Friday, October 9, 2009

Praising Hitler!? On my internets!?

Now here’s something you don’t see any day: A leftist admitting that Hitler as a phenomenon did a lot of good for the world. First of, you want to laugh (I know you do). Or just get mad and foam at the mouth. But it needs to be nuanced. Hitler as an individual was at best a man with an incredibly narrow view of society, and at his worst a foaming madman wishing annihilation upon his own people when he could not have it his way. And for him to do good in a modern view in simply considered impossible. But this world needed Hitler.

The crimes of the Nazi regime which Hitler build up through his forceful personality are so numerous, so repulsive and so divorced from both religious conservative tenets and liberal humanism there a people who will deny they were perpetrated because the thought of humans being so evil is downright scary. But that is the exact point: we need to see how humanity’s evil can be so destructive if left unchecked. And while we could do a lot worse than the holocaust and World War 2, because we saw what that got us we are reluctant to repeat it. Certain points of view held by the Nazis are considered evil today because they championed them. The very idea that some humans are more worthy of power based on their lineage has been rebuked a thousand times just by seeing the Nazis put that into practice and witnessing what became of that. Largely thanks to this the world overcame their prejudices against not just Jews, but black people to. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela would have been dismissed as trouble makers and revolutionaries or commie spies if their message didn’t contrast so well against racist ideals held by the Nazis and the bigots of their times and places. Same for war and its glorification. The pacifist ideal of non-violence would not have been venerated had Hitler not unleashed a deliberate war of vengeance and conquest. While the idea that violence solves problems hasn’t died and is especially strong today, those who favor aggression must thread more carefully or be called ideological extremists and nationalistic nut jobs like those that existed before WW1 and in Nazi Germany.

Just as how St. George needed a dragon to slay, or Batman needs the Joker to track down, this world needs the occasional villain to show us how awful true evil is so we can recognize it. Without it, we lose sight of what is evil. Advocating a healthcare bill or campaigning against gun control isn’t evil. Being forced off your land because of your skin color and beaten by self appointed nationalists and war veterans is evil. Splashing acid in a woman’s face as punishment for not wearing a veil is evil. Dining in a grandiose restaurants eating salmon, roast hare and Dame Blanche while the whole population toils, sweats, starves, bleeds and dies while they are brainwashed to believe the outside world is clamoring for war and the destruction of their way of life to excuse the instigation of a major arms race is evil. Hitler puts things in perspective.

Even so it seems insufficient at times. Said evil still occur with or without history to show its folly. But at least we can see beyond a doubt those who cause it are wrong. Sometimes people decide to look at the literal comparison instead of the spirit of it. Racism against white or Asian people is as wrong as it is against blacks. Murdering a Muslim through a complete disregard for their life and rights is no less indefensible as it was against Gypsies and Jews. Compelling other people to be patriotic of America or Britain is just as scary and wrong as it was in Germany. Some people willingly choose to ignore that, sometimes even fabricating excuses why “It’s not fascism when we do it!”.
Another bad thing that blurs the line is how easily some people resort to Hitler comparisons. Whether it’s Nauseum ad Hitlerum or Godwin’s Law. As soon as the word Hitler of Nazi is used in a discussion, it devolves into chaos. Whether or not the comparison was true or not. Fascism has some very simple definitions by which it can be recognized. According to Mussolini it is a union between state and corporation. But it also demands nationalism and loyalty. And claims to protect people from the evils of world Jewry, Communism, terrorists, religious unorthodoxy or The Terrible Secret of Space. Bad enough as that is, most people seem to have forgotten that Nazism is much worse and is exclusive to other cultures and races. Yet some throw the word around as if it can physically harm anyone with an opposing view. Hitler himself has become the weapon of the demagogue.

Now I might be the last person people listen to, but if you have a chance to see a documentary or museum about National Socialism, hatemongering, Hitler, the holocaust and World War 2, learn from it. If you have time available, read up on the subject on the internet or at a library. But also study the underlying causes of these evils and see if you can identify them today, even in the strangest of places. There may no longer be Nazis in this world aside from rejects and restless idiots, but evil is not confined to the word National Socialism. It’s the methods, not the ideology, that is the threat to peace. Some are ignorant of it while they do wrong, others do not care as long as they can have a convenient defense for their actions. But think twice before you use the term Nazi or fascist. Even these groups deserve a grain of respect for teaching the world a moral lesson that has dissuaded many from following in their footsteps.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Why do scumbags win elections?

Can someone tell me? As if Mugabe's manipulation of the vote wasn't enough, now we have Silvio Berlusconi at the helm in Italy again. I am quite sure some imperialist chickenhawks in America are relieved. First they get Germany from Merkel, then France from Sarkozy and now Italy back from Berlusconi. Goes to show that the corrupted surround themselves with other corrupt, pathetic people.

Silvio is seriously the worst European postwar politician ever. Italy's second fascist leader. His ties to far right groups both legal and illegal go way back. Accusations of Mafia connections are rampant. He's had more corruption and bribery cases than Britney Spears had husbands. And the worst is: his terrible sense of humor. Apparently this guy thinks it's funny to compare a German critic to a concentration camp guard. I can't really see what's the laugh. Is this Italian humor or universal bad taste?

Berlusconi escaped the biggest corruption scandal of Italy in the 90's in which politicians of all parties were purged by Italy's courts by just being more slippery than the rest of them. Since then he's had more than his share of corruption and fraud investigations. Yet he maintains his innocence. Only a fool would believe that. If you come home with a spat of mud on your shirt and insist you didn't play in the mud, that's believeable. If you come home day after day with mud all over you up to your hair, and insist you don't play in mud, you're unbeliefworthy. As a result of this, his governments have always been hostile to the justice system. Such as drafting up typical laws that enable immunity from prosecution for premiers and cabinet members during their time in office and after that. Laws like these are usually passed by rulers who have comitted crimes, have no respect for democracy, or know their cronies will remain in charge longer through these laws.
Although his hostility could also be a result of Mafia ties. The city of Napels has a notorious gangster problem which is hard to fight. Both for the police who are usually in a real warzone once the mobsters come crawling out of the woodworks. As well as for the judges who have to endure Berlusconi's ire and ridicule.

Other examples why Berlusconi is a waste of oxygen, nutrition and h2o include his outrageous claims. Like "[ideological opponents] eat babies!". He himself said communists, Hitler used to say Jews, and the Romans called them barbarians. Still not convinced this guy is a fascist? He certainly shares the fascists disrespect for democracy like saying that anyone who votes left is stupid. If Berlusconi's right is so diabolically smart, I prefer living in my ignorance. Still not sure he has fascist sympathies? Should I mention the xenophobes of his north Italian political allies? How about the "Mussolini didn't imprison dissidents. He just gave them a long vacation." remark? Is this another Italian joke, or just an endorsement of fascism?
Also don't forget his sexist, chauvinistic remarks on women either. Like every lustful male I don't shun sexist jokes. But there's a time and place for everything, and Silvio broke the unwritten rules of modern chauvinism many times over.

The good news is, this isn't much of a political victory. Italy's political system has been at an all-time low for quite some time and the people who still go out to vote either have no idea what to vote, or they have certain interests they want to guard through their vote. Just getting the majority of the votes doesn't mean anything in Italy anymore. The Greek word 'idiot' used to mean someone was apathetic towards politics. In modern Italy, the 'idiots' are the people who vote thinking it will make any difference, while the politically inclined know that the system is beyond redemption anyway and the most level-headed, trustworthy and intelligent candidate is mr. Nobody.
Add to that the ever present garbage heap of Napels that's even obstructing Mafia activity, the ailing economy and the inherent fragility of Italian governments and this new Berlusconi government will either be short lived, or unpopular from day one up to the changing of the guard.

Monday, March 17, 2008

It never fails to anger me

If there's something I hate, it's cowards who hide behind their ethnicity and religion and culture to pass themselves off as the perpetual victim. Because white men came up with the grandiose scheme of slavery to bring more inequalty and tyranny to this world, a white person can no longer criticise a black person without being called condescending, colonialistic, imperialistic, slave driving, etc. Robert Mugabe's power is build on this tactic. Whenever he needs to distract the sheeple from the apalling poverty in Zimbabwe, he pulls out the boogyman of arrogant western imperialists sabotaging proud and free Africa. I doubt this is what Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela or Jesse Jackson meant when they changed the world for the better.

But this time, regretably, the group using such cheap below-the-waist shots are the pro-Israel lobby. Criticizing Israel equals you wanting to see it utterly destroyed. How un-nuanced can it get? This time they took a really inlikely victim: a Dutch ex-minister named Dries van Agt. Van Agt is a conservative christian politician. A former member a conservative thinktankt that fell from grace when its leader alligned itself with a racist dumb blonde party leader (van Agt BTW left exactly for this reason). He peppered his speech with ancient words. And in his wilder years he sought out open confrontation with a social-democratic premier by means of denigrating comparisons.
But in 2005, he had a revelation on a fact-finding mission to Israel. He must have stumbled across something rotten while fact finding. When he returned from Israel he became an open sympathiser of the plight of Palestinian citizens. He's become highly critical of Israel as a result of being at the front row of where it's all happening.

Enter Hendryk Broder, a Judeo-German political commentator who's know for his partisan support of Israel. He attacks left-wing pacifists by calling them anti-semitists. No constructive debate can be held with this kind of man. Van Agt's scepticism towards Israel has been noticed by Broder, as he's called him a christian anti-semite now. He based this on no other proof than that van Agt dared criticize Israel. I can now consider Broder another coward using ethnic background and history to deflect criticism and shun responsibility.
Van Agt fortunately seems well aware of this argument. It must be getting old. His response was that this was a well known method to silence critics of Israel. I must applaud him for his sharp sense and courage. His ally, Hajo Meijer, a Jewish Auschwitz survivor, is also a writer and critic of Israel. Broder has called this person of semitic descent an anti-semite as well. Screw you Broder! You don't even know who you're talking about. In contrary to yourself, Meijer actually witnessed real anti-semitism the likes of which you never experienced, because you're from the 50's! You're a blind man, trying to paint your brother as a racist when you are the only one who has anything in common with a true racist: sweeping generalisations! Your American counterpart is the partisan that claims his opponent has no patriotism because that opponent is practicing his right to free speech by questioning the government's leadership; the cornerstone of democracy.

And Broder is not the only one who has picked up on this sham of a tactic. Desmond Tutu has also been called a closet Nazi when he questioned Israel's policies. I kid you not! Some of the most powerful allies in the fight to end Apartheid were Jews, and the freedom loving people of South Africa are indebted to these countrymen. But Free Speech as the price for freedom? Never! You would be right back at square one if you shut up because someone does not like his fault laid bare: paternalism, authoritarianism, fascism. The pro-Israel lobby must stop bullying critics, or they will become themselves what they hate most. It is very demeaning for actual victims of fascism and persecution, like Hajo Meijer was. The pro-Israel lobby is incredibly racist: it tries to maintain a distinction between Jews and non-Jews in a world that needs to grow out of judging others by their creed, skin colour or culture!

Monday, March 3, 2008

War is Dumb

I have very little respect for Israel. There, I said it. Their military incompetence is mind-numbing. I don't mean their discipline, tactics, doctrines and superior firepower. I mean their complete disregard of strategy. If the whole terror bombing of Beirut wasn't overkill for kidnappings up two of their soldiers if not just a superiority complex that would frighten the most ardent Nazi if it had been the German people.

In the last 8 years, 13 Israelis have died from rocket attacks. So what!? Excuse my momemtary disregard of human lives, but how many Palestinians have been killed by Israeli missiles? Really, stop whining you're the victims for Christian X's sake! If you'd do some basic math, you'd come to some shocking conclusions: 1) Palestinian casualties are higher and 2) Israel is totally winning on all fronts.
I suppose the bodycount of Palestinian terrorists and civilians versus Israeli soldiers and civilians speaks for itself. But to truly comprehend (or rather, be completely appalled at this senseless war) how much Hamas fails, let's look at it from their perspective. You can't understand the situation and problem until you look at it from both viewpoints.

Okay, Hamas and Jihad continuously launch their Qassam rockets at Israeli settlements as repercussions. I don't know much about military-industrial prices, but let's say each rocket costs a hundred dollar (especially these fine, smuggled ones that come from Iran and Egypt). Every time the grand pooha of Hamas feels Israel must die, his lackeys fire over a hundred of these things at Israel. It's fireworks twice a year in Palestine. And they spend $10.000 on rockets on their shindig. Still, they are lucky to hit anything at all. These fighters and their rockets must be wildly inaccurate if they've fired thousands of these things, and yet only killed 13 civilians asside from the collateral damage, which can't be nearly as high as what these things cost Hamas. So let's get one thing established: terrorists suck as War of Attrition!
Have you seen the Israeli responses? They bulldoze villages, easily offsetting the damage to their (illegal) settlements. Their snipers can theoretically take out the command structure with one bullet, much cheaper than a hundred rockets. The helicopter missiles of the Israeli Airforce are laser guided and precise (so precise in fact, that Beirut is no longer standing, asside from the intended targets) and way more deadly that anything Hamas smuggles over the border. I don't know about you, but I don't need an in depth investigation to tell me Israel can, and is causing much greater losses both in manpower and in money value.

In face of the hard numbers, there is only one conclusion: Hamas is losing, and they make themselves look like incompetent fools as they are doing so. Their complete lack of economic skill, even in the bloody world of murder and genocide, makes you praise the Nazis for their efficiency in this department. In calmer moods I'll probably condemn those Nazis for their lack of humanity and their great evil. But say for yourself. Compare Qassam rockets to Zyklon gas. Quiet, efficient, cheap, lethal. All the advantages with none of the mess! If the terrorists still can't see how they're evil, murderous and demonic for their war, and also not how dumb they're waging it by practically killing Israelis by throwing money as hard as they can, I really really wish we can see them as Darwin awards nominees. They seriously need to be exterminated to ensure nobody in history will be so gruellingly ineffective and stupid at warfare, or anything else! Jock off and die already!

But the worst yet is that Israelis are actually afraid of such incompetent enemies!Yeah, so Qassam rockets are not the only means Hamas and Jihad have. Still, can't they see that Hamas is going to run out of funds at this rate while the Israeli army has more finances and better bureacracy? That every single weapon in the Israeli arsenal could cause more casualties than these 'dreaded' Qassam missiles? That their soldiers are much stronger? If they can't see this, they're just as dumb. And this was proven before, as they always take the bait Hamas puts out and go in guns blazing and killing everyone left and right, murdering as much and more than Hamas, just more effectively?
If these blockheads in Israel are so afraid of rocket attacks on their illegal colonies, just evacuate the darn places! You had no right to be there anyway, since you signed treaties that are either current, or have been violated already by both. Just abadon! Make it a buffer zone. And shoot every militant that ventures out of Gaza on sight. Those terrorists can't fire at anything out of range. And once they advance to get back in range and they're out of civilian presence, it's whack-a-mole time!

There, I solved your little intifada. Now gimme my Nobel peace price and the grants your put on the heads of these soon-to-be dead terrorists.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Need a light?

This may be a bit minor, but I'm a little annoyed right now by Stupid Traffic Law #4369: Automobilists must keep their lights on during daytime. The minister is planning to make this mandatory. It's stupid for several reasons.
1) It's one more example of the government forcing people to do things one way. Are you gonna get fined for this, just as you can get fined for not being able to identify yourself at any and all times?
2) It'll increase pollution slightly, and needlesly so. In a time when it's EU policy to avoid unnecessary CO2 emission this idea is quite counterproductive.
3) It will only increase wear and tear on the battery and the lights.
4) We already have a g****** ball of fire called the sun providing us with light during the day.

The benefits don't seem to outweight the costs of freedom, reliability, efficiency and durability. The stated reason: this will safe a few lives. Ahah, sure. You know what would safe lives in traffic? To not stop for some Jack S fooling around but roadkill the sucker before he endangers any other people around him. It might knock some sense into people. But what mister Transportation Minister proposes is an unproven method of saving lives as he look at it too remotely and fails to see the details.
1) In countries that made this mandatory (like Finland) where it had an effect, that has to do with the fact that it's dark early and even in broad daylight there are more shadows. Plus the roads are often deserted there unlike Holland, the drivers there are not on the edge of their seats all the time, and less attentive, thus a visual aid like headlights will highlight oncoming traffic for them.
2) Bicyclist and motorcyclists claim that this increases reliance on the headlights rather than looking around personally for traffic coming from left and right and makes drivers less attentive. Since everybody is already using a TomTom, a driver is already pressed for time and attention.
3) Some other countries that made this mandatory report no decrease in traffic fatalities despite the conditions being argueably less favorable than in Holland. Austria sounds like a lot darker with its mountains casting shadows and many more forests, yet they still don't notice a difference.

Like I said, the chance of saving a few lives (which is very unlikely) doesn't weight up to the disadvantages, however small inconveniences they are (which speak volumes about how neglegible the benefits will be). They should shelve this idea, then appoint me Prime Minister so we can start importing a big dose of common sense into the Kingdom of Politics from Real Life Land. Then I'll start scrapping a whole buttload of regulations and stupid laws, both national and international, that completely miss their mark.

Friday, December 28, 2007

Bhutto assassination conspiracy

With Pakistan in chaos for months and the recent murder, I knew I had to bite the bullet and write something about it. Not that what I say about it matters or makes any difference. I'm no Pakistani, neither do I know the politics asside from what the news tells me. And maybe it sounds crazy if I say Bhutto wasn't killed by terrorists, but I have a feeling the authorities are using Al Qaida and the Taliban as a scapegoat.

There's no reason why it shouldn't be either of them. In fact, they'd throw acid in the face of people like Bhutto because she appeared publically without bhurka. Her political activism and ex-presidency is seen by those types and a threat to the male dominated societies they strive to impose. But they're simply not the only enemy Bhutto had, and not even the most powerful one.

I prefer to blame General Musharraf. From everything the man's done so far, this seems like an act of desperation. People like Bhutto had been gnawing at his ankles with moderate success: he lost his post as commander-in-chief. The country's lawyers abandoned him, leaving him with just his obvious lackeys in the courts to perpetuate his fake democracy. The man who he stole the presidency from is coming back with a vengeance. And like Adolph Hitler, he's picked a fight with the wrong neighbour (Osama bin Laden) while he was already embattled and allied a Musolini comparison (Bush).
After 9/11 he pretty much hoped to win legitimacy for his usurped position as president by scoring brownie points when he joined the "War on Terror" hype by handing over a bunch of 'sand ******s' persecuted on thrumped-up charges. The poor sods now live in Gitmo without there having been any investigation into the past. Those that have returned are suspected for what they may or may not have done to deserve such treatment. But having shown his colours, he was marked by the Taliban and their allies in the indominable mountains in north Pakistan as an enemy of Islam. In a pathetic show of force, Musharraf's army was soundly defeated during an attempt to evict the dug-in islamists and the concessions he had to pay the warlords more than made up for the losses they led, and humiliated Pakistan in the face of the world. And yet the propaganda value of the defeat made the truce between Musharraf and the warlords only a military one, it spread word of the strength of the warlords to influentianable southern provinces accelerating dissent.
Bush's pressure on Musharraf and unilateral strikes by the US reinforced the message that Musharraf was not the man who would defend Pakistan. And led to the situation seen throughout the year. Conservatives fortifying mosques and Taliban allies taking over whole cities. Musharraf's retaliations have distanced him from his people who now seek his removal even while extremists are bearing down on the whole state. Bhutto was the only 'ally' he could make who was of any use against the extremists as she could calm the people who listened to her, but Musharraf was clearly going to lose influence as he couldn't lead Bhutto on.

It's just a theory, but I believe he sacrificed her as a martyr to plead for solidarity from her supporters and point at the dangers of Islamic extremism in an attempt to secure the elections in January and rally Pakistan around him, using the ever present threat of terrorism the way it's been used in America and how Communism was used in the same way by Hitler and McCarthy. In this way Bhutto is clearly worth more to Musharraf as he will not have to fear an electoral victory from her anymore and if succesful it takes away a huge number of dissenters.
What does seem to contradict it is that the assassin was a suicide bomber. Governments like Musharraf's usually don't inspire the kind of fanaticism it takes to drive a man to murder himself along with his target. At the same time, Musharraf's government does have much greater reach and legal assistance for such a plot that the Taliban and her allies. The cover-up is pretty obvious already: blame terrorists for her death as misdirection and hastily eliminate the evidence. The fact that the killer blew himself up clearly doesn't allow an interrogation.

Rather than risking a three-way civil war between democrats, government and islamists, Musharraf now only faces civil war between islamists and the government. Interesting how the death of one woman can mean such a huge difference. Is this the new JFK conspiracy of the century?

Runts with firecrackers

There's a couple of things that never fail to piss me off. Like George Bush, flag-waving idiots or irresponsible snotbags with firework. I suppose it's a world wide problem, but every year I have to put up with some lardbags in the neighbourhood who light their fireworks long before it's New Year. Everytime I get startled by a loud explosion, I hope with a passion that moron just blew his hand off. I seriously feel like curb-stomping any idiot I catch with lighting a rod or a rocket.

Just as I was reading the news about how the country was increasing police surveilance around the holiday season to catch these misfits, a Big One went off somewhere in the neighbourhood accompanied by the hysterical screams of an adult and little girl, accusing some pinheads who must have thought it was fun throwing their rubbish at people to watch them react. I also heard police sirens a little later. These sons of dogs will probably be forced into a week of community service. A little kid might now be handicapped for the rest of his life.

Injustices like this make me savor every anecdote about fireworks justice I have. Like my schoolmate, a real nazi-rat, who lighted a cracker just as police come around the corner. Too frickin' bad my school was responsible for him, because I really thought he deserved his fine.