Commentary on "Happy Homelands - Partisan Girl"(on Ramzpaul Show): Anglos, Maoris, and Muslims in New Zealand

On the matter of New Zealand, I have to disagree with Partisan Girl(at around 1:16:00) of the Video Above.

It's true Maoris were there first and have ancestral connection to the land, something which whites don't have(at least not deeply). But New Zealand as a nation, economy, and system is entirely the creation of whites, namely Anglos. Without Anglo conquest and colonization of that territory, there would be no New Zealand, period. Whites created the modern nation of New Zealand, which many consider a kind of affluent and well-managed paradise.

So, I would argue TWO peoples have a right to New Zealand(aka Maori-land). Maoris because they'd been there for many thousands of years and have deep roots. And whites because they arrived and built a new social and economic system from scratch. Maoris have a link with the soil and plants; whites have a direct connection to all the cities and institutions that they built in what came to be known as New Zealand.

Then, if whites in New Zealand historically owe something to another people, it is to Maoris and TO MAORIS ONLY as New Zealand was taken from Maoris and from no one else. As whites didn't take New Zealand from Muslims or Arabs, Muslims and/or Arabs have NO CLAIM to New Zealand, which they didn't build and to which they lack ancestral claim of blood and soil.

That said, if the good people of Australia and New Zealand really sympathize with suffering Muslims and Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, why don't they grow some a pair and condemn the Jewish-controlled US for waging all these Wars for Israel that have wrecked so much of the Middle East as the result of bombs, support to radical Jihadis(mostly by US and Saudis), and economic sanctions(that have devastated entire nations)?
But elites and progs in Aussies and Zealanders are totally shhhhhh about that truth and just express their sympathy by taking in Arab refugees(even though they themselves weren't the ones who pushed these insane wars). It seems Jews tribalize/privatize the gains and universalize/socialize the losses in these Wars for Israel. Weakened and wrecked Muslim nations are good for Israeli dominance, so Jews tribalize the gains. But these wars led to all these refugees, so Jews universalize the losses by burdening OTHER nations to take in refugees(while Israel takes in none and, if anything, keeps taking more of West Bank and are poised to annex Golan Heights).
Anyway, if the 'compassionate' elites of Australia and New Zealand are so concerned about the plight of Arabs and Muslims, why don't they condemn the SOURCE of the problem that led to the Refugee Problem in the first place? You know, the damn Wars for Israel. But it seems most elites in Australia and New Zealand are either too afraid, brainwashed, and/or bought-and-sold by the Zionist globo-homo Power to speak the simple truth. So, their idea of sympathy is cleaning up the mess made by the Jews while never mentioning Jewish power as culprit.

Imagine if, during World War II, Australia and New Zealand took in Polish and Greek refugees without ever mentioning the fact that Nazi Invaders are the cause of the refugee problem. Worse, imagine if Australia and New Zealand, even as they took in Polish and Greek refugees, praised and flattered Nazi Germany 24/7.
Well, such is the state of the world today. Jewish-run US is the source of most major conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa. These are Wars for Israel instigated by Judeo-Nazis, but the cuck-elites of New Zealand and Australia are always full of praise for Zionism and US foreign policy. They don't dare to name the real culprits of the Middle East Wars. Their feeble idea of 'good work' is cleaning the mess made by another without ever naming and blaming that other.

Commentary on "Tomgram: William Astore, Turning Victory Into Defeat"(by Tom Engelhardt)

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176520/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_turning_victory_into_defeat/

How, then, was it possible, month after month, year after year, to turn the promise of eternal victory so repetitiously into the reality of defeat (and spreading terror movements)?

The notion of the US losing wars or being defeated must end. For example, it's oft-been said the US lost in Vietnam, but, in fact, the US was untouched by the war and lost only 58,000 men. In contrast, Vietnam was turned into a total clusterfuc* and possibly up to 2 million(soldiers and civilians) were killed in the war. The US abandoned the war in Vietnam, but most of the tragic losses was suffered by Vietnamese, not by Americans.

Same goes for the Middle East. Despite all this talk of 'defeat', the US has remained untouched by the war. In contrast, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen have been turned into smoldering ruins by the intervention of the US and its puppet-allies, not least because Zionists control US foreign policy and shaped it to spread terror and mayhem across MENA(Middle East and North Africa) to derail the advancement of modern Arab nations and spread of Iranian influence.

When commentators(even as anti-war advocates) say that the US 'lost' or was 'defeated' in these recent wars, it's predicated on a rather perverse logic. After all, the US itself lost nothing(and its military-industrial complex has gained quite a lot). It can choose to keep its agents and troops in the Middle East or bring them home. Either way, the US remains untouched by war. In contrast, the Arab and Muslim world has been utterly wrecked and turned upside down. So, who suffered all these losses? Who suffered tragic defeats?

Now, some may argue that 'victory' and 'defeat' are relative to a nation's ambitions. One can argue that the US 'lost' the recent wars in the sense of having failed to achieve its objectives. But were its goals really about spreading democracy and human rights in the Middle East? If indeed the US cares so much about human rights, why does it continue to support Zionist Occupation of West Bank? Why is it so chummy with Saudi Arabia, a nation hardly known for its adherence to what goes by 'human rights' these days? The real objective of US intervention was to wage Wars for Israel, and to the extent that much of the Middle East has been scorched to the ground, Zionist-controlled US succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.

Consider. If a big strong guy beats up a small weak guy, breaks his bones, permanently damages his organs, bites off his ears, and knocks out all his teeth BUT fails to make the little guy call him 'uncle'(the stated goal of the big guy), who 'lost' and was 'defeated'? The big strong guy for having failed to make the little guy say 'uncle' or the little guy for having been utterly wrecked in body and health?

Let's stop speaking of US defeats. It's too perverse upon pondering the scale of destruction OVER THERE. Even though it's meant as criticism, even condemnation, of US foreign policy and warmongering, the effect is to turn the US into an object of pity and sympathy. Poor poor US, it suffered all these 'defeats'.
But, after 17 yrs of war, compare the US with the Middle East. Top US cities like NY, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco are richer than ever, full of glitter and shine. Now, consider the cities in Syria, Libya, and other parts of MENA. Americans are fat and well-fed and living in peace and prosperity. In contrast, countless people are facing starvation and/or exposed to harsh elements in the Middle East. So, who really lost? Who suffered all these defeats? The fat happy peoples of the US(and Israel) or all the people driving to destitution and desperation in the Middle East and North Africa?

The Risible Logic of "Why I Support the Syria Strike" by Nick Fuentes

The video begins at: 18:00



Prior to the strike, Nick Fuentes was bragging that he was right that Trump was only bluffing and didn't intend to shoot missiles.

But when Trump shot missiles, Fuentes now says it's a good thing.

Fuentes is shooting down his own credibility.

Also, he is confusing realpolitik and principles. He could have taken a principled position and denounced the strikes as unjustified BUT ALSO have analyzed it from a realpolitik angle.

It could have been a win-win. He would have won morally on principle and scored as a keen analyst of realpolitik that is often devious and ugly.

But Fuentes tries to justify the attack on principle, and that totally fails.

Machiavellianism is a part of politics, and it operates all the time. But it cannot be justified morally. It can only be understood as 'business', like in THE GOFATHER

Morally, the world community needs to bring an end to the Syrian War as fast as possible. There has been too much suffering. How would Fuentes like to live in a war zone festering with Jihadis funded by foreign nations?

It was evil for US to give aid to terrorists against Assad and destroy an entire nation, mainly because Jewish supremacists want it that way. And it is immoral for Trump to shoot missiles to boost morale of terrorists. It is immoral to lie about chemical attacks. Even if Trump is playing a game, a nation shouldn't be used a pawn. It has real people undergoing real tragedy. The US has no right to play god over other nations.

Also, Russia is in Syria to prevent another Libya. This is not a contest of US vs Russia for world hegemony. It is about Russia helping an ally vs the US doing the bidding of Zionist supremacist madness.

Fuentes can be a moralist(as he claims to be a good Christian) AND also be a keen political analyst of strategic calculations of great powers. But when he conflates realpolitik with principle itself, he is failing.

His IQ goes fro 250 to 25.