Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"Assassinations"

15 Comments -

1 – 15 of 15
Anonymous manindarkhat said...

This is recorded as one of Muhammad's sayings:

"If you hear the news of an outbreak of an epidemic (plague) in a certain place, do not enter that place: and if the epidemic falls in a place while you are present in it, do not leave that place to escape from the epidemic."

http://www.ishwar.com/islam/holy_hadith/book86/index.html

Plagues spread because people flee them, which is why we're very foolish to allow immigration from countries like Pakistan and Somalia. If there's serious trouble in Pakistan, how many more Pakistanis will enter the west with the culture -- and genes -- responsible for the serious trouble?

12/28/07, 1:49 AM

Anonymous tommy said...

"A common suspicion within Pakistan, although with no proof, is that the crash was a political assassination carried out by the senior arm of Pakistan Army, [1] American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or Soviet KGB. Other groups who have fallen under suspicion include the Afghan Communists and Shi'ite separatist groups operating within Pakistan."

Everybody except the most obvious suspects: the same Sunni militants who have tried repeatedly in the past few months to assassinate her. With half the nation of Pakistan approving of bin Laden, it's hardly any wonder why people will blame this on anyone but the likely culprits - even if al-Qaeda is reportedly claiming credit.

12/28/07, 6:10 AM

Anonymous tommy said...

Oops! Sorry, it's early in the morning and I'm not awake. I thought the suspicions were about Bhutto's assassination, not Zia's.

12/28/07, 6:12 AM

Anonymous DAJ said...

"If there's serious trouble in Pakistan, how many more Pakistanis will enter the west with the culture -- and genes -- responsible for the serious trouble?"

Were English/Scottish genes responsible for the troublesome dynastic-homicidal tradition of Britain from medieval times until the Glorious Revolution?

Albeit, I do concur that it is most judicious for the U.S. to reduce, if not end, immigration from inexorably chaotic nations like Pakistan and Somalia.

12/28/07, 10:19 AM

Anonymous David said...

Choosing whom to invade (or "intervene in the domestic affairs of") is like choosing whom to marry: both must be done very carefully; both mean that you're mixing with their relatives.

Almost every country the US "intervenes in the domestic affairs of" is a net importer of immigrants to the US. Invade the world is virtually identical to invite the world (to use Steve's terms), no matter how hostile the belligerence. We made war on Japan and got practically bought by the peaceful Japanese by the '80s (that has cooled down for unrelated reasons). We made war on Germany and got von Braun running us to the moon (and others earlier, during our not-very-neutral neutrality toward Germany in the '30s). We intervene in the Middle East and soak up all sorts of Assyrians, Iraqis, Iranians, etc. The chief and perhaps ONLY long-range result of the Iranian hostage crisis was the massive influx of Iranians into the US. Vietnamese naturalization increased following the Vietnam War. Etc.

Look at ancient Rome. Subjugate the foreigners, absorb the foreigners. And die off.

If Israel allowed "the right of return" for the people it's at perpetually at war with, the demographics would wreck Israel swiftly.

Be careful whom you make war on. You may end up being them, particularly if your way of life is the more attractive.

Every time some blowhard hollers: "We gotta invade those evil (fill in the blank) over there!", he is actually saying: "I want my nation filled with those (fill in the blank) people!"

This is precisely why isolationism is the best (non-Carthaginian) solution to Muslim invasion of the West. Hostiles come here because we mix it up with them. By isolationism I mean miltarily closed borders, expulsion of illegal immigrants, and autarky as the default economic system (not forbidding international trade, just not supporting it). Like everyone else, though, I am still trying to figure out how to stop Muslim speedboats from landing - full of sharia! - on the shores of Spain. :-P (That's for iSteve oldtimers.)

12/28/07, 10:29 AM

Anonymous Evil Neocon said...

David -- your policy prescriptions are profoundly (sorry, all due respect) profoundly stupid.

Isolationism produces ... the Hereditary Kim kingdom of North Korea. Not a place anyone would want to live.

There is a happy medium between open borders and amnesty and the Hermit Kingdom.

Rome prospered when it's manpower was made up of free-holding small farmers who could be relied upon to fight during incredible odds. It failed when it became a massive urbanized bread-and-circuses state with massive slave plantations and a mercenary army. In other words far too much elitism and not enough populism.

The problem with Pakistan and Mexico is that tribalism and brutal fights over spoils by what amounts to gangster tribes guarantees vicious assassinations and struggles for power.

This would not be a problem for the US if we lived in the era of 1812, with jet planes, internet, satellite TV, nuclear weapons, and global trade. We don't live in that world and proposing to return to it is a stupid fantasy not worthy of anyone with a brain.

The problem for the US with Mexico is managing the chaotic struggle for power/loot so we don't have waves of people coming over and causing havoc inside the US of all sorts (as we do now). The problem for the US in Pakistan is keeping a friendly regime in power so we can resupply Afghanistan and prevent our forces there from being wiped out; and keeping the nukes out of the hands of AQ. So we can keep our cities from being nuked.

These are limited, rational objectives that require the US to use various levers against divided forces in Mexico and Pakistan.

And of the two, Pakistan is the more important or closer fire to our feet for reasons discussed above. Mexico is probably just as significant a long-term threat to US sovereignty, but we have more time to work things out there, and probably far more levers.

Invade the World, Invite the World, is (sorry Steve) a stupid slogan. We should not be allowing the masses of people pouring in to this nation, but we have real enemies determined to us mass-casualty terror to make us surrender to Islam and become, essentially, slaves. It's a fantasy ideology but one that is dangerous. It's certainly got a lot of people killed and since the first 1993 WTC attack has steadily escalated. Though the 1993 plotters had planned to topple one tower onto the other to kill 50,000 people.

For a deeply tribal, constantly fighting people this is how conflicts are fought: horrific and very public acts of brutality to force opponents to surrender. On the theory that enough massive brutality and killing will intimidate your opponent.

Our presence or non-presence in Muslim affairs makes no difference in a globally connected, global trade world. We are not going back to the world of 1812 any time soon. As long as primitive tribal peoples see on the internet and satellite TV that their societies are manifest failures and ours successful ones, albeit "weak" and "corrupted" they will continue "tribal raiding" for ever-expanding lists of concessions.

Heck Jefferson faced that problem on the Barbary Coast and ended up beefing up the Navy and bombarding Tripoli to ruins to finally solve the problem.

12/28/07, 2:30 PM

Anonymous David said...

Another, quick example:

France messed with Algiers. France lost. But do you think that if France had won, the streets of Paris would NOT be filled with "Muslim youth" torching hundreds of cars per night? IMO you are naive if you think so.

Oh, another example:

America participated in the slave trade, a hostile act. The descendants of the victims now commit violent crime in America out of proportion to their numbers. As to our Indian victims, only a virtual genocide - through wars, forced relocation, and a fortuitous pandemic - kept them harmless.

Examples of this kind of demographic blowback from war or hostilities could be multiplied indefinitely.

Which gives rise to an unoriginal analysis regarding war. Either don't make war at all; or be careful which people you decide to make war on, since they have a likelihood of becoming your kinsmen at a later date; or commit genocide.

That versus today's strategy of war, namely picking fights all over and prosecuting them lightly. Either go all the way and slaughter everybody, or pull out of their area and leave them alone.

I don't believe that all international amity and trade must be preceded by a war short of genocide. That would be lunacy. But "lunatics r us (U.S.)," these days.

12/28/07, 4:01 PM

Anonymous quo vadis scipio said...

yes, cry me a river. bhutto was a full blown socialist. she was a child of privilege from a family of super criminals who ended up running around espousing marxist solutions for the little people. what a creep. politics in that part of the world is primitive gangland struggle as opposed to our slightly more sophisticated gangland struggles here in the west. she was right there in the thick of it for many years. how many people do we think she ordered killed during her political career?

this event does help to reveal the shallow state of our presidential candidates. especially h clinton seems rather swept up by the gender of the victim. and let's not ignore the fact that bhutto was a good looking woman. it is a gear grinding experience for us to see women get caught up in gang violence. especially attractive women. it just doesn't seem proper ...because it isn't proper.

anyway pakistan is a hellhole circling the drain. but the pentagon announced today that pakistan's nukes are secure. so what else is new?

btw if bhutto was a 'fascist' then that adjective would be included in every headline about her assassination. instead her socialist bio is flushed down the memory hole by fellow travelers in the media.

hey wait a minute marxism killed ~100 million during the twentieth century. pass it on.

12/28/07, 6:50 PM

Anonymous manindarkhat said...

DAJ asks:

Were English/Scottish genes responsible for the troublesome dynastic-homicidal tradition of Britain from medieval times until the Glorious Revolution?

Undoubtedly, in part. But British genes were also partly responsible for positive things during that period. And the troublesome ones may have dwindled:

We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups...

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/12/are-humans-evolving-faster.html

Bringing in different genes underlying a lower average IQ and nastier kinds of political trouble was not a good idea, as Europe is seeing. It's like getting over cholera and then infecting yourself with typhoid.

12/29/07, 2:13 AM

Anonymous neil craig said...

The recent "suspicious" death not mentioned is that of Milosevic.

Shortly before his death a blood test showed the presence of rifampcin a prescription only drug used only for combatting leprosy. It passes through the body quickly & thus is undetectable & destroys damaged hearts (as Milosevic's already is.

I use inverted commas because it seems not so much a suspicion as an inevitable deduction, that he was murdered, by his jailers, because, after 4 1/2 years of "trial" they had been unable to produce any evidence to convict him & not to do so would be to admit that the war criminals were on the other side, including Clinton.

12/29/07, 5:41 AM

Anonymous David said...

For a deeply tribal, constantly fighting people this is how conflicts are fought: horrific and very public acts of brutality to force opponents to surrender. On the theory that enough massive brutality and killing will intimidate your opponent.

This is the anti-Americanism I despise. We're "a deeply tribal, constantly fighting people." (Hiroshima, shock and awe) Thanks!

Seriously, what's best is a strong military used as a last resort. Not a first resort - not pulling levers in 130 countries as we do now.

Domestically, meddling doesn't improve our "welfare" types. So how could it work to pacify tribes abroad (it doesn't, it stirs them up)? I favor prison at home and the armed forces on the border, with those forces controlled by Congress alone and sparingly used for defensive excursions. (I would have backed turning Tripoli into Carthage.) Call it Fortress America or the Hermit Kingdom if you like. Just don't call it "elitist": most of the common people in the United States approve of these ideas; it's the elites that grok lording it internationally.

As to the internet, television, jet planes, nuclear weapons, global trade: these things have existed for a long time (letters, books and paintings, sailing ships, matches in a world of wooden cities, global trade). Technological refinements don't affect principles.

12/29/07, 7:31 AM

Anonymous David Davenport said...

We are not going back to the world of 1812 any time soon. As long as primitive tribal peoples see on the internet and satellite TV that their societies are manifest failures and ours successful ones, albeit "weak" and "corrupted" they will continue "tribal raiding" for ever-expanding lists of concessions.



That's rather long-winded.

We're not going back to 1812? Very perceptive.

Do you agree that we should stop all Third World immigration into the USA, yes or no?

12/29/07, 9:36 AM

Anonymous anony-mouse said...

Doesn't this all make Bush look a lot better? The worse that you can allege about his treatment of his major opponents is that he may have stolen an election and turned that major opponent into the leading member of an Earth-loving pagan cult

12/29/07, 3:50 PM

Blogger TGGP said...

Freemasons! I knew it was them! Even when it was bears, I knew it was them!

12/29/07, 8:24 PM

Anonymous fwood1 said...

A Masonic conspiracy behind the Cardinal's death may be wacky, but the Masons are much more involved in politics in Latin countries (and that includes France)than they are here, where they're more interested in wearing funny hats and driving tiny cars.

12/31/07, 9:40 AM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL