All posts by Algora Blog

02-Dec-17 – Poor Yemen

Just reported by HispanTV News : “The Yemeni popular movement Ansarolah accuses former President Ali Abdullah Saleh of organizing a coup against his alliance. Call on all groups to maintain the unity and stability of the country”.

It seems that the clashes between the two factions are circunscribed to the city of Sana´a.

Yemeni people should learn from the Lebanese people on how mantaining the unity of the country is a must to avoid being exterminated by the “Axis of Evil”.
Of course, something must be done for the relief of the suffering of the civil population and achieve the rising of blockade, but to give up the fight just to get Saleh at the helms again is like if all this years of sacrifice would have bee for nothing.

When I visited Yemen, almost a decade and a half ago, under Saleh rule, poverty was widespread there, people was said to eat only one meal a day, and the only people who had a university degree were those original from former Popular Democratic Republic in the South, who had had the opportunity to study in Cuba and the USSR, being at that time no opportunity for nothing except allowing them working as travel guides, with the most ambitious amongst them wishing to leave the country not seeing any future at all there.
I can remember people affected by Poliomyelitis, a disase already erradicated in our developed world, like that man who was oblied to walk bent, like an animal, with two wooden blocks in his hands as if they were shoes…..Also I remember getting very impressed by a little girl playing with other children in the old city of Saada, who had one of her eyes completely in process of destruction by a serious infection,..Both her and the other children seemed to accept such a tragic destiny as a natural curse….

Before my travel, as usual, I had read a bit about the country, and amongst the things I had read was about some kidnapping of tourists which were taken place for to exert pressure on the government for providing electricity or water to the village or any other thing like this. They were adding at those readings that the kidnapped tourists were always so well treated that there had been cases where the tourists had asked for remaining some aditional days in the village when their liberation was about to come….Such friendly, warm and kindhearted is the people living in Arabia Félix….They do not deserve such a leader as Saleh who, most probably, will loot all the funds coming for reconstruction….

During this travel, my group, as the proletarian travelers we were, stayed at humble hotels and people´s homes, but, for one day we stayed in a four stars hotel at Maareb, most probably because there was no other option in that conflictive zone very hostile to the government, only for four hours of sleep before starting the crossing of Ramlat Al Sab´atayn desert to get to Hadramawt valley, the only guests I could see at that hotel were a group of about four tall anglosaxon guys wearing caps….Although at that time I was very young and ignorant about what was being cooked around the world, while I was having a funny time with my travel companions,they did not go unnoticed by me and I got to think that they only could be CIA agents…well, they were not tourists, I can asure you…..I really wondered what the hell they were doing there….

01-Dec-17 – Gazprom’s Nord Stream 2

“QUESTION: I’m Marek Walkuski, Polish Public Radio.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Nice to meet you. Welcome to the State Department.

QUESTION: Deputy Assistant Secretary McCarrick told a group of European journalists that, I quote, “We don’t see the possibility that Nord Stream 2 is going to be built. That is not something that we are going to assume is going to happen.” Could you explain what is the statement based on? And I’m wondering if the topic has been discussed during the meeting between Secretary Tillerson and German foreign minister and what’s the conclusion of their discussion if, in fact, it was one of the topics.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I can tell you that that conversation did not come up. The Secretary and the foreign minister had a very positive meeting in which they talked about the DPRK, North Korea. They talked about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and the importance of Saudi Arabia opening additional ports and ways that we can get humanitarian aid into Yemen. They talked about a few other matters as well. Nord Stream 2 was not one of the topics that came up in my presence. Now, they may have had a separate sideline conversation that I did not witness, so that may have come up.

In terms of where exactly we are on Nord Stream 2 – pardon me one second – another topic related to that is the multi-line Turkish Stream, as I understand it. So our position on this would be that Europe is certainly working to try to diversify where it gets its energy. I’ve spoken with some of your colleagues before, people from that part of the world as well, and recognizing that there should be and could be more sources of energy. We have seen in the very cold winter months where Vladimir Putin – which is where a lot of your energy comes from in particular in Poland – where he will turn down, turn off those energy supplies, causing costs to go up and causing people to lose heat on occasion. So we know that Europe is working to diversify its energy sector overall. It’s also assessing projects that would undermine some of these efforts.

We agree with many of our European partners that Nord Stream 2 and a multi-line Turkish Stream would reinforce Russian dominance in Europe’s gas markets. It would reduce opportunities for diversification of energy sources. It would pose security risks in an already tense Baltic Sea region and it would advance Russia’s goal of undermining Ukraine – that’s a particular concern of ours – by ending Ukraine’s role as a transit country for Russian gas exports to get to Europe. Construction of Nord Stream 2 would concentrate about 75 percent of Russian gas imports to the EU through a single route, creating a potential checkpoint that would significantly increase Europe’s vulnerability to a supply disruption. So we believe that these two projects would enable Gazprom to cut off transit via Ukraine and still meet demand in Western Europe, which would economically undermine Ukraine by depriving it of about $2 billion in annual transit revenue. Okay?

QUESTION: But is this statement correct, that you don’t believe that the project would be built, that Nord Stream 2 would be built? And Secretary Tillerson called recently the Nord Stream 2 unwise. What are you doing to stop this unwise project?

MS NAUERT: So, sir, I don’t have the Secretary’s comments in front of me, so I hesitate to comment on having something that I —

QUESTION: Two days ago at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

MS NAUERT: I understand. I understand. I just don’t have the exact quote in front of me.


