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.

Advertisements

Further Evidence That ISIS Was Not Behind the Paris Attacks

Standard

Here is another article that says ISIS claimed responsibility, but then gives very specific information that ISIS likely was not responsible:

“Terror groups, when they claim credit for attacks, will sometimes include details of the planning or execution that establish the group was indeed responsible. There are none here; the statement details nothing that was not publicly available information from news reports. It also includes no biographical information on the attackers, even a name or photo, though terror groups will often lionize its attackers as “martyrs” in such statements.”

(via http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734794/isis-claim-paris-statement)

The following statement implies ISIS did not claim responsibility by implying they might still claim it later:

“None of this is to argue that ISIS is thus not responsible; it is entirely possible the group may later release more information to establish its role.”

ISIS: A Political and Economic Diversion Tactic

Standard

[T]he system was one that made the elite very rich and the poor even poorer as their debts increased. Increasing numbers of people started to leave the cities to escape their debts, and often joined rogue groups known as the [H]abiru in Syria and the Levant, which not only maintained a way of life free from the control of the major kings, but which also raided their cities and supplies.

via Kingdoms of Anatolia – Sea Peoples.

Did the Sea People cause the Late Bronze Age collapse, or was it merely a case that elitists were pathologically using them as a diversion tactic to blind people to the horrendous inequality of the period? Were Mongols from the North the true reason the Great Wall of China was built, or was that a way to keep people busy so nobody had time to question the injustice of the ruling class and those serving it?

The situation in the West (and, in particular, the United States) is one where people are mainly just looking out for their own interests at this point (even at the expense of the nation itself.)  Those working in news/media need a story to cover and a constant “war on terror” allows for just that.  The rich want to divert attention away from themselves.  Others serving the war-machine want to maintain their roles, even if the wars serve no real benefit to the invading nation.  Conservatives are wired to naturally serve oppressors.  Phoney-liberals are wired to do the same (but pretend that they don’t.)

As the lesser of evils, it would be far better for the West to train/supply regional resistance forces that are naturally going to do battle with ISIS anyway.  However, honest people would need to keep a VERY close eye on the situation to make sure the state is doing what it says it’s doing (because half the time it will do the exact opposite.  NATO kept urging Turkey to fight ISIS, yet it ended up using its opportunity for “humanitarian” intervention to bomb the state enemy, the Kurds, instead. However, Turkish elites and media outlets most likely announced that they were intervening to defend Turkey from the threat of ISIS.)

However, the best way to deal with terrorism would actually be to deal with the extreme inequality in wealth (along with sinister forms of academic elitism that try to keep the general populace stupid while praising sinister notions of what it means to be “educated.”)

Less wealth inequality allows more honest individuals to speak out against all forms of hypocritical elitist behaviour in society including those in media, academia, politics, business etc. who try to keep the general populace vapid and uninformed.  Had the populace been less deluded and had there been greater opportunity for dissent in the years leading up to the Iraq war, it may have never happened in the first place, meaning ISIS wouldn’t even exist right now.

Intentions are everything!!!

Standard

The United States cannot support genocide one moment (ie. Gaza) and have the true intention of preventing genocide the next moment. People need to keep the intentions of any intervention straight at all times.

Those who pretend the United Stats government is out to help anyone on the planet but the US elite are either self-deluded or a servant of power at this point.

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

Christopher Hitchens

He rather command a military – any military – than have no influence at all.


The prophet Muhammad had many struggles when trying to spread his teachings.  One of the biggest challenges he had to face was that men who liked to consider themselves worldly and educated didn’t seem to care much for anything that wasn’t somehow associated with weaponry and power.

Centuries later, nothing has changed and Hitchens is the perfect example.

He is highly attracted to military might and the power of the United States.   It goes to show that most men and most intellectuals rather be on the side of influence and support unjustified war than feel they are helpless or having no influence whatsoever.  They want to be apart of that which “calls-the-shots” rather than left out of the “somebody’s” club.

He was wrong, just like the writers of The Economist, about the ethical justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Hitchens and The Economist writers (whoever they are) love wielding weaponry.  There is almost no other point to their existence.