Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
www.exiledonline.com
The War Nerd / September 13, 2011

Well, it’s ten years and a couple of days since 9/11. The reason I’m two days late doing a look back is that 9/11 is boring. I’m sick of it. And the ten years since are just depressing, at least if you’re an American.

So I spent the 9/11 anniversary reading Jack Weatherford’s book on the Mongol Queens because I didn’t want to see New Yorkers hamming it up the way they’ve been doing for ten long years.

It reminds me of the stupid group hug’n’cry when that worthless limey slut Princess Di died. While she was alive she was just a punchline for dirty jokes, but as soon as she hit the wall in Paris, every sobby fool in the world was her best friend.

There was one difference between the Di thing and 9/11: Crying over Di was for girls. Well, girls and Elton John, but you know. 9/11 is way worse because it’s a weepfest for men in suits, big loud scotch-drinking jerks who want to prove “Real men aren’t afraid to cry.” Maybe not, but maybe they should be. Or at least embarrassed to do it on TV.

Dinka Fighter: Cooler than a bond trader. Taller, too.

When somebody cries for the two million Dinka, Nuer, Zaghawa, and Fur who were machinegunned from Mi-24s in Sudan, I might squirt a few in memory of Manute Bol maybe. But nobody will ever do that. They don’t matter to anybody but me. I rate the dead on height and warrior quality, so to me a dead Nuer or Dinka is worth, oh I don’t know, something like three dozen NYC office workers. Maybe more.

But there’s no money in a dead Dinka, and money decides how much tv time a corpse gets. That’s why the 9/11 dead hit the bigtime: The return on investment was huge. It funded the dumbest spending binge since Rollie Fingers put his money in.

In fact, it’s not much of a stretch between what happens when a hick or ghetto kid gets a pro sports contract and what happened after 9/11. Bush and Cheney were both wannabe jocks—I reviewed a Cheney bio that said he hung around with other failed jocks at Yale—and they were about as smart with the blank check they got on 9/12 as Deuce McAlister was with his millions. That’s when dreams come true, and no matter what Disney told you, it’s bad news when you can make your dreams come true, cuz most of the time your dreams are just stupid.

These two had a dream, as the saying goes. Oh yeah, they had a dream: Get everybody into the bus screaming for revenge, take the interstate for Afghanistan—and then fake’em all out by screeching off at the Baghdad exit. “It’s a shortcut!”

When I look back at those years, what still floors me is how long they got away with it. Bush got the sane response out of the way fast, starting the attack on Afghanistan, the real Al Qaeda HQ, about a month after 9/11. Everybody was for it; it made sense, even if all those Pearl Harbor links didn’t. Pearl Harbor was a massive conventional attack on a US military base by planes flying from carriers; 9/11 was a coordinated hijacking by a team of about 20 men. It was a brilliant plan and it worked even better than Osama had planned (he admitted that later); but it didn’t mean there were endless millions of other hijackers out there ready to shave every highrise off the Manhattan skyline like some Book of Revelations LectricShave commercial.

One of the lessons of 9/11—the actual lessons, not the ones they talk about—is that countries are more powerful than Man from U.N.C.L.E. conspiracies. If you’re attacked by an actual country, like Imperial Japan, you’ve got a problem; if you’re attacked by a nutters’ club like Al Qaeda, you’d be better off taking a Xanax and getting back to business. We’d have saved a lot of lives and money if we’d just ignored 9/11.

None of the intellectuals really like countries, “nation-states” to use the fancy term, and for a hundred years everbody’s been predicting they’ll fall apart. The Marxists always hated them because to them a country is a delusion, a fake family that keeps the workers from seeing who their real friends are. The Islamic nuts hate them for the same reason. So did the Pan-Arabs in Nasser’s day. So does every racist ever born, because they keep whites/blacks/pinks/whatever from joining up with their blood kin. Libertarians hate them because they interfere with the market. Every freak out there has some little dream that countries get in the way of.

But they last. Africa was supposed to fall apart long ago, because the country borders didn’t match the tribal ones. Didn’t happen. Won’t, either. Take Eritrea; There’s no such thing, ethnically, as an Eritrean. It’s a ridiculous colonial border the Italians set up. But once Eritrea incorporated as country, the brand took, and took hard. The Eritreans fought the Ethiopians, much bigger and stronger country, to a stalemate and they’re prouder of their totally imaginary Eritrean identity than a lot of countries are of the real thing.

So what country attacked us on 9/11? You can’t say Afghanistan, because most of them don’t know or care about anything beyond the next valley, never mind Manhattan. Like most everybody on this planet, they’re too busy hating the people one valley over to hate NYC much, though I’m sure they do in a vague way, when they’ve got the energy.

Not Saudi Arabia either, although a lot of Muzzie-haters would like it to be that way. SA is about the money, and 9/11 wasn’t good biz for them.

And not Bush, either. Please, let’s just skip the “inside job” crap.  9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to the Bush administration, but that doesn’t mean they did it. Start thinking that way and pretty soon you have to say farmers make it rain because rain’s “good fer the crops,” or  accept the Japanese version of why the Mongol invasion failed: The Gods sent a kamikaze, a divine wind, to protect their little cousin the Emperor. Things happen that help one party or another but that doesn’t mean those parties did it.