MS NAUERT: So I’m not – I’m just not going to comment on that. And the other person who made a remark, I don’t – I’m afraid I don’t have that with me either, so – okay?


QUESTION: Can we move on? Heather, can we move on please?

MS NAUERT: Thanks. Yeah, North Korea.”

01-Dec-17 – North Korea’s Low Orbit ICBM

Question 1:

…’The only thing Iran has done was loft a satellite into low earth orbit at 300 miles altitude and the neocons freak that this is a cover for an ICBM program, uh-no. That doesn’t get you much…

Question 2:

Iran is propelling the rocket up to an altitude of 300 miles, so even if you double it to guesstimate the horizontal range, that’s only 600 miles…
…They are pushing satellites into orbit but that doesn’t allow them to test warhead reentry technology.
…Other than the general connection to rocketry, is there anything unique to launching satellites that makes it ICBM specific…’

I understand your desire to keep some here from deflecting this ‘rocket’ issue onto Iran…and that is commendable…

However…your complete lack of any technical knowledge about space flight does not help the discussion…

For one thing…putting a spacecraft into orbit is a Very Big Deal…
Once a spacecraft is in low earth orbit…it flies around the earth about once every 90 minutes…
That means it could hit anywhere on earth within 90 minutes…
Your second comment about the altitude reached has absolutely nothing to do with orbit…
In a nutshell…it’s not about altitude…it’s all about speed…
Here is a simple primer in physics that even high-school students should know…and surely do in countries like North Korea…
Question…how does a satellite in orbit…i.e. flying around the earth…stay there…?
It is explained by two forces pulling in opposite directions being in equilibrium…as per Newton’s Third Law…
In the case of a satellite the force pulling it to the earth is the acceleration of earth’s gravity…which is 9.8 meters per second squared…[32.2 ft/s^2]
Obviously if there is no equal and opposite force to counter earth’s gravitational pull…the satellite will come down instead of staying in orbit…
That equal and opposite force is the centrifugal force acting on the satellite…
We all know what centrifugal force is…remember the spinning a water bucket around demonstration…or the hammer throw in Olympics…where that guy spins a heavy ball on the end of a chain around and then releases it…
Well…that satellite flying around earth at Very High Speed is exactly like that ball…
The chain is like the force of gravity holding it in an ‘orbit’ as the guy spins around…
While he’s holding on to it the two forces are in equilibrium…but at some point the centrifugal force overcomes his ability to hold on…and off she goes…
With a spacecraft in orbit we want to achieve just the right speed in order to keep the centrifugal force in equilibrium with the earth’s gravitational pull…
It is a simple calculation of basic algebra…

Centrifugal force = mass x velocity squared / radius…
The gravitational pull on the vehicle = mass x g
where g is the acceleration of gravity…i.e. 9.8 m/s^2…
since the two are in equilibrium we get…
m x V^2 / r = mass x 9.8 m/s
where m is mass of the vehicle…r is earth’s radius…and V is velocity of the vehicle…
since the mass of the vehicle is the same value…it cancels out on both sides of the equation and we are left with…
V^2 / r = 9.8
We can now solve for the velocity of the vehicle by rearranging that equation…
i.e….V = sqrt(r x 9.8)
the radius of the earth is roughly 6,000 km [or six million meters]
So now we find the velocity required to reach orbit…
V = sqrt( 6,000,000 x 9.8) = 7,668 m/s…or 7.67 km/s…

that’s 17,153 mph…
Why is this a big deal…?
…because it has to do with the capability of the rocket propulsion to reach that Speed…
We recall from the early days of the space race that the Russians launched the first satellite Sputnik 1 in 1957…
The US launched its first satellite in 1958…Explorer 1…but we note that its mass was less than one fifth that of sputnik…[14 kg vs 84 kg]…
…which means the Russian rocket was more than five times as powerful…
Then in 1961…the Russians launched the first man into ORBIT…on the Vostok 1…
Then just weeks later…the US launched its first man into space…But Not Orbit…
Alan Shepard’s Mercury Redstone 3 Rocket was able to achieve a maximum speed of only 5,134 mph…
…which is less than one-third the Velocity needed to reach ORBIT…
We also note the launch mass of the MR3 vehicle was less than half that of the Vostok…
It wasn’t until a year later, 1962, that John Glenn became the first US man in Orbit…on the Mercury Atlas 6 rocket…
We note again that the mass of the MA6 vehicle was only 1,300 kg…barely a quarter that of the 4,700 kg Vostok 1…
those two cardinal parameters…ie Orbital Velocity…and Payload…speak directly to the rocket capability…
It was crystal clear that the Russians had a big lead in rocket engine technology…
The fact that the Iranians can put a vehicle in orbit…no matter its mass…also speaks to an advanced rocket capability…ie being able to reach Orbital Velocity…
The North Koreans are in a different league now…this is an impressive rocket and there can be little doubt that it has intercontinental range…
Incidentally ICBMs aren’t designed to reach orbital velocity…there is a tradeoff between payload and maximum velocity…i.e….cut down the payload and you get more velocity…which is what the US did in the early years to try to keep up…
A Typical ICBM will only need to reach as little as 4 to 5 km/s…but modern Russian and US typically go to over 6 km/s…
They do not enter orbit because there is a prohibition on weapons in orbit that everyone has signed…but the US considers that it is within the law if it launches a weapon that does not make one full orbit…
Of course the Russians can play that game too…
B brought to light some good technical points here including the details on the rocket engine turbo-pump…which is the heart of the machine…
Their progress has been incredible. I didn’t get a good view of this new rocket, but their previous liquid fuel rockets burned extremely cleanly. After initial launch there was virtually no smoke at all. Even stranger is the precision that they achieved with the guidance systems; the things went exactly where they wanted them to go. This is all very mystifying.

