Archive for the ‘Syria’ Category

Why Not a Mercenary Army Contra Isis?

August 22, 2014

It seems to Silverwolf that the easiest and least controversial way to destroy ISIS is for the West, and the Islamic Nations of the East who oppose ISIS, to recruit a mercenary army of military veterans. This could be a coalition of anyone in the West and the other regions, who is appalled by ISIS’s murderous actions, and who has had military training. It would be especially valuable to have moderate Muslims in this force who want to repudiate the anti-Libertarian ideology of ISIS. If there were ever an ideology as opposite to Jefferson’s as is possible to be, it is ISIS’s, and its’ genocidal proponents need to be blasted from the face of the earth.

If the U.S. and the U.K.  had spent the fortunes they have wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan on a highly-motivated, pro-Jeffersonian, mercenary army, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan might have been returned to the basic norms of human decency long ago, norms that we theoretically see in the Western “social democracies”. Those “democracies” are callous, brutal, and unloving societies, but they are at an infinitely-higher level than the kind of Nazi-like misery that ISIS is imposing on Yezidis, Christians, and Muslims. Those who shoot small children in the head, and behead journalists, need to be hoisted on their own petard.

A non-affiliated, mercenary army, would avoid the protests of the non-interventionists in America, who would stand by while genocide takes place and say it is none of our business. Their Libertarianism ends at the U.S. Borders.

A voluntary, mercenary army would also avoid any kind of coercion, or the situation of a person enlisting, hoping for a cushy desk job in America, but ending up on the frontlines in Iraq. All the fighters there would be there of their own volition, because they wanted to crush this Band of Murderers.

A Mercenary Army Contra ISIS is obviously the best, and most Libertarian solution, to the anti-Humanism of ISIS.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

The Nigel Farage-Nick Clegg Debate No. 2 on the EU: Deutschland Uber England

April 4, 2014

The second of the Farage-Clegg debates, this one sponsored by the BBC, was concluded less than a day ago, and the blood has been mopped up.

This second debate replayed many of the elements of the first, but the post debate polling, which had given the first debate to Farage 58%-36%, gave him this one also, but at 69%-28%.

While both these politicians seemed like scumbags in their own particular ways, Silverwolf would have to concur with the polls, not only in Farage’s debating execution, but also in a general sympathy with many of Farage’s views, while at the same time differing with him on several points in which Silverwolf agreed with Clegg.

We think this debate is quite prescient in illustrating what is going to happen in Western politics, and we think this will follow similar patterns in many societies. Thus, these two debates were quite significant precursers of future political trends.

Nick Clegg sounded very much like the Democrats in America, losing ground, and desperately trying to talk themselves out of a hole, while using inaccurate, legalistic language. Like Clinton’s legal deposition, and Obama’s “If you like your insurance, you can keep it”, Clegg’s assertion than only 7% of British legislation originated in Brussels as per a House of Commons report, was an legalistic lie. Farage then quoted from the same report as saying that an estimated 50% of all British legislation originated in Brussels, and then Clegg had to amend his lie by saying that 7% of all “primary” legislation originated there — that shows what an obfuscating liar Clegg is, and the usual worthless scumbag politician. He also went down the line, hitting all the correct issue buttons and catchphrases which the scientific brainwashing propagandists have told him win votes. It was sickening to see him mouth the same phrases, over and over, the same arguments over and over, and it’s no wonder that he lost. He is the Tony Blair clone, and dares to call himself a Liberal, when all he wants is more power for the mega-corporations, and having Englishmen slave for these foreign-owned companies, while anything the workers accumulate in what Clegg had the audacity to call “hard cash” is inflated away at whim by the Western central banks whenever the corporations call them on the carpet. Inflation keeps people slaving away all over the world; it is one of the chief tools of the collectivists for making sure that people never get out of their poverty, or economic rut.

