslim child is something that should be shrugged off.

Charlie Hebdo will say that they are critiquing Christianity.

Well we can test that.

Would Charlie Hebdo ever depict a French or American child who grew up in an atheist household drowning?

Charlie Hebdo1

Why not display the words “Christians walk on water…children of atheist Westerners sink” as a way to critique Christianity?

The fact that Charlie Hebdo would never do the same with the children of atheist Westerners proves my point that they are merely trying to make Muslim children look expendable so it doesn’t matter how many of them are wiped out by Western militarism.

They are trying to imply that shamelessly letting a Middle Eastern child drown is acceptable.

Charlie Hebdo’s Imperialist Agenda Is All Too Obvious

Standard

The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo will pretend they are being satirical, utilizing free speech, and representing the truly radical when the reality is that they are driven by Western elitist and imperialist motives.  To say they are obedient to Western imperialist forces is an understatement when they are the type that try to ignite such fires when they are not even burning.

The ‘Je Suis Charlie’ movement was a complete farce and showed so many qualities of Western Devadom: being an excessive crybaby, blowing things out of proportion, putting on a grand display, simulating depth and sincerity, pretending to be a dissident while being squarely in line with elitist/imperialist agendas.  Westerners involved in the movement behaved as if they were facing systematic oppression like the third estate of pre-revolutionary France.  A single act of terrorism is not systematic oppression.  If the French government were prohibiting free speech and using unjust violence to enforce such measures, that would count as systematic oppression and rebellion against such would constitute real defiance and rebellion.  However, when the Western political elite (who have more blood on their hands than any independent terrorists) are willing to join the Paris march, what great oppressive monster are people truly standing up to?  What bravery is there marching behind those who use the most advanced military weapons to slaughter and subdue the rest of the planet? 

Capture Paris March (4)

The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo seem to love depicting the death of Muslims.  They will make up excuses that they are actually pointing out religious hypocrisy or making a social critique.  In my opinion, they are merely finding excuses to justify their juvenile desire to depict the death of Muslims as something trivial.

They are first and foremost trying to trivialize the death of Muslims to serve an imperialist agenda.  It’s a form of propaganda.  The cartoonists are fully aware that they are sending a subliminal message that Middle Eastern lives are expendable.  However, they will then add extra accessories to the images to make it look like they are doing some type of social critique.

It’s easy to figure out whether or not such things are a tool for Western imperialism or not.  One merely needs to ask: “Would these cartoonists ever depict French or American children in the same fashion?”

Why We Need to Stop Giving to Starving African Children

Standard

Samantha Power, again, makes for the perfect illustration. She misused and abused the Rwandan genocide to further her own sinister agenda. I feel the liberal media, like Power, enjoys guilt-tripping Westerners, and acts as if ALL Westerners have so much that we constantly need to give to the impoverished. Granted, there are definitely those that are GENUINE within this mix, but I feel like no one has the decency to say: “let’s take power away from the overly-wealthy elites FIRST, make sure everyone in OUR societies are healthy FIRST, and THEN focus on humanitarianism. (All the while allowing the REAL humanitarians to perform their natural karma.)”

It should be pretty obvious by now that Samantha Power and the more sordid liberals have been using talk of humanitarianism to cover up blatant and savage imperialism exactly the way liberals did during European colonialism.  All the financial-aid that has been given hasn’t been effective because it’s given disingenuously.  It’s done only as a means to conceal the more sinister intention of the West and truly is equivalent to carelessly throwing bones and scraps at the problem when taken as a whole (though again, I’m not trying to invalidate those who genuinely do such things for the right reasons.)


There is a problem that needs to be addressed and enter the realm of public discourse:

When Westerners are bombarded with images of starving African children and made to feel the need to give, one must remember that those who are disproportionately wealthy can always match the donation of the common person and then some in order to create the guise/illusion of benefactor and humanitarian.  (And sometimes only the more decent people with only meager income take a hit by sacrificing some of their own wealth in order to give while the very sinister and very wealthy give nothing at all.)

Thus, continuously throwing money at problems for insincere reasons can actually be a means for systems of control (fed by biological human fickleness) to maintain unjust elitism.


I would like to see a very wealthy person give away 60% of their total assets. If they are truly that wealthy, they can get by on 40% of what they have.  Only then will I see a truly wealthy person as a real humanitarian.


I think what needs to start happening is for common people to demand the basics of life from the rich within our own societies first. This will allow for more altruistic personalities to come to the forefront because when the basics of life are guaranteed, people will finally be able to speak their mind properly.  REAL freedom of speech will allow Westerners to put greater constraints on wicked Western tyranny.  Wealth would start flowing back to the people.  Eventually this could lead to the spilling over of excess wealth to the Third World which is far better than disingenuous charity that is done as a façade to hide the true sinister forces at work. (Yes, I said sinister. Yes, some people are evil. Why is it not okay to say that?)


In reality, what most Westerners probably need to do is continue to give what they can while trying their hardest to demand a guarantee of the basics of life and a limitation to the lack of constraints on the very wealthy. We need to change our focus and intent. This doesn’t mean someone who is about to make a donation should hold themselves back.  No.  It means we need to stop the fake humanitarian propaganda and revert back to more natural forms of altruism, in my opinion.

End benevolence; abandon righteousness
The people return to piety and charity

Tao Te Ching

We also need to be more honest about our intentions.  If we are focusing on ourselves at the moment, we just need to say so.  It’s better than covering it up in phony-benevolence.


I have no problem with “moralizing.”  The only problem is phony-moralizing that serves selfish aims.  The Tao Te Ching alludes to how getting rid of such things altogether will get rid of the latter problem and since it assumes that most people are naturally decent anyway, it makes the conclusion that without this disingenuously contrived notion of responsibility and the sinister judgement society hypocritically places on those who are not “acting as humanitarians,” people will return to a more natural state of generosity and hospitality.  And there may be a lot of truth to that.  (The common person has a sixth sense for when something is done or forced on them disingenuously though it’s not always easy for the average person to articulate.  It does, however, seem to result in a type of natural indignation to such spurious forms of guilt and coercion.)

Lao Tzu – Author of the Tao Te Ching

Thus, perhaps it should be changed to: “End phony benevolence and abandon righteousness put on as a façade to conceal self-serving interests.”

We also need to end our own oppression first before we can really help end the oppression of others.

Why does the media focus so much on “ending poverty” in the Third World, but next to no time focusing on the plight of the homeless and starving all around us within our own communities?