30-Nov-17 – Russia to Build Sanctions-Proof Internet for BRICS Nations

Russia will build an alternative to the system of Domain Name Servers, sanctions-proofing its internet


The Russian Security Council has asked the country’s government to develop an independent internet infrastructure for BRICS nations, which would continue to work in the event of global internet malfunctions.

The initiative was discussed at the October meeting of the Security Council, which is Russia’s top consultative body on national security. President Vladimir Putin personally set a deadline of August 1, 2018 for the completion of the task, the RBC news agency reported.

While discussing the issue, members of the council noted that “the increased capabilities of western nations to conduct offensive operations in the informational space as well as the increased readiness to exercise these capabilities pose a serious threat to Russia’s security.”

They decided that the problem should be addressed by creating a separate backup system of Domain Name Servers (DNS), which would not be subject to control by international organizations. This system would be used by countries of the BRICS bloc – Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.

The issue of excessive dependency on global DNS has previously been addressed by Russia. In 2014, the Russian Communications Ministry conducted a major exercise in which it simulated the “switching off” of global internet services and used a Russian backup system to successfully support web operations inside the country.

However, when reporters asked Vladimir Putin’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov if the country’s authorities had been considering disconnecting from the global internet in 2014, Peskov dismissed these allegations as false.

Russia’s disconnection from the global internet is of course out of the question,” Peskov told the Interfax news agency. However, the official also emphasized that “recently, a fair share of unpredictability is present in the actions of our partners both in the US and the EU, and we [Russia] must be prepared for any turn of events.”

We all know who the chief administrator of the global internet is. And due to its volatility, we have to think about how to ensure our national security,” said Peskov. It’s not about disconnecting Russia from the World Wide Web, he added, but about “protecting it from possible external influence.”

Sent from my iPad

29-11-17 – Patrick Buchanan: The US-Saudi Starvation Blockade

Patrick Buchanan: The US-Saudi Starvation Blockade

Patrick J. Buchanan
By Patrick J. Buchanan | November 27, 2017 |

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (Screenshot)

Our aim is to “starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission,” said First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill.

He was speaking of Germany at the outset of the Great War of 1914-1918. Americans denounced as inhumane this starvation blockade that would eventually take the lives of a million German civilians.

Yet when we went to war in 1917, a U.S. admiral told British Prime Minister Lloyd George, “You will find that it will take us only two months to become as great criminals as you are.”

After the Armistice of Nov. 11, 1918, however, the starvation blockade was not lifted until Germany capitulated to all Allied demands in the Treaty of Versailles.

As late as March 1919, four months after the Germans laid down their arms, Churchill arose in Parliament to exult, “We are enforcing the blockade with rigor, and Germany is very near starvation.”

So grave were conditions in Germany that Gen. Sir Herbert Plumer protested to Lloyd George in Paris that morale among his troops on the Rhine was sinking from seeing “hordes of skinny and bloated children pawing over the offal from British cantonments.”

The starvation blockade was a war crime and a crime against humanity. But the horrors of the Second World War made people forget this milestone on the Western road to barbarism.

A comparable crime is being committed today against the poorest people in the Arab world — and with the complicity of the United States.

Saudi Arabia, which attacked and invaded Yemen in 2015 after Houthi rebels dumped over a pro-Saudi regime in Sanaa and overran much of the country, has imposed a land, sea and air blockade, after the Houthis fired a missile at Riyadh this month that was shot down.

The Saudis say it was an Iranian missile, fired with the aid of Hezbollah, and an “act of war” against the kingdom. The Houthis admit to firing the missile, but all three deny Iran and Hezbollah had any role.

Whatever the facts of the attack, what the Saudis, with U.S. support, are doing today with this total blockade of that impoverished country appears to be both inhumane and indefensible.

Almost 90 percent of Yemen’s food, fuel and medicine is imported, and these imports are being cut off. The largest cities under Houthi control, the port of Hodaida and Sanaa, the capital, have lost access to drinking water because the fuel needed to purify the water is not there.

Thousands have died of cholera. Hundreds of thousands are at risk. Children are in danger from a diphtheria epidemic. Critical drugs and medicines have stopped coming in, a death sentence for diabetics and cancer patients.

If airfields and ports under Houthi control are not allowed to open and the necessities of life and humanitarian aid are not allowed to flow in, the Yemenis face famine and starvation.

What did these people do to deserve this? What did they do to us that we would assist the Saudis in doing this to them?

The Houthis are not al-Qaida or ISIS. Those are Sunni terrorist groups, and the Houthis detest them.

Is this now the American way of war? Are we Americans, this Thanksgiving and Christmas, prepared to collude in a human rights catastrophe that will engender a hatred of us among generations of Yemeni and stain the name of our country?

Saudis argue that the specter of starvation will turn the Yemeni people against the rebels and force the Houthi to submit. But what if the policy fails. What if the Houthis, who have held the northern half of the country for more than two years, do not yield? What then?

Are we willing to play passive observer as thousands and then tens of thousands of innocent civilians — the old, sick, weak, and infants and toddlers first — die from a starvation blockade supported by the mighty United States of America?

Without U.S. targeting and refueling, Saudi planes could not attack the Houthis effectively and Riyadh could not win this war. But when did Congress authorize this war on a nation that never attacked us?

President Obama first approved U.S. support for the Saudi war effort. President Trump has continued the Obama policy, and the war in Yemen has now become his war, and his human rights catastrophe.

Yemen today is arguably the worst humanitarian crisis on earth, and America’s role in it is undeniable and indispensable.

If the United States were to tell Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that we were no longer going to support his war in Yemen, the Saudis would have to accept the reality that they have lost this war.

Indeed, given Riyadh’s failure in the Syria civil war, its failure to discipline rebellious Qatar, its stalemated war and human rights disaster in Yemen, Trump might take a hard second look at the Sunni monarchy that is the pillar of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

28-Nov-17 – Quotes of the Day

“Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep. We want to accomplish three things:

One, we want the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe. Two, we want them to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe. Three, we want the Americans to stop proceeding with Strategic Defense Initiative.”

Quote by: Mikhail Gorbachev (1931- ) General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the last head of state of the USSR (1985-1991) Date: November 1987 Source: speech to the Soviet Politburo, November 1987

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”

Mikhail Gorbachev

25-Nov-17 – Net neutrality and the drive to censor the internet

Net neutrality and the drive to censor the internet

Andre Damon, WSWS, Nov 25 2017

25 November 2017

Wednesday’s move by the Trump administration to end net neutrality marks a milestone in the offensive by the US government and major corporations to put an end to the free and open internet, paving the way for widespread government censorship of oppositional news and analysis.

Under the current law, upheld by numerous court decisions and reaffirmed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2015, companies that provide internet access to users, known as internet service providers (ISPs), cannot block or impede their users’ access to any website or service.

But the draft proposal published by FCC chairman Ajit Pai Wednesday, and expected to sail through the approval process next month, would put an end to the decades-long treatment of internet services as a public utility, allowing the internet monopolies Comcast, Charter, AT&T and Verizon full ability to block, throttle and promote internet traffic at will.

This will allow them to block or limit access to websites, such as the World Socialist Web Site, WikiLeaks and other sources of politically critical news, entirely at their discretion, as well as peer-to-peer file sharing networks, which were used by news outlets to bypass censorship in the past.

The ending of net neutrality will also have a substantial economic impact. By scrapping most government regulation of the internet giants, the ISPs will be able to use their monopoly power to jack up prices for consumers. While most people will be relegated to a slow and largely censored internet, the ability to communicate information freely will be reserved for those who can pay exorbitant premium rates.

Moreover, by forcing content providers to pay for premium access, the ending of net neutrality threatens to massively entrench existing communications monopolies, while restricting access to smaller businesses and user-supported sites and services, which will not have the financial resources to compete with the technology and media giants. ISPs will be free to increase costs for smaller sites and services, potentially driving them out of business.

Major media outlets, which have for years been inveighing against the independent blogs, websites and other news outlets that gained readership at their expense, will no doubt seek to use the ruling to bring to bear their economic leverage to regain their former control over the political discourse.

The power that is being handed to a few corporations is staggering. The four largest telecommunications companies control more than 75 percent of high-speed internet service. More than half of American households have only one ISP to chose from, and most other households have only two providers to choose from.

Now, these giant monopolies, which have already demonstrated that they act as proxies for the government by collaborating in the NSA’s illegal mass surveillance programs, will be able to block access to entire websites.

While the major social media and content distribution companies, including Facebook and Google, have claimed to oppose the move, they do so entirely from the standpoint that ending net neutrality will give internet service providers greater power to compete with their businesses.

Facebook, Twitter, and Google, which owns YouTube, have made clear that they fully support internet censorship, which is the essential content of the ending of net neutrality.

This week, Facebook announced that it would notify users when they read content from accounts accused by US intelligence agencies of spreading “Russian propaganda,” creating a backlist of outlets presenting critical sources of news and analysis.

This followed the announcement by Google executive Eric Schmidt that the company would “de-rank” RT, Sputnik and what it called “those kinds of sites,” in its search and news products. This is an open-ended statement of intent to censor not just Russia-connected news sites, but effectively all political opposition. Schmidt’s comments were a confirmation of statements by the World Socialist Web Site that Google is seeking to limit access to sites based on political criteria.

Google’s YouTube, meanwhile, has gone on a censorship spree, taking down videos and banning and demonetizing channels it claims are spreading “extremist” views.

The ending of net neutrality plays a key role in this censorship drive. Under conditions that existed prior to the ending of net neutrality, users were able to bypass these forms of heavy-handed censorship by turning to smaller and more open platforms to find and share information.

But with the ending of net neutrality, the social media and streaming monopolies will be able, by cutting deals with the ISPs, to strangle their upstart competitors, keeping users locked into platforms that increasingly serve as little more than distribution networks for state-approved propaganda.

Billions of people all over the world have embraced the internet precisely because it promised a free and unimpeded way to access and share information. Oppositional and socialist organizations, excluded for decades from the public discourse by the effective monopoly exercised by major newspapers, TV, and radio stations, found an audience hungry for information suppressed by the increasingly discredited establishment media.

The government’s lies—from the “weapons of mass destruction” that justified the invasion of Iraq, to government complicity with Islamist organizations it was supposedly fighting in the “war on terror,” to mass surveillance and the corrupt and oligarchic nature of American politics—have been exposed by internet publications.

Now, under conditions of a mounting war threat and soaring social inequality, public access to alternative sources of information is seen as an intolerable threat, to be shut off and suppressed.

Internet communications are not a luxury, but a vital social need and should be treated as a public utility. However, under conditions in which three billionaires control as much wealth as half the US population, and all of social and economic life is controlled by a shrinking number of powerful corporations, the provision of all social rights, from communications to the most basic necessities of public infrastructure, are treated as privileges available only to the increasingly small sliver of the population that is able to pay for them.

The demand for the most basic social rights, including the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, comes into conflict with the capitalist system.

The defense of a free and open internet is inseparably bound up with the struggle against capitalism, based on the independent and international mobilization of the working class around a socialist program.

The massive and bloated technology monopolies, who now see their primary function as being the blocking, not the dissemination, of information, must be seized and turned into publicly owned utilities, with the aim of providing the entire world’s combined knowledge to the whole global population.

Andre Damon

18-Nov-17 – Race-ism vs Racism

Priss Factorsays:Website

November 6, 2017 at 8:50 am GMT • 3,200 Words

But now let’s try this: If you agree with James Watson, are you a racist? That is, does anyone say of himself that he is a racist? Does your answer strike you as a little odd?

‘Racist’ blurs race and ism and confused people. The proper spelling should be race-ist. That way, people are more aware of the true meaning. Race means race and Ism means belief. So, race + ism = belief in reality of race, racial differences, and/or necessity of racial consciousness.

So, I say that I am indeed a race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn’t mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy. It means belief. Now, race-ism can be radicalized into supremacism, as with Nazism or Black Islam stuff or even certain extreme strands of Zionism, as with Meir Kahane. But rational race-ism seeks to understand race and racial differences for what they are.

The big problem is ‘racism’ has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred. But when Ism is defined in such a way, it negates the possibility of having a useful term that simply means belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Because mere race + ism has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred, it’s difficult to come up with any objective term about race reality. The term ‘racism’ was specially designed to suck out all the air so that a neutral rational term is near-impossible.
Suppose I define heliocentrism as a hateful supremacist ideology that the sun is great and everything else sucks eggs. Such should be called helio-supremacism or helio-chauvinism. Heliocentrism should just mean the belief that planets revolve around the Sun. It’s a belief in objective fact based on science. But if heliocentrism is defined as hateful supremacy of sun-worship, then a neutral term is impossible.
Or take the term ‘humanism’. It doesn’t mean humans are the bestest thing in the cosmos and has supremacy rule over everything. It means humans have both limits and worth as moral beings and that humans should be mindful of their role, responsibility, and rights as humans on the planet.
But suppose ‘humanism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of humanity or a conviction that humans are the greatest things in the universe and all must bow down to humans.
Such an attitude should be called human-supremacism, human-chauvinism, or human-megalomania. After all, Ism just means belief. So, there is no reason for ‘humanism’ to mean anything extreme. As it happens, ‘humanism’ is defined properly. It doesn’t carry supremacist meaning.
But for some reason, ‘racism’ has been defined to mean ‘my race is the best and all others better be our slaves or be exterminated’. Since when does Ism mean something that extreme?

Same goes for nationalism. It should mean belief and defense of one’s nation. Nationalism can turn cancerous and become imperialism or jingoism, but nationalism as nationalism isn’t extreme. It is belief in the right of one’s nation to survive as territory, history, and identity. But the PC media have defined nationalism(esp among white gentiles) to mean something extreme. So, even the most basic nationalists in Europe who want self-preservation and self-determination are labeled as ‘far right’. Mere bread-and-butter nationalism is now associated with imperialist Nazism.
So, if Poles and Hungarians [and Romanians] want to preserve their nations(while respecting other nations), they are compared with ‘dark forces’ of Nazism and extremism and ‘far right’. When something normal as basic nationalism is defined in such extreme way, it sucks out all the air in the room. When mere nationalism is ‘nazism’, then it’s impossible to have a term that simply means belief of national independence and sovereignty. When a neutral or basic term is defined radically, it serves as a terminological black hole. It sucks in and destroys all other possible meanings. It is because a neutral term like race-ism has been made extreme that there is, as yet, no effective term for Basic Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences. This is why the most important thing is to rehabilitate the term race-ism to mean what it should mean: Belief in reality of race and racial differences, and/or realization that such awareness will naturally lead to racial consciousness.

As ‘racism’ and ‘antisemtism’ are used in America today, they mean the failure to show proper deference, even reverence, for blacks and Jews. It also means daring to say NO to blacks or Jews or daring to notice negative aspects of the black experience or Jewish influence. So, if in the past, ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ meant treating blacks as inferior or Jews as suspect, now it means failing to treat blacks as superior and Jews as the rightful masters. Today, ‘racism’ means the right of black superioirty, and ‘antisemitism’ means the right of Jewish supremacism.
Same thing with ‘homophobia’. What used to mean an extreme animus against homos just minding their own business has come to mean the refusal to bend over backwards to worship homos. So, if a bakery won’t bake ‘homo wedding’ cake, it is ‘homophobic’. If a politician refuses to march in the homo ‘pride’ parade, he or she is ‘homophobic’. Or, if a church says NO to homo colors and banners, it is ‘homophobic’. (Granted, even the original use of the term ‘homophobia’ was bogus since ‘homophobia’ doesn’t exist. Phobia is a clinical terms for extreme pathological panicked fear of something harmless. While it’s true that many people feel revulsion about homo, it’s not an irrational fear. It is natural healthy reaction to the icky act of homo fecal penetration or tranny penis or poon mutilation.)
Those terms now guard black, Jewish, and homo supremacism. Blacks, Jews, and homos have become difficult and arrogant because they’ve gotten used to their privileged status as Magic Negro gods, Super Jewish Masters, or wonderful homo angels. Even jokes about homos and trannies will not be tolerated. You better call him Caitlyn.

“it was once the case that being a racist had something to do with a person’s feelings or beliefs”

Again, the problem was the willful abuse of terminology. Ism was used to mean something extreme when Ism just means belief. The problem began with how the term originated in the first place.
From the start, it should have been called racial bigotry, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, or etc. Extreme racial attitudes should not have been called ‘racism’ as it implies that ism, when applied to race, means just about all the negative connotations under the sun.
Worse, it wasn’t just the definition that did the trick. It was the ‘idology’ and ‘iconology’ of how the term came to be defined. While dictionaries offer definitions in words, the real power derives from the term’s association with certain images and sounds. This is why ‘racism’ has power only in relation to blacks. Hollywood and PBS and education have given us lots of images of saintly noble blacks martyred by KKK, rednecks, police brutality, and etc. So, images of black victimhood are baked into the minds of millions in association with ‘racism’. There used to be some degree of that with American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but interest in Indians faded, partly because Indians have little entertainment value and also because the Indian experience invokes what happened to the Palestinians. (It’s interesting that Tarantino’s Western deals with southern slavery than with American Indians. It goes to show how much the red man has fallen off the radar, even within the domain of the once most popular movie genre.) When people hear ‘racism’ in relation to non-blacks, there’s just a faint sense that it’s wrong but no great passion. After all, Hollywood, TV, and education don’t dwell much on Magic Mexican, Suffering Chinese, or some such. And certainly not much on Palestinians. This is why there is no sympathy for Palestinians among most Americans despite the tragedy of Nakba, Occupation, and now apartheid. While most Americans will theoretically agree that ‘racism’ against Palestinians is wrong, their minds haven’t been instilled with iconography or idolatry of Palestinian martyrdom. But suppose Hollywood, TV, and public education produced lots of movies, TV shows, songs, and symbols of Palestinian victimhood. Things would change. But when most people think of Arabs, they think of some Hollywood villain yelling “I will die for Allah” and blowing up people. (‘Iconology’ matter a tremendous deal. Consider ET. It was all just make-believe. No such creature ever existed or arrived on earth to befriend some boy. But Spielberg’s movie made ET so lovable, and so many adults and children were made to weep over ET. So, even though there are so many 100s of millions of people suffering all over the world, more Americans felt more compassion and love for a fictional space creature than for fellow mankind. No less fantastical than ET is the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE. Negroes that big usually play NFL, beat up white boys, and hump white women. But GREEN MILE has white boys and girls weeping at the poor saintly Negro as some divine god figure.)
So, what matters is not just the control of terms but controls of icons and idols in relation to those terms. As a child, I saw ROOTS and there’s a scene where Chicken George bawls after his chicken-of-freedom done get killed. It is a wrenching scene, and it makes you feel esp sorry for the suffering Negro. That image is baked into my mind. It’s like BLAZING SADDLES. Even though the white townsfolk are socially anti-black and hate the idea of ‘black sheriff’, the Negro’s clever use of ‘iconology’ of the Hepless Negro just tugs at people’s heartstrings. Even though I eventually grew out of Magic Negro Myth, it took some time and struggle since I got so much of that Holy Brotha and Sista stuff on PBS, what with MLK orating about the Dream. It took some effort to wean myself from Negropiate and see the Negro what he truly be: Crazy.

What we need to do is rehabilitate the term ‘racism’ as ‘race-ism’ and define it properly. Race-ism should just mean a rational and neutral belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Now, race-ism can be rational and objective or it can be based on crazy theories, like that of Nation of Islam that says Dr. Yacub grafted the white race from the black race. Rational Race-ism on blacks would have to conclude that blacks pose a threat to the white race because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. So, white race-ism in relation to blacks is multi-faceted. When it comes to general intelligence, whites have superiority and advantage. But when it come to muscularity and masculinity, it’s the blacks with superiority and advantage. So, if whites were to struggle for racial independence and liberation from black thuggery, it must be on the basis of white inferiority. Blacks are superior as thugs, and racial integration will destroy white manhood. Race-ism notices both advantages and disadvantages of one race vis-a-vis other races. White race cannot survive without white manhood since white women won’t respect men without manhood. White women will go with the negro and create mulatto babies who will turn out like Kaepernick the vile hateful Negro who looks down on whites as a weak and wussy race. (The fact that his mother is white doesn’t make him respect whites. After all, his white mother rejected white men and went with a Negro as the superior stud. This is why cucks are so dumb. They think that if more white women go interracist and have kids with blacks, it will make blacks nicer to whites. No, it will make blacks feel even more contempt for whites as a race of cuck white boys and jungle beaver whores.)

Proper rational ‘race-ism’ is still a work in progress. After all, consider how much racial theories have been revised in recent yrs. Many social scientists assumed that very little evolution happened in last 10,000 yrs. Now, we know much happened. Also, it was believed that Cro-Magnons did NOT mix with Neanderthals. But recent studies have shown that Europeans are anywhere from 1 to 5% Neanderthal. By one-drop rule, one could say Europeans ARE INDEED Neanderthals. (I mean if Elizabeth Warren is an Indian and Shaun King is Negroid.) So, true race-ism is still a work in progress.
Granted, past race-ism claimed to be scientific and led to horrible things, esp with the Nazis. But it’s a fallacy to say that because an -ism was abused in the past, it must be wrong in its entirety. That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, socialism also claimed to be scientific and led to communist excesses that killed millions. But the excesses and crimes of ‘scientific socialism’ doesn’t meant that socialism has NO value. Socialism has great value in right doses. Even American Conservatives are part-socialist. All but the most extreme libertarians believe that there is a collective need for certain attainments and guarantees.

Once we properly define race-ism, we can then prove that everyone is indeed race-ist. Everyone in America notices race and racial differences. Their thoughts and behaviors are affected by racial differences, and this includes everything from residence, education, entertainment, sports, sex, marriage, leadership, respect, contempt, and etc.

It is not uncommon for blacks to say they can sing louder or dance faster. And even white Liberals say as much. It’s not uncommon for Jews to say that, hmmm, maybe they are smarter.
It gets confusing because noticing racial differences is sometimes deemed ‘anti-racist’ and sometimes deemed ‘racist’. How can this be? If anti-racism is the belief in the equality of races or the disbelief in race as a valid category, then how can so many people comment on racial differences and be deemed ‘anti-racist’?
It all depends on context and tenor. ‘Racism’ in current usage really means saying something that reflects negatively on blacks. So, if someone says, ‘blacks are less intelligent’, that is deemed ‘racist’. But if someone says ‘blacks are natural athletes and run faster and win medals and bring glory to America’, that is ‘anti-racist’. But both statements are predicated on racial differences.
Similar thing with Jews. A commentary on Jewish intelligence can be antisemitic or philosemitic. If someone says, “Jews are smarter and use their cunning to maximize Jewish power”, that is antisemitic. But if someone says or implies, “Jews are smart and contribute so much to medicine and science and are the holy men of our society who should be blessed and respected”, it’s philosemitic. So, even though both views are predicated on superior Jewish smarts, one is denounced while the other is praised. Of course, it’s like walking a tightrope, but there is an acceptable way to imply that Jews are indeed smarter as long as this reflects well on Jews as a wise, wonderful, and noble race.

But, what about some people who are adamant about race being an invalid concept. The kind of people who ideologically believe that all races are equal, and racial differences are bogus.
But even they are race-ist on another level. Ideologically or intellectually they may be anti-race-ist and egalitarian. But ‘iconologically’ and ‘idologically’, their attitudes, choices, and behavior do reflect race-ism, i.e. on the sensual, emotional, or subconscious level, they notice and act on racial differences.
No one who has seen sports over the yrs can really believe that races are equal in athletics. Also, why do the most egalitarian progs prefer to listen to black music than Mexican music or Chinese music? Because blacks got more rhythm. And if someone’s child has to have brain surgery, almost all progs will be more relieved if the doctor is Jewish than a Somalian or Peruvian-Indian(even if educated in America). And if a Jewish/white/Asian guy has a grade point average of 4.0 and if a black person also has the same grade point average, even most progs will sense, at least subconsciously, that the Jewish/white/Asian person got a real 4.0 whereas the black person very likely got 4.0 thru grade inflation of a generous professor. I mean how did a nonentity like Michelle Obama make it through Princeton and Harvard? Surely, if a Jewish woman and a black woman both graduated with A’s from an elite college, even most progs are gonna sense on some level that the Jewish woman got a real A whereas the black woman got an ‘affirmative’ A.

And then, look at sexual behavior of Europeans. As we know, most Europeans are proggy and cosmopolitan. In Europe, there is the far left, left, cuck center, and mild right. Anything right of mild right is ‘nazi’ or ‘far right’. So, most Europeans range from centrist to far left. And ideologically, they subscribe to the notion that all races are the same. But ‘idologically’ and ‘iconologically’, they behave with the full awareness of racial differences. On the sensual level, black music is appealing because it is funky and sexual in the age of hedonism. Europeans generally don’t listen to Arab music even though EU is filled with so many Arabs and Muslims. I mean even Arabs and Afghans in Sweden are likely to listen to rap and hip hop. So, there is a sense that blacks got natural funk and rhythm.
Also, consider sex tourism. Europeans, even on the far left, see Africa as the Penis and Asia as the vagina. This is why white women fly to Africa to have sex with Negroes with big dongs and white European men fly to Thailand and Vietnam for yellow hookers. Now, ideologically, these people may say all the politically correct things, but in terms of preference in entertainment and sex, they feel and act totally race-istically.
And this goes for business too. If Europeans have to build factories, why do they prefer Asian nations to African ones? Again, even if they ideologically believe that blacks are same as yellows, white businesses figure yellowd are more diligent, industrious, obedient, cooperative, and earnest than blacks who tend to be jivey, yibbity-yabbity, and given to funkyass tomfoolery.
So, have the Asians assemble the audio devices and let Afro-funk play on those devices.

So, if we are honest, we can fix the terminology and we can prove that everyone is race-ist, and that is not a bad thing. To be race-ist is neither good nor bad. It is just what it is, like breathing air or drinking water and peeing. It’s just part of reality.
Surely, if a white Prog sees a Mexican thug walking towards him, he will be more confident in fending himself against nasty Guillermo. But if a white Prog sees a Negro thug walking toward him, he will be shi**ing bricks. Why? Because from sports, crime reports, school experience, and general observation, he knows deep inside that races are NOT the same.

16-Nov-17 – Senator Mark Warner from Virginia is the congressional spearhead for the fictitious story of Russian interference in the 2016 election

Senator MarkWarner is well aware of the rising social tensions in the United States which form the backdrop and impetus to the anti-Russia campaign. In May 2016, speaking before an audience of business and political elites at the Milken Institute’s 2016 Global Conference, Warner warned: “If you don’t think the frustration of Americans with our overall system—not just our political system, but our business system, our tax code—is at the boiling point, then Katy bar the door! The walls that are gonna have to be built, may not be at borders, they may be around neighborhoods the way they are in many Third World countries around the world.

12-Nov-17 – Iraq War Deaths Exceed Vietnam War Numbers

Department of Veterans Affairs Reports 73 Thousand U.S. Gulf War Deaths

By Gary Vey for viewzone

More Gulf War Veterans have died than Vietnam Veterans. This probably is news to you. But the truth has been hidden by a technicality. So here is the truth.

The casualties in the Vietnam War were pretty simple to understand. If a soldier was dead from his combat tour, he was a war casualty. There are 58,195 names recorded on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, DC.

Some of these brave men died in the jungles of Vietnam while others died in Medivac units or hospitals in Japan and America. A dead soldier can surrender his life anywhere in service to his country. It really doesn’t matter where this happens. The location of a soldier’s death in no way colors his sacrifice.

But something odd has happened with the Iraq War. The government, under the Bush administration, did something dishonest that resulted in a lie that’s persisted since the war began — and continues to this very day. They decided to report the war deaths in Iraq only if the soldier died with his boots on the ground in a combat situation.

What’s the difference, you might ask?

The combat in Vietnam was in rural areas, far removed from medical treatment centers. Injured soldiers were treated by a Medic. Most died at the scene of the battle before they could be evacuated. Many died on route or were declared dead at the medical treatment facilities. The situation in Iraq is vastly different.

Fighting in Iraq is mainly in urban areas. Soldiers who are injured are quickly evacuated with armored personnel carriers or helicopters. It’s a much more efficient system than what was possible in Vietnam, but for those that are seriously injured it means that death is more likely to happen while they are in transit or at the treatment facility.

Under the new reporting system, deaths that happen en route or post evacuation are not counted as combat deaths. This is why the number seems unusually low — a little over four thousand as of 2009.


The actual figures have been hidden from the American public just like the returning, flag draped coffins were censored from the press. But the figures are now available and we can only hope that the American people will be outraged when they learn how they have been misled.

According to The Department of Veterans Affairs, as of May 2007, reports in the Gulf War Veterans Information System reveal these startling numbers:

Total U.S. Military Gulf War Deaths: 73,846
* Deaths amongst Deployed: 17,847
* Deaths amongst Non-Deployed: 55,999

The stastics for non-lethal injuries are likewise staggering:

Total "Undiagnosed Illness" (UDX) claims: 14,874
Total number of disability claims filed: 1,620,906
* Disability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911
* Disability Claims amongst Non-Deployed: 1,212,995

Percentage of combat troops that filed Disability Claims 36%

I know you probably will think this is another conspiracy theory — I did when I first heard about this — so please read the original report for yourself. [Source: Note: Sometimes this link is not active so we have posted the pdf file on viewzone 393 kb.]


More deaths and mysery to follow…

More than 1,820 tons of radioactive nuclear waste (i.e. depleted uranium) were exploded in Iraq alone in the form of armor piercing rounds and bunker busters. This represents the worlds worst man made ecological disaster ever. 64 kg of uranium were used in the Hiroshima bomb. The U.S. Iraq Nuclear Holocaust represents far more than fourteen thousand Hiroshima’s.

The nuclear waste the U.S. has exploded in the Middle East will continue killing for hundreds of years! That’s how long these particles of radioactive dust will continue to blow around, get lodged in someone’s lungs or be ingested. Scientists calculate that there is now enough radioactive material in Iraq to wipe out a third of the world’s current population.

While we never found any WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Destruction) in Iraq, we sure made up for it by importing our own! Birth defects among Iraqi newborns are up a whopping 600% from before the war. The defects are typical of the kind produced by exposure to radioactive poisons. And these injuries are happening to the civilian population of Iraq — the people we were supposedly "liberating."

This writer happened to visit Iraq back in 2001, at the time Saddam Hussein was still in power. The world’s nations were imposing an embargo on all imports in an attempt to punish the nation for invading the neighboring nation of Kuwait. I remember the good people of Iraq who treated me with kindness and hospitality — even while knowing I was an American. Despite the embargo on such vital things as medicine and hospital supplies, the markets were thriving with local produce. Children freely played in the streets and there was laughter. To see what this war has done to Iraq is especially painful and speaks loudly of the immorality that has caused these innocent people to suffer. And now, to see that this same immorality extends to the American people in the form of deception and lies crosses the line.

I live in a small town in New England. We have known of many casualties from Iraq — too many. Yet the numbers being reported in the media make it seem that this is a rare occurrence. Just over 4,000? How can this be? In short — it’s NOT.

What will it take to awaken people and make them angry enough to hold our government responsible for these lies? A democracy is only good if its people are well informed. How else can we make decisions about what’s best for us? If we are fed s*** and kept in the dark we truly are a nation of mushrooms.

Before I end this I want to say a big THANK YOU to all the vets who put their country and its people before themselves. We are proud of you and believe that you put your lives on the line for something a little better than what we are currently experiencing with our government. Thanks to you we’re still a democracy. So it’s up to us, the people you fought for, to make your effort worthwhile.

What do you think about this? Do you care