Saturday, November 12, 2016

Dreaming Peace

The reference in Dreaming War II was to the late Vidal, who wrote slightly before the Bush/Cheney co-regency, and I paraphrase, "Expect a few small wars." Anonymous responded to the post:
Don't sweat it. Replacing, or at least weakening, the financial oligarchy withe the old industrial oligarchy is not the worst thing that could have happened yesterday.

I think Badington Moore made the observation that revolutions or big shifts often are not the work of ascending classes, but the work of classes that are just about to be swallowed by the waves of history.

Besides, Supreme Leader El Trumpo probably has properties in Syria.
Oh, indeed--Princip was quite the exaggeration. It would be boorish of Trump to pull a Silverstein on one of his own insured buildings, or even that of a friend; rather, we might see the equivalent of a minor embassy kerfluffle, subtly contrasted with Benghazi, where Glorious Leader saves rather than abandons X quantity of Eichmannian innocents, then joins Putin in the liberation of the last pre-Iranian holdout to Israeli hegemony.

The latter scenario calls into question the nature of BRICS and Iran. Wouldn't it be cunning if the flirtations with attacking Iran were, like China, a prelude meant to make it seem like a relief when Iran joins the winning side of its own volition? Presume that Putin's throwing out of Russia the Soros Children's BDSM Brigade was merely an act, comparable to Sheldon Adelson's initial anti-Trump stance. Iran, with its large Europeoid population, may be vulnerable to the genetic pathological altruism that took Europe, and may not require an overt invasion to fall in line. Torah v. 3.0, also known as Islam, provides it a modicum of cultural defense at present, but in the long term, Torah 2.0 proved itself quite efficient at taking down Europe. The latent Christianization of Europe took many years to accomplish what outright invasion could not, and perhaps it is speculated that Iran, too, might become progressively "progressive" via television and the incessant creep of moderate mullahs, ready to lay down its arms and embrace Ash Nazi finance without requiring an honestly declared invasion.

Lacking an ISIS impetus, the Persians might well need the sort of gentle handling that their northwestern cousins got. A slow admixture, the imposition of weirdo preachers with anti-scientific bullshit, and then the gradual institution of some kind of increasingly feminist Sharia. The Qur'an exhibits ample textual support to the claim that homosexuality is acceptable; it promises nubile boys to jihadists in Heaven, so unlike the New Testament, the rhetorical wrangling required in order to achieve approved modernity would not be nearly so intense. Yes, there are explicitly anti-female and anti-queer messages there, just like in the Torah, but the argument would be more easily made than it was in Europe, provided it's more Europeoid-derived Muslims receiving the message.

Perhaps a SEAL team could execute a body double of al-Baghdadi (a genuine Arab would do nicely, and by all means don't allow the remains to become part of the historical record), Syria can formally kowtow to Trump, and we'll see some comparative peace for a bit while Iran is disintegrating to television. The real al-Baghdadi can drop the act, shave the beard, get a government flat across the hall from Pollard, and spend the rest of his holidays popping Cialis and busting little goyim O-rings with Epstein and Slick Willie.

(No, I jest, I jest unfairly--Bill would insist upon females only, and he wouldn't care about race.)

As Jefferson would say, "peace is better than war, war is better than tribute." Perhaps our most grievous mistake since siding with the bank in the Great War was not having any more wars. Every outcome since then has been predetermined, every strength easily measurable and every significant threat to the world order negated ahead of time. We laughed at them for being wrong about the Great War being the war to end all wars, but it turns out they were right, and we've been living under tribute since at least 1918.


  1. It's true. I can't imagine why the neocons hurried so much with the wars. Weaponized brainwashing through media/cultural products would have done the job. They must know that a major crisis will come sooner than these softer methods could work, perhaps?

    Also: The US debt is indeed tribute. But, the scheme has obvious limitations (i.e. military, as well as mathematical)

    1. Historically speaking, war has to be involved. In Africa and the U.S., for example, eliminating freedom of association and freedom of contract required centuries or decades of military occupation, respectively. Without that initial softening up and the imposition of financial controls, peoples seem able to swiftly unite to throw off harmful media.

      Even now, ZOG US is spending billions trying to bribe African leaders into becoming pro-homosexual, and despite the money and threat of another invasion, there is still a lot of resistance.