You know who revived the old “Bush did it” theory on the tenth anniversary? None other than the ex-PM of Malaysia, that godsend to comedy, Mahathir Muhammed. He has a new, brilliant proof that it was Bush all the time: It had to be, according to Dr. M, because Arabs aren’t smart enough to pull off a smooth operation like that. Brilliant. That’s the way to win Muslim hearts’n’minds. It’s not even sensible; there are (well, there used to be) some reasonably intelligent people at the top of Al Qaeda. And the idea of using a plane to hit a tower, though it’s a very good plan, isn’t all that complicated. Michael Caine, for God’s sake, is going around saying he was writing a thriller with the same plot when 9/11 happened, and if Michael Caine can think of it, so can your neighbor’s Labrador. In fact I remember a thriller from way back, Black Sunday, where the idea is to float the Goodyear blimp, with a gondola full of plastique studded with roofing nails, over the Super Bowl stadium, give’em a halftime show they’ll never forget. (There was a great scene with Bruce Dern the psycho Nam vet just lovingly putting the roofing nails into the C-4 one by one. Man, that spoke to me: “Homecoming float, you bastards? I’ll show you a homecoming float…”)

Or the Israelis, either. They were glad when it happened, sure; I even remember an Israeli interviewed in NYC gloating about it, “Now you know how we feel!” But same thing as Bush: Just because they benefited doesn’t mean they did it. It’s possible Israeli security knew something about the plot and let it slide; that’s old CI tactics, stepping back or even helping your enemy when he plans to attack a wavering ally of yours. But Osama wasn’t that interested in the Palestinians or Israel; it was US troops on the sacred Peninsula that set him off. He was from the East part of the Middle East, and not much of a threat to Israel. In a cold-blooded way, he was probably just as happy as the Israelis to keep the Palestinians in their camps. Good propaganda—and besides, those Pals aren’t even all Muslims. (Imagine a meeting between George Habash and Osama—pure skit material.)

What really attacked us was a demographic: Rich, not-that-bright Muslim sons who didn’t have much going for them besides a religion. A handful of jealous losers, industrial waste from the population bulge of the 20th c. in the Middle East.

It’s easy to see that now, and frankly it was pretty easy to see it then too. It just wasn’t much fun seeing it that way. Didn’t make for good tv. Those guys had a lot to be jealous of, when you remember America in 2000. Getting our way everywhere, and playing the good guy while we did it. Sleazy on the inside, but who isn’t? 9/11 was a lot like the attacks North Korea launches from time to time when South Korea gets too rich and distracted, like a “forget-me-not” bouquet full of jet fuel. I know the feeling myself: Maybe you can’t knock these people down once and for all, but you can wipe the smug smile off their faces for a while.

That’s the biggest surprise of all: It did knock us down, maybe permanently. I don’t think even Osama planned that, although maybe I’m underestimating him. Most jihadis think more in terms of gestures, doing something big and going out with a bang, than making a lasting change in the balance of power. Mohammed Atta having a last drink at a strip club—classic spoiled martyr crap. Make the kaffirs sorry, go out with the biggest bang yet. That’s not strategy, that’s psychotherapy for rich mamma’s boys who know they don’t matter in the world.

But it turned into strategy, and brilliant strategy. And all because Bush and Cheney had a dream. A bunch of dreams, all stupid, all disasters for America.

What happened wasn’t complicated—just expensive. One month after the twin towers go down, the US invades Afghanistan in “Operation Enduring Freedom.” (God I hate those “Operation” names. Can’t they just pick something random, something that doesn’t sound like Flag Day in Houston?) It went slowly at first, we looked tentative, then something odd happened up north in Mazar-i-Sharif that turned the whole campaign around. I’ve always suspected it was a huge bribe to some Taliban commander up there, because that’s what usually turns the tide in an Afghan battle. After Mazar fell, we rolled into Kabul. So far, so good. Then Bush and Cheney decided they’d done enough to satisfy the suckers back home and got down to their real agenda, Iraq. Since that time a bunch of bitter special forces guys have said they were closing in on Osama in the mountains of SE Afghanistan when all the money and weapons were diverted to Iraq, or as it ought to be called, “Field of Dreams.”

Top Gun Bush: Worst. Sequel. Ever.

It was a strange time. You couldn’t be too loud or too dumb. I know it scared me. Kind of a sci-fi scenario, with everybody around you turned into an insect. I remember talking to a woman in the office where I worked in 2002, smart lady, way richer than me, one spoiled brat of a kid and a scientist husband. She heard I knew something about war stuff but she didn’t like it when I started spluttering at the idea that Saddam could hit Manhattan in 40 minutes with chemical warheads. I got sort of excited which come to think of it might have something to do with the fact I never got anywhere in that job and they seemed very happy on my last day—and tried to remind her of the first Gulf War, how Saddam tried to activate his imaginary terror cells in Europe and America, tried to scare everyone with Scuds, tried everything he could to bluff us—and nothing, absolutely nothing, happened. She just stared at me for a second—I’ve seen this a lot from Americans who outrank me; they never argue with you, they don’t do arguments, they just wait for you to finish and then repeat what they said in the beginning—she said, “I believe there are WMDs.” I thought I was back at church again.

Another thing about good Americans—I mean the ones who are good at being Americans, not “good” like Lincoln: They never remember their mistakes. I read that good NFL cornerbacks are the same way: They never remember the TDs caught over them. It’s adaptive, I guess, but I’m old-fashioned; I say it’s cheap, it’s spoiled. It’s your duty to admit it when you get things wrong, and do it loud and often.

But she never talked about it. Creeped me out. I’ve always wondered about those well-groomed people with self-esteem: Do they just outright forget their boo-boos or do they just have a policy of not mentioning them?

I was too scared to bring it up to her either. “Hey Pam, remember what you said about WMDs?” Yeah, sure: “Hey Gary, remember your evaluation I have to write?” Except she wouldn’t even say that—they never say anything that could be used against them; she’d just change the subject and torpedo me in the evals.

The same amnesia she got happened in the press: no apologies, not even an admission. I tried once and someone told me, “There’s no point playing the blame game.” Blame game! If only McClellan had had the PR agency that made that one up. “There’s no point playing the blame game, Mr. Lincoln, just give me another two million troops and I’ll try again.” There’s plenty of goddamn point in playing the blame game when you’re talking about the people who cheerled you into a disastrous invasion. Me, I’m for blood purges where you line up every editorial writer in front of a mass grave, read them what they wrote back in 2003, and then mow them down, but I’m willing to settle for hard labor for life. Cheney on the Chain Gang. Has a ring to it.

The invasion of Iraq happened slowly, with plenty of advance notice and months of all-out bullshit in the press. It was a bad time for anyone who knew anything about military history, which judging by the way the debate went meant damn near nobody. All the so-called experts were doing idiotic “How many tanks has Iraq got?” metrics that had nothing to do with anything. It was obvious the tanks weren’t the problem. The difference was that Cheney wanted to occupy the whole country this time. Funny, cuz he came up with the best reason NOT to do that back in 1994. Somebody dug up a video from back then where Cheney, not the smartest guy as a rule, comes up with a just plain brilliant summary of why occupying Iraq is a bad idea:

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

So what happened, Dick? One of those mini-strokes? More likely, the same thing that happened to his whole administration on September 12, 2001: They got high. And stayed high. Blank checks will do that for you. They couldn’t lose. No matter how cowardly and shameful they acted, they got a pass. Bush read a kid’s book and then bugged out for his bunker when he heard about the attack, but somehow he was a hero. And this isn’t hindsight, damn it; I said so at the time, but nobody wanted to hear it.

Notice what Cheney says at the end there: “How many dead Americans is Saddam worth?”

He thinks the whole thing about occupying Iraq will be getting Saddam. Once we got Saddam, game over. And they really thought that. Remember when every Republican mouthpiece was screeching that the insurgency was over as soon as Saddam was captured? Of course it made no difference whatsoever, because these idiots don’t know a thing about guerrilla warfare.

Or maybe they’d had such an easy ride on top of the backs of American suckers, I mean voters, that they thought everybody was as docile as us and the Iraqis would stop when their leader went down. Wrong again.

Their whole dream got the OK from America, and it’s still hurting us every day. Stateside, all the contracts for the Iraq War were no-bid scams, just outright scams. Nobody minded. They put in every wacko friend they’d made, guys like the FEMA horse breeder who did such a great job in Katrina; nobody minded. They stripped taxes on their rich friends while they were spending a trillion dollars on their pet Iraq war; everybody cheered. I was there, I remember. I’m a big fan of the blame game myself, and I blame every single one of you suckers who bought into it.

The war went the obvious way: Saddam’s tanks were hot scrap in a few days. It was a classic firepower demonstration, and that pretty much guaranteed a bad aftermath, because it’s hard to turn off that kind of firepower when you’re switching to reconstruction. We’ve done some good reconstructions—most of them in 1945—and some bad ones, like 1865-1876. This was one of the worst.

There were no interpreters you could trust, none of the troops spoke Arabic, most of them had swallowed two years of Muzzie-hating from the US press. They didn’t know anything about the place and didn’t want to. They rolled into Fallujah, shot a bunch of demonstrators, and it was on. Took two more all-out invasions to kill everybody in Fallujah who might be trouble. The Marines didn’t even impress the locals, because they hunkered down under fire and called for air or artillery. That might be good tactics, but it yields a lot of shock and no awe whatsoever.

I don’t even have time to list the fatal mistakes in Iraq. Remember Paul Bremer? General Sanchez? Sanchez in particular shocked me because it was clear he had total contempt for CI warfare and just plain wouldn’t admit it was happening, even when the casualty count hit four figures. That was the strategy down the line: It’s not happening.

Every reason for the invasion was disproved. No WMDs. No Al Qaeda links. And it damn sure wasn’t a “cakewalk.”

The 2004 Election

But Bush’s support held. That’s when I lost my country, when he was reelected. I used to be an unhappy American nationalist, like a passenger in the back seat wondering how many drinks the driver’s had. But when we invaded Iraq, the car hit a tree—and all the passengers got out and voted to reelect the driver.

That’s the legacy of 9/11: Two dozen spoiled unemployable dimwits managed to lobotomize my country, bankrupt it, make it such a nasty alien place I didn’t even feel part of it any more. I can’t give Osama much of the credit for that, I just don’t see him as that smart—but you know, he did say his goal was to destroy America. And with a lot of help from all you guys who used to be my fellow Americans, he could die content, because he actually managed it.

Would you like to know more? Gary Brecher is the author of the War Nerd. Send your comments to gary dot brecher at gmail dot com. Read Gary Brecher’s first ever War Nerd column by clicking here.

The War Nerd Book Cover

Click the cover, buy the book!

 

Read more: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Gary Brecher, The War Nerd

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline

133 Comments

Add your own

  • 1. Rehmat  |  September 16th, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Anyone who still has some doubts about 9/11 – he/she should listen to Emily Church who was one of the five ‘non-believers’ of 9/11 official story – BBC field to brainwash her.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/sept-11-and-bbcs-conspiracy-roadtrip/

  • 2. DrunktankDan  |  September 16th, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    @Cum, all
    Dude, a forum community? On here? That would be fucking insane. . .every dipshit paranoid drug abusing leftist and/or anarchist screaming vitriol at each other about absolute nonsense conspiracy theories?

    I’m in. Who do I pay and where do I sign?

  • 3. Griffin  |  September 16th, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Brilliant. Every Fucking Word.

  • 4. Anathame  |  September 16th, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    Someone spoke his opinion on 9/11? Send in the Truther clowns.

  • 5. Zoner  |  September 16th, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    I like that Mongol queen book too, kind of a sequel to Weatherford’s earlier book about Genghis. James P. Delgado’s “Khubilai Khan’s Lost Fleet” is also an interesting read. It’s about the two failed invasions of Japan, and compares them to the failed invasions of Vietnam and Java. You don’t hear as much about the other two because the Vietnamese and Indonesians didn’t make up some bullshit religious story about it, they were used to fighting off shitheads trying to occupy their territory. As fierce as the Mongols were on the steppes of Asia and Europe, they sucked ass at sea and on land that’s no good for horses (plus Khublai was no Genghis, both in martial prowess and in strategic ability).

  • 6. super390  |  September 16th, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    The Exile Moderator improved my post #63 above:

    “Oops–wait a minute, the fact that we lost the Iraq War and the country is controlled by Iran whom Cheney didn’t overthrow, and that Russia didn’t get “screwed over” nearly half as badly as Cheney did when he lost Yukos to Putin–and with it, the world’s 4th largest oil producer–and that Turkey is no longer Israel-friendly at all, in fact they’re practically at war these days, and America’s relations with Turkey are also at their all-time low thanks to Cheney–so yeah, he was a total failure after all, he was.”

    I want to thank you for improving my post because..,because, well, actually my mom wrote the post for me. Just want to say that I assumed that mom knew about every one of the facts you mentioned, and I did mean that Cheney was a total failure for exactly those reasons. So my mom reacted over sarcasm that did not really exist, and underestimated your readers’ awareness of what is pretty much common knowledge among this crowd. So I’m sorry about my mom commenting on this site. Won’t happen again.

  • 7. rhinohorn  |  September 16th, 2011 at 9:01 pm

    “Who is the Exiled Moderator? Ah…oh wait, I get it now. The Moderator is also a…you know…you know which people I’m talking about, you know?”
    Yeah, I pegged you long ago as Juden. I mean, how hard it is to get? You did not exactly made it that hard for me.
    1. The obvious contempt of and looking down on the average American citizens aka. the dumb goyim masses. Typical Jew.
    2. “Class War” and assorted shit preached on the site. In 1956 we hanged those “Class War”-preaching Commie Jews from the lamp-posts on Köztársaság Square.
    3. Ready to put the blame of 9/11 and the disastrous Middle-East wars on the shabos-goyim leaders of America leadership like Bush, but not once mentioning the whole NeoCohen enchillada, defending Israel and the Jews to the hilt.
    You American Jews are more disgusting back-stabbing traitors than the German Jews ever were in 1918.
    Fucking kike scum. Period.

  • 8. TJ  |  September 16th, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    Good read, I sympathize.

    It took a while for the alex Jones nuts to seep out of the floorboards, but glad to see they are still alive and kicking.

  • 9. rhinohorn  |  September 16th, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    Part 2.

    I nearly forgot.

    4. The non-stop anti-Christian sentiments. Typical Jew, can not help himself.
    You may play the white man for a while, but the J-factor always kicks in. Sooner or later the Americans will realise what you are doing, like the Germans did or us. We shot the Juden into the Danube in 1944 for example.
    And then, its the cattle-trains for you, motherfuckers, and Adios kike scum!

  • 10. Eurotrash  |  September 17th, 2011 at 3:57 am

    @81 You’re not wrong, Sakevi. The British weren’t noted for comedy back when Britain ruled the world. Mr Bean? Not the first association. The natives rarely giggled when a union jack hove into view – cursed or shat their grass skirts, maybe. Back home, levity was frowned upon, the Irish were getting a slapping, the Scots were never much for jokes, and the English… you ever read any of Dickens’ or Shakespeare’s comedies?

    Now the whole island’s a water closet, it’s absurdist humour and wry wit everywhere you look.

    Make that switch to the type B mindset, my fat sherman cousins. Don’t burn and rave like Brecher. Go gentle into that good night.

  • 11. Byron  |  September 17th, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    One of your best. I hate the crappy dramatic stuff, too. Like when neighbors or classmates gather to light candles and stack up teddy bears and cry and hug when some local dies. And they always glance around to make sure the cameras are getting them. Fags.

  • 12. Junkie Joe  |  September 17th, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    FUCK. I live in Austin and I’m fucking SICK AND TIRED of these infowars motherfuckers. Cut the bullshit!

    Cheers exiled!

  • 13. dominic  |  September 17th, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Hey Zoner

    do you think there is any truth to the claim that the bows started to warp and come apart when the Mongols went further west into Europe? I am a student of history, but for me the mongols are more a fascination than a group i’ve studied, but anyway when I asked a collegue of mine if he thinks the Mongols could’ve conquered Europe, he said no and gave that reason. He elaborated, saying the steppe and middle east were arid and dry, wheras Europe is more moist.

    The other thing he said that makes a lot of sense, and could probably be applied to Vietnam, is that Europe, beyond Hungary, was mostly forested, which pretty much renders the Mongols fighting tactics inoperable. He went on to say that the Mongols were probably disenterested in the forests of western Europe when they had the spoils of the Middle East and China.

    What do you make of that? I’ve often had very titlating fantasies of the Mongols wiping out the Europeans, leaving a wilderness, and galloping back to the steppe, with nary a thought or folk-tale about the once populated continent…

  • 14. Cum  |  September 17th, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    @102

    Well, there was a forum called Laissez Faire on Something Awful for a few years but it was closed after an enthusiastic clown declared that he wanted to kill the president, at which point the SS got involved and the admins shut down the forum. We loved the exile over there. I’m guessing that an exile forums community would end in a similar fashion.

    But having a small membership fee could help filter out some of the white noise, and since racist trolls and kochbots would get banned and have to pay again every time they want to poison the discourse, it helps cover the bandwidth costs.

  • 15. Rehmat  |  September 18th, 2011 at 4:44 am

    @Super 390

    “We” did not loose Iraq to Iran – but “we” would once it get free of ZOG in Washington. Afghanistan is already set to follow that path. Why? Because “we”, the aliens invaded those countries for Israel and greed while Iran has a common religion and history with Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Lebanon.

    Cheney, like any other American political leader – was a Zionist stooge. His actions were also based on his stupidity and hatred toward Muslims.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/is-us-about-to-lose-iraq-to-iran/

  • 16. Cernunnos  |  September 18th, 2011 at 8:18 am

    @rhinohorn

    As a non-Jew, Irish-German atheist, I feel the need to respond to this. I know the right likes to simplify their enemies into a homogenous mass that makes it easier to digest for their uncritical minds, but I think you fail in quit a few assumptions here.

    1. The obvious contempt of and looking down on the average American citizens aka. the dumb goyim masses. Typical Jew.

    I’m not Jewish and I feel the same way. Next please.

    2. “Class War” and assorted shit preached on the site. In 1956 we hanged those “Class War”-preaching Commie Jews from the lamp-posts on Köztársaság Square.

    What is it with thinking that all Leftists, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, etc. are Jewish? Just because Marx was a Jew? Are all right-wingers French monarchists? Fucking frogs. Or are you guys a bunch of spikehead kraut pieces of shit? See how much sense this makes?

    . Ready to put the blame of 9/11 and the disastrous Middle-East wars on the shabos-goyim leaders of America leadership like Bush, but not once mentioning the whole NeoCohen enchillada, defending Israel and the Jews to the hilt.
    You American Jews are more disgusting back-stabbing traitors than the German Jews ever were in 1918.
    Fucking kike scum. Period.

    And additionally, what’s with this bizarre fantasy that all Jews act with a hive mind? Is it unfathomable that some Jews are ALSO
    4. The non-stop anti-Christian sentiments. Typical Jew, can not help himself.
    You may play the white man for a while, but the J-factor always kicks in. Sooner or later the Americans will realise what you are doing, like the Germans did or us. We shot the Juden into the Danube in 1944 for example.
    And then, its the cattle-trains for you, motherfuckers, and Adios kike scum!

  • 17. Cernunnos  |  September 18th, 2011 at 8:30 am

    @rhinohorn

    As a non-Jew, Irish-German atheist, I feel the need to respond to this. I know the right likes to simplify their enemies into a homogenous mass that makes it easier to digest for their uncritical minds, but I think you fail in quit a few assumptions here.

    1. The obvious contempt of and looking down on the average American citizens aka. the dumb goyim masses. Typical Jew.

    I’m not Jewish and I feel the same way. Next please.

    2. “Class War” and assorted shit preached on the site. In 1956 we hanged those “Class War”-preaching Commie Jews from the lamp-posts on Köztársaság Square.

    What is it with thinking that all Leftists, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, etc. are Jewish? Just because Marx was a Jew? Are all right-wingers French monarchists? Fucking frogs. Or are you guys a bunch of spikehead kraut pieces of shit? See how much sense this makes?

    And you don’t have to be a Jew to understand Class War, but it’s obvious the right would like to deny that class privilege even exists. Don’t worry, you’ll get your day hanging from that lamppost as well.

    3. Ready to put the blame of 9/11 and the disastrous Middle-East wars on the shabos-goyim leaders of America leadership like Bush, but not once mentioning the whole NeoCohen enchillada, defending Israel and the Jews to the hilt.
    You American Jews are more disgusting back-stabbing traitors than the German Jews ever were in 1918.
    Fucking kike scum. Period.

    And additionally, what’s with this bizarre fantasy that all Jews act with a hive mind? Is it unfathomable that some Jews are ALSO rightwing and authoritarian while some Jews oppose Israel’s policies?

    Apparently you don’t understand the psychology of Christian fundamentalism (Christian fucktardism) that pervades the politics in this country. The Bushies and other theocrats don’t really care that much about Jews. They are convenient Middle East Allies. What they really care about is good ‘ol Jerusalem because it’s a central part of their bullshit religion (don’t worry, I think Judaism is bullshit too, mein Fuhrer) and they want it in good American-friendly hands.

    4. The non-stop anti-Christian sentiments. Typical Jew, can not help himself.

    What’s so great about Christianity? Christian fucktards like yourself have infested and ruined all corners of the globe in greater numbers and with greater devastation than the Jews you’re so scared of could ever hope to. Fuck Christianity and fuck you, you Christ-humping scumbag.

  • 18. Onfire  |  September 18th, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Now you make 9/11 sound like the holohoax…maybe i should try and cash in the 9/11 stuff as well?

  • 19. rhinohorn  |  September 19th, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    @117 Cernunnos

    As War Nerd used to say, we are tribal critters. There are billions of peoples fucking about on this rock which hurdles through space and turning non-stop under us, so to deal with and evaluate every person individually is a luxury which is impossible to begin with. Generalization is normal human behaviour, and we can not choose our gender, race, ethnicity (and at some places our religion, too), but we are born with it. Not sticking to our tribe and not working to further our own tribes’ interests is personal and tribal suicide. It has nothing to do with having critical minds or not, I’m afraid…

    As per no.1:
    The brain size of humans are the same since caveman times, and geographical location does not affect this. Therefore Americans are not dumb per se, but are dumbed down on purpose. Mainly with television: TV is a weapon of psychological warfare. The dumbing down of Americans is sociologically and scientifically devised, so blaming them for falling victims to it is hypocritical.

    As per no.2:
    The Communist Party leadership was Jewish everywhere, and they used the greed of the outsiders of society, the lumpen-proletariat in the rank and file of the Party, to destroy the traditional national elites and to take over the wealth of the unfortunate countries falling victim to their agenda. This is called “Class War”. Millions of kulaks were murdered, it led to artificial famine. The workers were exploited worse than under capitalism… (The only state where the workers and owners co-operated happily towards a common goal was the Third Reich).
    I know, I know, the Jews say the Bolshevik Jews do not count as Jews, only as Bolsheviks…but I used to wonder: is this magic transformation a general law? I mean, does a Jew not count as a Jew if he joins ANY political party, or is it only a Communist Party-specific phenomenon :)?

    As per no.3:
    I’d say it a bit differently: Jews infiltrate every political movement, they do not give a shit about ideology, all they care about is if it is good for the Jews or not.
    From Europe, all I can see is the American fundamentalism is Judeo-Christianity, it is Christian Zionism, a contradiction in terms, and has nothing to do with real Christianity.

    As per no.4:
    If I were an atheist like you, I would refrain from harshly accusing people of any faiths with historical violence, because I would be aware of the enormous hypocrisy of the claim. In the last 100 years, during the XXth century, atheist people of secular states with decidedly and pointedly atheist agendas massacred and mass-murdered hundreds of millions of peoples…

  • 20. Cum  |  September 19th, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    “The only state where the workers and owners co-operated happily towards a common goal was the Third Reich”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

    “In the last 100 years, during the XXth century, atheist people of secular states with decidedly and pointedly atheist agendas massacred and mass-murdered hundreds of millions of peoples…”

    You mean people like Hitler?

  • 21. atlas_lied  |  September 19th, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Man, what a douche.

    Anyone else find the polar accusations of Bolshevik Jews and Capitalist Jews contradictory? It’s about as stupid as the idiot Californians who complain about Mexicans who:

    1. are lazy
    2. take all the jobs

    Stick to one accusation or the other.

  • 22. Zoner  |  September 19th, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    @dominic

    I haven’t heard that stuff about the bows, but southern China is more humid than most of Europe and the Mongols did just fine destroying the southern Song. Took them a while, but they managed it. Your colleague is probably right about the relative poverty of Europe not really tempting them, but let’s not forget that the two times they came up to the continent’s borders their khan up and died and the armies had to turn back to fight over the succession. If neither Genghis nor Ogedei had died, who knows what might have happened? The Mongols were able to defeat the knights of Russia and Hungary, both heavily forested at the time, and the knights can’t even use their standard tactic of retreating to their castles because the Mongols had siege engines and rudimentary explosives and cannons from captured and defected Chinese engineers.

  • 23. Cernunnos  |  September 19th, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    @ rhinocervs

    You still haven’t really answered my question about Jews and Leftism. Not all leftists belonged to official (Bolshevik) communist parties. There are libertarian socialists/communists, anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists, democratic socialists, left liberals, wobblies and other traditions that aren’t Marxist or Bolshevik. Plus your Jewish explanation fails to explain how these ideas, Bolshevik or not, took hold in places like Spain, China, Laos, Vietnam,India etc. that certainly aren’t known for their Jewish population. However… perhaps if you substituted “Jews” with “large population of historically disenfranchised and exploited lower classes” then maybe you have something. So in response to your question about “real” or “Bolshevik” Jews I ask, is a communist automatically a Jew, even if he’s from Southeast Asia, because of a supposed “Jewishness” intrinsic to communism?

    Your comment about atheist agendas is the typical right-wing Christard crap we’ve been hearing for ages from our own American echo chamber of stupid. What you call “secular stats” were still cults of personality whose anti-religious agenda was usually to destabilize a previous power, such as how the Soviets persecuted the Orthodox Church, but did little in the way of suppressing Islam. In any case, I didn’t make that point to act as though atheists are perfect and without violence, but to point out your hypocrisy in blaming a tiny minority of the Earth’s population for everything wrong in history, when Christians far outnumber just about everyone (not sure what the statistics are in terms of world religions, but I believe Christians are still on top) and European Christianity has had probably the most far-reaching impact of any world religion. (For the record, I don’t think Christians are intrinsically evil or that all the injustices and atrocities of the world are attributable to Christianity or even religion alone, only that it’s silly to throw around wild conspiracy theories about Jews when the influence of Christianity is out in the open for all to see….)

  • 24. ☭ mouse ☭  |  September 19th, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    @123 why even waste your time ? As soon as someone mentions Jews in this context I pretty much stop listening… its all gonna be downhill batshit from there.

    REPTOID COMMUNIST JEWS FROM OUTER SPACE DID 9/11 TO MANIPULATE THE FIAT CURRENCY. HITLER WAS JUST TRYING TO STOP THE RED LIZARD INVASION YOU STUPID SHEEP !!!!!

  • 25. dominic romani  |  September 19th, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    @ Zoner

    thanks for the response. I wonder where my friend got that idea? by the way, the same friend told me its been proven that mongol bows can pierce plate mail. Is that true?

    anyway, i think medieval Europe was WAY too politically fractured to handle anything like a Mongol invasion. I know a lot more about the Crusades than I do the Mongols, so you can correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the Arabs and the Turks had similar fighting styles to the Mongols, and once Saladin came along fielding a unified army, the Knights fared pretty terribly…in fact, most everybody agrees that the early military vicotries of the Crusades were anomolies and owed much to infighting amongst the Turks.

    That was a long winded way of saying yeah, I agree. The mongols probably would’ve swept right through Europe and back, probably leaving only England and Maybe Spain alone, soley because of geography. Anyway, i didnt know they turned around because of the Khans death, nor any of that other stuff about Russia (which WAS politically unified, and still apparently unable to defend itself). Got any introductory books to recommend? I was considering leafing through Marco Polo, but the contemporary sources are useually dry and lack an engaging narrative (at least the Romans do).

  • 26. Zoner  |  September 20th, 2011 at 8:10 am

    @dominic

    I’ve heard the same about the arrows piercing plate mail and it seems to be true, but only if it’s a direct hit. Otherwise, it will just glance off the armour. I expect you can find videos on youtube showing this.

    For some reason Western Europe never took to horse archery, as even in Eastern Europe there were nomadic tribesmen who lived much like the Mongols. Kind of makes you wonder how Crecy or Agincourt would have happened if there’d been horse archers on one or both sides.

    You’re right about Marco Polo, it’s a pretty dry read. I’d recommend the Jack Weatherford books about the Mongols. Also the James P. Delgado book I recommended to the War Nerd. In fiction, Conn Iggulden has a series of novels about the Mongol conquests. They’re a pretty fun read, but he does take some dramatic license so don’t expect strict historical accuracy.

  • 27. rhinohorn  |  September 20th, 2011 at 11:40 am

    @ Cum,

    Hahaha, fucking YEAH. Ironic, isn’t it?
    Have you seen the 1938 film of Jack Glenn, titled “March of Time: Inside Nazi Germany”?
    An American anti-Nazi propaganda film. Hard as they tried, even they could not suppress the truth, in a funny way. In the film they say all the German workers have jobs at last, after the Weimar Republic unemployment of millions, the workers can feed their families, they have good housing, and cars, and good salaries-and the stupid fuckers do not seem to understand how oppressed they are as German workers! I was laughing my dick off!
    Did you notice the letters S and A in the party name N.S.D.A.P.? S for Socialist, A for Arbeiter (Worker). Hitler realised that the German workers had nothing to do with Bolshevism. So, after eliminating the Communists and re-structuring the class of the business-owners with national elements, the antagonism between the working class and the business owners got to a minimum level. That is why Stalin preferred to call them fascists: he did not like to be reminded of the success of non-marxist socialists.

    By the way, I decidedly did not name any specific peoples or ideologies behind the atheist murderers, so everybody could think of their favourite evils…

  • 28. rhinohorn  |  September 20th, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    @ atlas_lied

    The contradiction is only at a superficial level: this is not an either/or question.

    With your example: 1. some hard-working Mexicans are providing very cheap labour, taking the jobs and undercutting the salary-levels of their competitors, too, and 2. some of the Mexicans are lazy gangstas selling black tar heroin and coke, abhorring the very thought of work.
    From the “idiot” Californians’ point of view, both can be reason to complain, without contradiction: no need to stick to one.

    You find the Bolshevik Jews/Capitalist Jews phenomenon contradictory because you do not look behind the IDEOLOGIES. On an ideological level, the two should be in antagonistic opposition, shouldn’t they?
    But, the question was NOT about ideology. It was about who controls the countries, who has the political power, who is disposing over the wealth of the countries.
    In the capitalist countries, like the USA or Great-Britain, the capitalist Jews already had political and economical control. But in Eastern-Europe, where the bolshevik Jews came to power, the countries were traditional societies where the national elites held the powers. They had to be eliminated, and the bolshevik Jews used proxies for it: the underclass, the lumpen-proletariat. In the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, the power was NOT in the hands of the proletariat, but in the hands of the (Jewish) bolshevik party cadre. And when finally Communism fell, the same cadre appeared as the new private owners of the previously “common” wealth, keeping their political powers, too.
    Now you see why it is not a surprise that the first 5-year plan for the Sovietunion was planned on Wall Street. That the first Communist Party in Hungary held its meetings in a bank, receiving funding from the same bank. That Communist countries could become members of the IMF and World Bank.
    Funny thing is, without the credit the capitalist Jews provided, communism would have gone bankrupt long ago. Meaning the capitalist Jews provided the funding of our oppression-and now we still have to pay that money back, with usury-rate interests, too…

  • 29. rhinohorn  |  September 20th, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    @ 123 Cernunnos

    You ask:”Plus your Jewish explanation fails to explain how these ideas, Bolshevik or not, took hold in places like Spain, China, Laos, Vietnam,India etc. that certainly aren’t known for their Jewish population.”

    Let me start with China, the toughest zit to pop: there are very few little yellow, circumscized comrades with almond-shaped eyes and big noses, true… so we have to go back to 1920 and the starting up of the Communist Party of China, organised by one Russian Jewish comrade, Grigori Voitinsky.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Voitinsky
    We also should not forget Otto Braun, and the other Cheka advisors like Borodin, helping Mao and his war.
    In the 1920s, 1930s the Soviets worked with the same receipt in the Asian countries.

    In Spain, the “democratic forces” consisted mostly of foreign communists. For the life of me I could not name one communist volunteer from Hungary in the Spanish civil war who was not Jewish: the most famous is Gerő Ernő, nom-de-guerre Pedro, Party Secretary in 1956, whose famous speech on 1956 october 23. calling the peaceful demonstrators “fascist scum” incited the armed rebellion.

    You say:”perhaps if you substituted “Jews” with “large population of historically disenfranchised and exploited lower classes” then maybe you have something.”

    Definitely not.
    The peasants, for one, were always against communism and the kolhoz. The communists hated the peasants, because they were self-supplying and independent. The destroying of the kulak families, the artificial famines, etc… would sour up even those peasants towards communism who received their land in 1945 from the hands of the Party(only to be taken away a few years later) and who were too young to remember 1919…the first try of the Communists, when they were-well, hanging the peasants en masse on the countryside… I’m talking about Hungarian history of course.

    The workers? They were not communists. Some were Social-Democrats, more were ArrowCross-symphatizers (fascists), the rest simple patriotic citizens eager to scrape up a decent living. Under communist rule, they were freezing, starving, couldn’t buy a decent pair of shoes or an overcoat, and the work-norms were much worse than in the capitalist system. Small wonder the Workers Councils in 1956 were the greatest enemies of the Communist Party. The street fighters of the 1956 revolution were the Hungarian workers. The people who hanged the “Class War”-preaching Communist cadre on the Köztársaság Square lamp-posts were…workers! And the class-status of most of the rebels executed after 1956 by the Communists were…workers!

    You ask:”is a communist automatically a Jew?”

    Of course not!
    The leadership of the Communist Parties were Jewish, but not all Communists were Jewish: they ruled by proxy. They used the outsiders of society, the lumpen-proletariat, aka. the dumb goyim masses to destroy the traditional elites and take over the power. They elevated some of these lumpen-proletariat people as stooges into key positions, too (and these people became the staunchest communists as they had everything thanks to the system), like in Hungary after 1956 when they realised that the obvious Semitic character of the system does not wash well with the population. And there was always conflict between the lumpen-proletair element and the Jewish element about who has the power: the best example is Stalin and his famous “persecution of the Jews”.

    About Christianity: the reason why the Communists persecuted Christianity is two-fold: one, as Jews they hated Christians, and two, as Communists they hated moral and ethical people…

  • 30. ExOttoyuhr  |  September 20th, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    @6: “Sometimes I wonder if it would not have been better to let the South just go. But then I remember that their capital was just across the Potomac from DC. They didn’t intent to leave the United States. They wanted to BE the United States. I think that war is far from over.”

    The Confederates didn’t want to be the United States — the capital was Atlanta until Virginia joined (it would’ve been a short war if Virginia hadn’t — US General Robert E. Lee?) and they moved to Richmond to reward the Virginians.

    The general attitude on both sides at first was that Confederate secession was a good thing — then someone realized how much Federal revenue came from tariffs on Southern cotton, and Lincoln, the New York Times, et al. changed their stance pretty darned quick.

    Now? I doubt the North will let the South go until a general collapse arrives — because they’re so dead-set on how superior they are to the rest of the world, and releasing the South as an (enthusiastically) independent nation would retroactively prove that they were oppressors all along after all. They’d rather fight a miniature Civil War every four years than admit that their self-proclaimed identity was a lie.

    (But even if not for the South, it would be a lie. Have you ever heard of the Morgenthau Plan?)

  • 31. ry  |  September 21st, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    @ Cernunnos

    You only have a shallow grasp of history, the core of political power, and economic ideologies. But it serves your true political enemies well, because you shout very loud for them.

    If your not one of them, they don’t give a fuck about you. Everyone HAS to have a tribe. They know this. The tribal loyalty, and their ability to destroy other tribes, is the core of their power. Their largest victory is convincing you to fight against your own tribe and in the interest of theirs. Its a shame that you will never receive anything for your efforts but more oppression.

    Seriously, you have a lot of heavy reading and eye opening to do before you can engage in this conversation seriously. Even if you didn’t share the opinion of those who you rail on against, its still important to know their perspective. We know yours. You only think that you know ours, but you haven’t reached a specific level of political understanding yet. World War II didn’t occur for imagined reasons, for either side. The reasons were real and urgent.

    As for my Zionist-loving mother who sucks on the staff of any exiled heeb that comes along , and closetcase Zionist wannabe commentors like myself who fancy themselves warriors for human justice and masturbate to the idea of marrying a yid and joining the chosen few, we are gonna keep screaming waaaaah waaaaaah waaaaaah. Yeah the Jews are horrible. Yep hicks like me have nothing better to do than to troll comment sections and spew scary prophecies about the end of days for the Jews. Really scary stuff. Brrrrrrr. Really scary. My skidmark is now very visible to a significant amount of people. I hear crunching noises in my underpants as I shift weight from one buttcheek to another in my computer chair writing about how the Jews made up the entirely ridiculous “Muslim Terrorist” lie, as well as when you speak your arrogant and poorly sarcastic responses to anyone who speaks of anything zionist. It’s fine. I just keep trolling the comments with my cool, collected scary Jew apocalypse voice. Did I give you goosebumps? Brrr. Scarrry. Why cant people like me just be done talking our illogical and fallacious arguing tactics are predictable, boring, and are obvious fronts to reason and provable truth. We lost the argument when I refused to have it. You’ll divert some with your continued arrogance, illogical racist accusations, and denial of reality, this will only serve to inoculate most to your shouts. Now, we move on without you. That’s right, you’re not invited to our end of days bunker. We’re afraid you’ll bone all our aryan shiksas.

  • 32. Jeff Prager  |  October 12th, 2011 at 10:02 am

    It would be a great idea to understand the events you write about just a little better. Other then erroneous data at periodic points you write rather well.

    Murdering Liberty Killing Hope
    The Office Of Naval Intelligence, The Eldorado Task Force, The Securities and Exchange Commission, Cantor-Fitzgerald, The Federal Reserve, The US Treasury, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Nugan Hand Bank, The Bush Crime Family and the Global Bankers. A study in criminal global finance and the events of 911.

    http://www.datafilehost.com/download-0c99b14c.html

    911 Gold
    Vast Global Financial Fraud, gold market manipulation and what Dick Cheney and George Bush actually did while in the White House.

    http://www.datafilehost.com/download-71072e4d.html

    After 911:
    Connecting the SubPrime Crisis directly to the same people.

    http://www.datafilehost.com/download-ab3fa150.html

  • 33. Frank Zappa  |  August 15th, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    #120… “In the last 100 years, during the XXth century, atheist people of secular states with decidedly and pointedly atheist agendas massacred and mass-murdered hundreds of millions of peoples…”

    You mean people like Hitler?

    Bzzzzz. Wrong. Hitler was born, raised and died a Catholic.


Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)

Required

Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed