So Trump said something remarkable: ‘states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote’


Interesting. When the shoe was on the other foot, things went a bit differently, even though in that case the above sentiment would have been a little bit more than justified. 


Some tact and empathy would have been useful, but then again: what can you expect of the Orange Baboon? In a way he is a great representation what the US foreign policy is about.

Elections and foreign influences

We are all up in arms about how those dastardly Russians dared to -allegedly- influence the US elections directly and indirectly. 

After all... Freedom! Democracy! Whatever! True, western, democratic countries do not do such a thing as we all know. Not at all.

So how dare the Russians?

Anyhow. This is not what we're here to discuss... This is. And this, and this, and this. A shameless exploitation of terrorism to achieve political goals. Whose goals, though, I would ask.

So, where's the outrage now? Who exactly owns The Sun and the other filth? Could it be a foreign billionaire? Is it possible that his paper is breaking UK electoral laws, and exerting an enormous influence on British politics, and yet nobody is upset about it? That he's been doing this for decades now, contributing to the clusterfuck that is Brexit, and all the shitty things that are happening in these beautiful, rainy isles?
Oh, my.

It's quite predictable what will happen: a bunch of the uninformed masses will read this before they turn to the boobs on page 3, and will not even think of voting anyone else, but May, paragon of competence and morality. The Sun might be fined a hefty fine, but the damage will be done, and the goal will be reached; the fine will be looked at as a campaign contribution.

Perhaps we really should take a look at what interests are influencing our country's politics and policies; it would probably help making sense of why things happen the way they do- why the NHS is being privatised behind the scenes, why the UK intervenes where it should not really be doing interventions, and why the political elite clings to austerity like a bunch of priests to religious dogma, even though it has proven to be counterproductive, and even the IMF does not recommend it any more. (Which in itself is a miracle.)

So yeah.

Perhaps it's not just Putin who is the problem here.

Terrorism, porn and internet censorship

After yet another low-tech but still horrific  terror attack in London, Theresa May is demanding on implementing something like a Chinese or North Korean control of the internet. Because it's very progressive and democratic to do so. It's so nice that the paragons of democracy and freedom, the US and the UK have been showing us the way with the Patriot Act, global surveillance, black prisons and whatnot how it's done. Regardless, now we need to go a step further: "The Conservative manifesto pledges regulation of the internet, including forcing internet providers to participate in counter-extremism drives and making it more difficult to access pornography." 

Now, if you restrict people's access to pornography, you can expect some serious radicalisation from certain segments of the society; but jokes aside: what exactly has porn do with terrorism? Why are so-called democratic countries are trying to restrict free information, free speech and access to internet using terrorism as a scapegoat? How exactly will internet censorship put an end to someone jump into a van with a knife? Shouldn't we ban vans and knives instead? (Not a serious proposal.) How much do these clowns actually know about technology? Are they aware that there's no "control" switch for "the internet"? Doesn't it worry people that the politicians in charge of decisions have absolutely no clue how the modern world works? Do you think if you monitor facebook chat, radicalization would not happen? (I wonder how it happened before the age of the internet. Oh yeah. Offline. It's a good thing today's radicals would not think of moving off the grid, right?) And it would totally not be used to censor people speaking up against the UK's little dirty "secrets", like the ongoing support for regimes supporting extremism, right?

And lastly: trying to enact your little 1984esque mind control schemes is quite disrespectful for the victims of the attack. It is quite telling how they are trying to use this atrocity as excuse while the bodies are still warm, in order to further this completely unrelated agenda: controlling the masses by restricting what they have access to. (If they had a beef with cotton candy, they'd be talking about banning it, too; and it would be just as bizarre as this linking of porn and terrorism.) This is a quite sinister trend, and nobody seems to be giving a single shit. I guess if you've got nothing to hide, it's fine that the UK government reads your emails and restricts what you can and cannot view online; after all, this whole adulting is hard. It's better if someone else makes decisions for you.

2017 French elections

The news has been full lately about how Le Pen wants to "exploit" the latest terror attack in Paris; also a lot of lamenting is about of how the Far Right is surging ahead. (Although it seems like these news outlets like to blame Le Pen herself, as if she was doing everything on her own, and the French had nothing to do with the whole thing, unlike those pesky Eastern Europeans, who are en bloc racist, and that's why they keep reelecting Nazis. Interesting contrast.)

This amount of blindness is simply astonishing.

If the Far Right wins in France, they win because they were handed the election on a golden plate. They were the only ones who expressed any unease about the increase of Islamic fundamentalism (and terrorism) in France; they were the only ones who dared to say anything about uncontrolled immigration. If the electorate shares some of these worries, some of these opinions, and nobody else picks them up, what do you think will happen? Sure, you can come up with statistics about how many more people die of other acts of violence than terrorism, but you'd miss the major point: most of those acts of violence happen between people who know each other. They don't involve thinking about speeding trucks when you take a stroll in a Christmas market, or gunmen when you're attending to a rock concert. You can say that if a drug dealer is murdered that it has nothing to do with you, and in some respect you'd be right. If you don't mix with the bad sort of people, in general, you have a good chance of avoid being beaten, knifed or shot. You can't say the same thing about terrorism; it's random, and it can kill you. The last couple of years have shown how inept security services are identifying individuals who may be planning acts of terrorism. Politicians have been shown to be delusional of what their electorate thinks about the influx of large number of largely uneducated Muslim migrants, and quick to condemn anyone who does. There has been an incredible amount of accusations of racism, xenophobia and Fascism for everyone who dared to voice any worries, devaluing the meaning of these words. In Western Europe only the Far Right was willing to address these issues, and now it does not shock anyone if you call them racist or Fascist; these words just don't mean anything; not really, not any more. Judging by the comment sections your average reader of even the Independent and Guardian will just think that people called racist merely did something that displeased the establishment.


If you ignore what people think don't be surprised if they vote for someone who they think does not ignore them; I think this is the take-home message.


In some respect it is beautifully democratic.


Let's just hope this time France does not elect a Far Right party, and let's hope the "mainstream" political elite gets their shit together before the next general election. We have had enough Trumps and Brexits already.

Hungarian brutality at the border

So now apparently the border guards are beating refugees, and taking selfies with them.

Allegedly.

They also commit all sorts of abuse.

Allegedly.


Proof is somewhat of a low supply in these reports; after all, who has a camera to document these things in those remote parts of the world? (Oh wait. Cellphones have cameras... Never mind.) And there is nobody else there; after all, that part of the world is not even on the maps; so there are no NGOs, other border forces, or Frontex officers present; only the wily Hungarians, and the poor, downtrodden war refugees from... Iran? Pakistan?

So. We get photos of everything. Of American guards taking selfies with Iraqis they tortured to death. Of celebrity dicks and pussies.

But somehow the security is so tight that the evil Hungarian selfies -which, by their nature, were taken to share with their friends on social media- somehow elude the heroic investigative reporters and NGOs.

Apparently Hungarians know a lot more about security than the rest of the world.

Or, but it's the unlikely possibility, is that it's all bullshit.

And these very same papers complain about fake news and Trump.

Hypocrisy at it's best.

Blackmail or not?

So Brussels will give an ultimatum to Poland and Hungary about the migrant quotas: accept them or leave the EU. The justification?

"They will have to make a choice: are they in the European system or not? You cannot blackmail the EU, unity has a price"


Ehm.

Isn't this blackmail? You can argue about accepting a Brussels mandate that was not exactly debated or decided upon democratically between member states, but you justify an ultimatum (aka blackmail) by saying you can't blackmail?

Woa.

Victim blaming is fine, when it's not us

So every time you have a terror attack - 9/11 especially -, usually it's a sign of bad taste and horrible personality to suggest the country which fell victim to the attack may had something to do with why the attack was perpetrated. So the last seven-eight decades of US policies in the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and if you mentioned that they might, you were defiling the memory of the innocent victims, and were an America-hater, who should really just go and kill themselves silently, as they are beyond redemption. After all, claiming that the terrorists acted because of a grievance would justify their actions, right? And if we do this, then we use the lives of those innocent victims to further our agenda, right? Excusing the actions of the terrorists, that's what it is! This is not the right time to discuss these things, not while the bodies are still warm... so there will be no lessons learned. Ever.

(Which is a convenient stance because we don't need to take a look at ourselves, and it also has the added benefit of making it impossible to treat the root of the issue, hence we will always have a convenient threat we can point at when we chip away civil liberties, and bomb countries.)


The same is true with all the terror attacks that happened in Europe; saying that France's or Belgium's inability to assimilate large amount of immigrants might have something to do with what happened (they are rather be focusing on a straw men claiming the attackers were domestic born), that Germany's decision to let fresh immigrants in might have something to do with these things, that the UK's, France's actions in the Middle East and North Africa might have something to do with what happened, is an anathema. "Fringe" papers and websites (whose readership reaches into the high dozens) do discuss these connections, but "reputable" newspapers and other media outlets will never touch this topic; instead they present a whitewashed picture of ourselves, and how those scary terrorists are hating us for our freedoms.

But not when it comes to the Ruskies.

They are to be totally blamed for what happened. (Published mere days after the attack.) But, wait, the hypocrisy is not finished! After all, the Ruskies are responding with revenge (forgot about Afghanistan and Iraq yet?), and their foreign policy is repugnant... Definitely forgot about Iraq and Afghanistan, then.

The double standards are astonishing.

Addendum. Well, it didn't take long, did it? Hypocrites.