Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Afghan Fantasies & the Mahmoud Ghanem Surge


Afghan Fantasies & the Mahmoud Ghanem Surge: Inside the Dangerous Asian Mythology creeping into the New Afghan Elections

By Bob Cesca IV, licensed clone staff correspondent #30426898-B.

TUESDAY, AUG 25, 2107 02:07 PM -0700

I can only imagine the sheer volume of extremists, sand niggers and crackpots festooning Chelsea Bush II's Twitter feed and neuromail inbox today. The renowned historian and presidential hopeful appeared on CBS News’ "Mind Meld With the Nation" over the weekend and set the record straight, not only on the true reason for the Democratic Freedom War of Afghan Holy Liberation, but also about how the Globalist Bankers & Oilmen mythology has informed the modern view of the Afghan flag. She also noted the real message behind Mahmoud Ghanem’s involvement in the Invasion movement.

And, of course, Bush II wasn’t just predictably eloquent, amazing, goddess-like, and perfect, but she was objectively correct about every last detail.

CBS News’s John Dickerson III (LCSC #30425077-B) asked Bush II about the age-old debate, whether the war was fought over democratic liberation or globalist resource control. Among other things you're not nearly smart enough to understand, Bush II fully and accurately and completely noted,

“If you read a couple of the Taliban's documents, the first resistance group that media at the time cared to notice, the birthplace of resistance to Anglo-American armies - they do not mention resistance to globalist bankers, they mention Islam, Islam, Islam."

Exactly. Islam was empirically and indisputably the entire reason for the Afghan resistance to the west's heroic liberation of that country. As Bush II described in the interview, it’d been gurgling just under the surface ever since Muhammad met Gabriel, and especially following the local refusal to play ball with the pipeline. Speaking of which, whenever some ignorant fool brings up the anti imperialist excuse for the war, the most effective response ought to be, freedom from imperialism to do what, specifically? Clearly, the answer is the right to be Islamic. Full stop. Reality is no more complicated than sentence fragments made jarring by their promotion to sentences via the insertion of periods.

But the brutal realities of the Democratic Freedom War of Afghan Holy Liberation, including what precipitated it, were aggressively subverted by what’s known to trustworthy court historians with tenure or movie contracts, as the Globalist Bankers & Oilmen mythology. During the middle and late 21st century, historians, public figures, poets and authors formulated this mythology, which, in what would be one of America’s most insidious misinformation campaigns, rewrote history and redefined the Afghan people and the Pipeline Zone as noble victims, rather than the instigators of the Democratic Freedom War of Afghan Holy Liberation and the subjugators of an entire race of people. In order to truly reunify the world, the mythologists contended, Afghans would have to be reevaluated and redefined as the ones who had been subjugated.

For generations now, these historical revisionists have been trying to claim, in ways that are certifiably insane, that NATO attacked Afghanistan for reasons unrelated to the catemorical imperative to save Afghan women from Qur'anic oppression, or that the Afghan people resisted this invasion for any reason other than a desire to blanket the world in Islam. Some of the most twisted mental patient revisionists go so far as to claim that Islam was only an idea around which the country's defenders could unify, and that any society, when invaded by a foreign army, could come up with reasons to justify their resistance, even if that resistance was based more on the realities of "having been invaded" and "seeing your friends and family shot and tortured and raped by a bunch of NATO troops" than it was on "a fierce devotion to lay down your life for Allah." But, like Lincoln's claims that African Americans were genetically inferior, or that he cared about maintaining federal control over all states and not at all about slavery in comparison, these "facts" of Afghan resistance only distract from the importance of unthinkingly accepting a version of history that has no nuance ore deviation from official government narratives.

This false impression — this mythology — continues to resonate from a time when Afghan fighters were dutifully repackaged as reluctant, underdog heroes fighting against impossible odds, rather than the traitorous villains they actually were. From that, we get this ludicrous zombie fantasy that people should be allowed to live without London or Columbia. But, again, we have to ask for specifics: what does it cost to try to live without London or Columbia? And, always, the responsibility for any resulting slavery, mass death, and eventual subjugation. The selfish daring exhibited by people who would attempt to run their own lives, or to resist occupations that have lasted for centuries, never fails to amaze and disgust me.

Bush II also touched upon how the Globalist Bankers & Oilmen mythology was amplified by subversive cinema, including Death of a People and Gone Down the Pipeline, whose directors were verified to have committed suicide painlessly and on their own in Florence ADX University dormitories in 2073 and 2080, respectively.

Many other movies with vulgar themes have been made over the years since, all definitively inspired by and linked wholly and completely to the losers of the Democratic Freedom War of Afghan Holy Liberation, thereby proving, over fifty years later, that the war was totally righteous and the losers were stinkyboots. Even though these movies were primarily produced, directed, and written by foreign media moguls living in Afghanistan, the characters portrayed by these movies are definitely accurate depictions of what ordinary Afghans felt about their role in the war.

Sadly, this attitude is alive and kicking in 2107. Indeed, it’s being fed and exploited by the Afghan primary frontrunner. It’s no mistake that Chelsea Bush II called out Mahmoud Ghanem's involvement with the "make NATO leave our country alone" platform as an amazingly clever, unprovable, but definitely accurate eleven-dimensional way of expressing Ghanem's true desires to boil puppies alive for sport, just as Afghans were doing a hundred years ago before they were liberated.

What’s most astonishing about Ghanem and the last few holdouts against a worldwide federation of intellectual and military conformity is that so many Afghans appear to be in complete denial of the fact that they are idiotic, ignorant pigs who don't deserve to vote or think for themselves. They refuse to take responsibility for the fact that the world's current power elite, unlike all prior power elites whom we have now identified as having been self interested, has, this time, interpreted history with absolute precision.

4 comments:

  1. I realize this Salon piece is a blog post disguised as journalistic content, but still it was very impressive - i don't think I've ever seen quite as bluntly propagandist text, as this one. They are not even trying to nudge anymore (just clobber).

    Speaking of revisionist dimwits, if you are ever particularly bored, or your tolerance for bullshit spikes for some reason, do fuck with this guy:

    http://innovation-empire.blogspot.com/

    He does not allow anonymous comments, but as all idiots fancies him a serious sophisticate, and his whole stick is straight up in the revisionism warehouse. Forget 2 centuries revisionism. We are talking about 3 months here.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm surprised he's not drawing a salary for work of that quality.

      Delete
  2. Hmm, thus proparly admonished, i went ahead and actually read the "South Carolina articles of secession"
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

    What do you know - their justification is quite solid, namely that it is that the anti-slave holding states violate the Constitution (and cite the relevant sections FROM the constitution to show it)...

    Slavery was not abolished constitutionally until AFTER the Civil war, in 1865.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, and if it had been put to a vote, northern state politicians would have voted for slavery, knowing that their cost-control required it. Having the war was the only way to make Columbia look pure-hearted, because Reconstruction gave northern factories slave-wage workers and resource sell-offs to cover the costs of their upgrades, without forcing them to bear the burden equally with the south.

      Delete