Clegg had the audacity to say that it was all about “jobs, jobs, jobs,”, but the true aim of the free-market capitalist would be a society in which there was vast leisure, and people didn’t have to do these mind-deadening jobs, 40 hours a week. In a truly Capitalist society, with the Individual always placed above the Corporation, most people would be affluent, and would usually only work when they had the inclination. And they would have that inclination, not only for the remunerative rewards, but also because they enjoyed doing the work.

Such a truly Capitalist society would actually be the fulfillment of the oft quoted goal of the Communists: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. This is exactly what would quickly result in a few generations at most in a truly free-market Capitalist society, with a Jeffersonian-Bill of Rights, and a Republic or Parliamentary Democracy with democratic elections to choose the representatives, and a rigorous separation of Church and State. Such a radically free society, the epitome of Classical Liberalism, or Libertarianism as it is now called, would bring about, paradoxically, a society very close to the Communist’s ideal, and would result in a vast increase in human happiness, as well as a vast decrease in mankind’s misery.

Another very weak point for Clegg was Farage’s production of a Clegg flyer from 2008 saying that he was then in favor of a referendum, but now he was against it, and that original promise had never been fulfilled. Clegg tried to make a case why a Democratic Referendum being put to the British voters was a bad idea right now. (And here he pulled the “our economy is so fragile and just recovering and this would be dangerous” argument while earlier he’d been touting all the wonderful economic benefits that EU membership has brought Britain. Man, do these goons readily think the public is that stupid, that they can’t see the lying words, and the absurd arguments, like a bad lawyer trying to defend a weak case?)

When it came to Farage’s weaknesses, it was his arguments against “involvement” in Syria, as if carpet bombing Assad’s government buildings would have involved British boots on the ground, and the little smile Farage gave when Clegg quoted Farage’s quote on Putin playing Syria masterfully, as if it were a game, showed that Farage is an immoralist too. And to say that Libya would be better under a Li’l Hitler like Moammar Ghadaffi, a Mass Murderer, a Mass Torturer, and a War Criminal (napalm in Chad), than it now is shows that Farage, like Clegg, is also an immoral scumbag. Nor was Silverwolf enamoured with Farage’s enthusiasm for fracking and nuclear energy, or his denial of global warming, which seems pretty self-evidently true from the erratic weather patterns and droughts, and increase in ferocity of typhoons and tornadoes. Global warming may not exist, but it would be prudent to act as if it did exist, rather than do irreversible harm by continuing to ignore it. But look at the lying and hypocritical Obama Administration. While Kerry is wailing about innaction on global warming, Democrat Senators Wyden and Merkley, as well as Liberal Democrat Peter DeFazio are all braying for a vast expansion in logging in the Oregon forests, what is left of them. Solar energy is obviously man’s ultimate solution, the problem of disposal of nuclear waste still not being satisfactorily solved, and sunlight being as abundant and free as air.

 Clegg, for his part was wrong on the Ukraine, where he echoes the Orwellian Newspeak of the West, ignoring the fact that this was a democratically-elected government overthrown by violent mobs which have installed two Nazi parties, Pravy Sektor and Svoboda, in power on the border of Russia. Farage took exactly the correct position on this issue, and said he could well understand why Putin has acted like he has, and why he feels threatened, given the recent words of NATO leaders and Ukraine’s Nazi government.

Clegg’s argument that Britain has more clout being in the EU than it has out was one of his weakest arguments, along with his opposition to a democratic referendum on the issue.  An opposition he shares with PM Cameron of the Conservatives, and MP Milliband, head of the Labour Party,  — all of whom oppose giving the British electorate a democratic chance to state their views via a referendum. Perhaps that was Clegg’s feeblest argument of the whole debate. (And it is interesting that Milliband has asked that Farage be banned from the TV debates in the upcoming elections. Those Leftists love censorship, despite their claims of loving free speech and democracy.)

Clegg made a big show of saying, yes, the British should and, he promised, would vote by referendum on any changes in EU laws, but then Farage pointed out that new laws and regulations are made almost weekly, and that the British haven’t voted by referendum on in EU in over 40 years. This made Clegg’s promise seem very hollow indeed.

Clegg also made a royal lie when he claimed that Farage had said that 400-plus million EU workers would flood Britain, while Farage had clearly said that they could, he never said they would. He merely said that, under current EU rules, they would be able to. This is the type of cheap shot that destroys a politician’s credibility.

There were two more sickening and subtle lies these politicians put forth in there delivery: one for each of them.

Clegg has this collectivist way of saying “we” and “us” when he refers to the wealth of the whole country, but when a stock-owner of a foreign corporation takes a dividend out of British industry, how does that benefit the charwoman? These collectivist’s “we”s and “us”es are used by American and British politicians to refer to the entire society, but the only reality you have of America or Britain is the everyday experiences you live through, the specific people you meet and interact with, and your relationship with them, and the place you live in and the surroundings. These are “you”, not some fictious “we” when the politician says “we are stronger for being in the EU” or similar lying generalities. That generality is not a reality, but the purchasing power of the charwoman’s hourly wage is, to her. She could care less about Britain’s balance of trade, or getting rid of roaming charges for the bourgeoisie tourists who go to Europe, when she can barely afford bus fare to and from work. When politicians say “we” and “us” in refering to the economy, run from them.

Farage’s big lie was on the function of government, which he put as some vague increasing of opportunities. Pure pablum, and way off base. You’d think that a British politician would know better, but things must have gone way down in Old Blighty since the days of Cromwell and the Glorious Revolution. Libertarians know that government has one fundamental function: the defence of property rights, which includes your body, and the defence of the Jeffersonian Bill of Rights and your inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which in earlier documents was termed “property”. (Jefferson had the insight to see that the only real use of property was the pursuit of happiness, and that varied with each individual.) Moreover, the Libertarian has one core axiom to measure any political proposal: the non-aggression axiom which states that no man or group of men may aggress against the property rights of any individual.

Incidentally, it is interesting to speculate that, while England fought a ferocious war for survival against the German Nazis of WW II, they could now be legally invaded by tens of millions of Germans, and not be able to say a word agin it. So much for British Sovereignty. Deutschland Uber England may be the slogan of the future if Clegg gets his druthers.

We’d guess these debates will go a long way to strengthen Farage’s political position, and the positions of politicians who parrot his views. These views are on the rise, and as he correctly pointed out, the failures of Euro-collectivism are leading to more and more extremism from Nazis and other, economically-starved masses. Jeffersonian free-markets lead to true Liberalism; Clegg’s brand of “Liberalism”, which is its opposite in reality, leads to political extremism and Fascism. You can see it in Greece, in Hungary, and in Ukraine. Western governments, like Obama’s and Cameron’s, and their collaborating “opposition” parties, are losing ground with the public, who now get to hear clearly stated real opposition.

While both Clegg and Farage are propagandists and liars, it is clear from the debate results poll in whom the public places more credence.

Hooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Obama Finally Gets One Right: The Syrian Massacre

September 11, 2013

As one who has ripped the President, rhetorically speaking, since his inception in office, it gives Silverwolf great pleasure to finally agree almost wholeheartedly with the President, and to stand against the majority of his erstwhile Libertarian and Ron Paul-Republican colleagues in their opinions.

For the first time in history, Silverwolf watched a complete Obama speech from beginning to end, for up to this point it had been a question, after three or four minutes of watching or listening, as to whether Silverwolf could reach the door in time to not regurgitate his vegan muck all over the new Axminster.

But tonight Silverwolf listened to Obama, because for once their views were almost congruent. Silverwolf had called for a blasting of the Syrian War Criminal Assad and his top entourage for a long time before the President finally came to the same proposal, and a meally-mouthed proposal at that — targeted strikes against the chemical weapons stashes only — but never a serious attempt to obliterate that gang of terrorists known as the Syrian Government of Child-Murderer Assad by hitting Assad himself.

However, the Ron Paul-Ted Cruz wing was absolutely right in saying that the President could not go to war without the approval of Congress, but only Ron Paul and Son have pointed out the valid point that the drone strikes against various terrorist group leaders in Pakistan and Yemen are equally an act of war. If Republicans and Democrats support those drone strikes, then it follows that they should also support attacks against military and government targets of the Assad Gang of Terrorists.

Silverwolf first took President Obama’s proposal for the complete removal of Assad’s chemical weaons as a namby-pamby backdown in the face of the initial understandably negative reaction of public opinion to the proposal. But after hearing his speech, he now thinks it may be a very clever way of eventually getting to a justification, in the eyes of the American public, for an attack on the Fascist Criminal Assad, for when Assad refuses to comply, as he undoubtedly will, and since it is virtually impossible to ascertain that all chemical weapons are removed from a country as large as Syrian, then the public will feel that Assad has been given a reasonable out by a President very reluctant to use force, and very non-vindictive in tone in his speech. Indeed, the President seemed to speak tonight in terms of the sorrow inflicted by these sadistic callous brutes, rather than in anger at War Crimes that cause Silverwolf to bare his fangs, salivate profusely, and growl.  In other words, this proposal may be the President’s very cleverly crafted mode of finally getting public and congressional approval for this very necessary attack — necessary as a deterrent to any further chemical attacks from any of the Miscreant Dictators that are a curse on the people of the Earth. Every murdering one of them ought to be in chains for life, condemned to the most tediously dull labour for their daily plate of gruel and beans, or given the Freedom of Choice to starve themselves to death.

Obama may not have Constitutional authority for this attack, at least currently, but his speech put out to the People the Moral necessity of this deterrent strike very well. It is exactly the same situation, morally speaking, as Rwanda and Sarajevo, Clinton’s War Crimes of Inaction, and the Sharpville Massacre, as well as being, on a smaller scale, the exact same crime as the gassings of troops in World War I and the gassing of civilians in the Holocaust, or the napalming of Vietnamese Women and Children by the War Criminals in the U.S. military of that day, and the War Criminals in War Criminal Lyndon Johnson’s lying administration.

The War Criminal Assad’s War Crime of gassing women and children must not go unpunished; Obama is dead right on this one. For the first time, Silverwolf feels like calling him “Mr. President”.

Mr. President and Congress, please bomb the hell out of that Fascist Child-Murderer Assad! Child-murderers, tremble!

Hooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Missile Attack on Syria vs. Drone Strikes: What’s the Difference?

September 8, 2013

It’s interesting to see the reactions of the lemmings of the Democratic Party’s Anti-War Wing, now in action to stop Obama’s retaliation against the Mass Murderer and War Criminal Assad. Every few weeks, for the past few years under Obama, the press has reported drone strikes on Islamic radicals in al-Quaeda and various other groups, and there has been far more criticism of these as a vapid, immoral, and stupid policy from the Ron Paul-Libertarian wing of the Republican Party than from any Democrats. But now that Obama is going to take the very same action against a vicious head of a Nazi-like regime, many Democrats, as well as that Repulican-Libertarian wing, are up in arms.

But how do these two actions — a missile strike on a mass murderer and his military and drone strikes on mass murderers and the heads of their militias — how do they fundamentally differ? It seems to me not very much, except that by constantly killing innocent civilians along with the guilty jihadists in these drone strikes, Obama creates a fresh huge wave of cannon-fodder recruits for the radicals. In a raid on Assad’s military, or Assad himself, probably only guilty war criminals and their assistants would suffer.

Silverwolf’s brand of Libertarianism — and we think it was Jefferson’s too — wants those Jeffersonian inalienable Natural Human Rights to extend to every single Human Being on Earth, not just in America and Western Europe. And when we see such egregious mass murder and war crimes being carried out with impunity, it seems to us that the Western Powers, with the most powerful military in the world, have some sort of moral obligation to intervene to stop the carnage and kill the Nazi. Using the use of chemical weapons as an excuse for smashing a murdering Fascist, as if all the other weapons from incendiary bombs to napalm to land mines wasn’t excuse enough, is fine with Silverwolf. Hitting the Syrian military with missile strikes is no different from the frequent hitting of Jihadists in Pakistan, and no rank-and-file Democrats or Republicans are making a big issue of that except a few like Senator Paul, although we have made an issue of it because of its murder of innocent civilians along with the guilty. So it just goes to show how hypocritical is the Democrat’s and Republican’s current opposition to missile strikes against Syria. It may be unconstitutional to hit Syria without Congressional approval, but just as unconstitutional as Obama’s frequent drone attacks, which none of these same puling politicians on Syria whine about.

So Silverwolf disagrees with most of his fellow Libertarians on this issue

Obama is right for once. Smash any Fascist who uses chemical weapons!

Hoooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Inaction on Syria: Murder Under Your Feet

September 3, 2013

Spend a day in the American wilderness with the sun shining, and you’d think you’d been parachuted into heaven, unless you’re broken down, lost, and thirsty without water, in which case you might feel like you’ve been dropped somewhere else, — but precluding such emergencies, you might think you’d been given a day in paradise.

But look down to your feet. Down there, underneath the soil several thousand miles, there are people being murdered.

The British Parliamentary Left’s response to Assad’s War Crimes in Syria is disgusting. What they have done is like voting to not bomb the rail lines to the Nazi concentration camps “because they didn’t want to get involved”.

And here we must differ strongly with our political hero, Ron Paul, and the entourage around him, who oppose military action in Syria. The excuse that we will be helping Al-Quaeda or the Jihadists in the opposition forces if we hit Assad’s military, (and why not hit Assad himself?) is a thin one indeed, for if there are clearly identifiable units and militias in the opposition forces that are al-Quaeda, then does not America, or at least the Obama Administration, have a policy of hitting those groups with drones? And if they can be so identified, then should these groups not also be subject to the same treatment as Obama has used on radicals in Pakistan and Yemen, creating multitudes of new radicals as he goes by killing innocent bystanders and relatives of these radicals — far more radicals than he is killing? A stupid policy from a stupid President.

Silverwolf agrees in theory with Ron Paul that we do not need, and should not have, roughly 700 military bases around the world. Let the rich Euros and Nipponese pay for them, not the American small Capitalist. But since we violate this principle every day with NATO, and with our drone strikes on militants, then why not use our military to send a very powerful deterrent message to one of the world’s worst current War Criminals. Any military action against such a bestial Nazi is a plus for world Libertarianism, in our opinion.

It seems to us that Jeffersonian Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism has this in common with Communism and Jihadist Islam — that it seeks to establish its moral code around the world. Communism and Fanatical Organized Religion both have their need to establish their tyranny over the entire globe, or see themselves fail and self-immolate. But Libertarianism, based on the Natural Rights theory that all Human Beings have Inalienable Rights and that the true function of government is merely to guarantee and protect those Rights, prosecuting those who would violate them, — Libertarianism too has its need to spread around the globe, and become the norm for Mankind wherever he goes on the Planet. You can’t just have Libertarianism in America, and say, to hell with the 8000 dowery murders per year in India, or the thousands of executions in Red China. Here we very strongly disagree with Ron Paul’s seeming to isolate these Rights to within the borders of the United States, and to not much care about the Natural Rights violations that are going on around the globe daily. Ron Paul and his entourage are right, however, in being extremely cautious about using the military outside of America, and at the drop of a hat. Throughout history, governments have used moral arguments to get into wars for which they really had economic and sinister motives. This is true most of the time. But now that we can specifically target War Criminals and their Militaries, as in Syria and North Korea, with highly accurate missiles, Silverwolf is not going to protest any more than he’d protest every day against the presence of US bases in Europe or Japan.

And as for that Stinking British Labour Party, and George Galloway, MP, — what a bunch of self-centred collaborators with Hitlerism.

Hoooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf