Thursday, August 23, 2018

RT - Hopkins: Why do Muslims always go to Christian countries?

The journalist Katie Hopkins from the Sun newspaper interviews Oksana Boyk from RT and makes the Russians look like liberals as she is so extreme. Okay, she admires Putin and may not be a Putin critic, but she lays into the Muslims asking why do they come here to the free west? She says, "Isn't it because Christian lands are free and tolerant and open?", Oksana Boyk replies saying its because Western countries bombed their countries, but Katie Hopkins takes no notice of that and neither do the racists bigots leaving comments underneath the video. .

I put out a comment saying it was the British and the Americans who funded Wahhabism throughout the Middle East which made life so hard for Muslim women. The West did not want the ME to develop liberal democracies because then the people of those countries would want to control their own oil and not have Western corporations control it.

I thought I would inform the British racists but I have not had a reply yet. Now I'm not keen on Muslim fanatics either, but who caused it?

The first clip is the 2:24 minutes long and if that interests you there is the full interview underneath.

Katie Hopkins is pretty obnoxious.




"Isn't it because Christian lands are free and tolerant and open?" Katie Hopkins quizzes Worlds Apart RT host Oksana Boyko about why Muslims "always go to Christian countries".



41 comments:

Konrad said...

Q. Why do Muslims always come here to the free (i.e. oligarch owned and controlled) West?

A. Some do. Some don’t. Lebanon has 1.1 million refugees from the Empire’s war on Syria. (The U.K. is 23 times larger than Lebanon.) Turkey has about the same. Jordan has about 2 million Palestinian refugees from Israel’s war on Palestinians.

Saudi Arabia accepts no refugees at all.

Refugees are most commonly created by military and / or economic wars, which are usually waged by the rich against the lower classes. Moammar Gadhafi warned that if NATO destroyed Libya, then NATO would create a refugee crisis in Europe, and that’s exactly what happened.

Just now I spoke with a Mexican national who told me he admired Trump’s rhetoric against Latino immigrants. Why? Because the Mexican is biased against Central American immigrants. He admitted it.

As for Katie Hopkins, at least she condemns political correctness and identity politics. (Not in this video, but in others.)

Don’t like refugees? Stop killing them militarily and economically. Stay out of their country, and they’ll stay out of yours.

GLH said...

The real question should be why do Christians find it so easy to kill other people? The Christians I know have somehow confused the words of their god. Jesus supposedly said, "Love thine enemy as thyself." Of course it doesn't matter how many people they kill since they are "saved" and going to heaven regardless.

Ralph Musgrave said...

Kaivey is talking complete nonsense. First, he claims Muslim migration to the West is caused by Western military intervention in Muslim countries. One flaw in that argument is that that migration started long before the Iraq war: e.g. Pakistanis have been migrating to the UK in large numbers for a good 50 years. Second, it’s not just the West that intervenes in Syria etc: so too does Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and just about everyone else. Third, if there were no military intervention in Syria at all, the war there between Assad and sundry Muslim groups would probably be just a vicious.

Next, Kaivey claims the West opposes the setting up of liberal democratic regimes in the Gulf because that would cause countries there to want to “control their own oil”. Well (revelation of the century this) EVERY type of regime wants to control its own natural resources. Whether the regime is a dictatorship, Communist, or a liberal democracy is irrelevant.

Hopkins actually asks are very good, and simple question (which is way above the heads of lefties) namely: if Islam is so wonderful, why do Muslims migrate to the West? Reason is, of course, that Islam is not wonderful: Muslim countries are “shit-holes”, to use Trump’s sophisticated terminology.

And finally, it’s good to see Kaivey tossing the word “racist” around. Lefties only know half a dozen words, which they repeat like demented parrots. One is “racist” and another is “fascist”. But in this case, the word racist is not really relevant because Islam is a religion, not a race.

Matt Franko said...

“Kaivey claims the West opposes the setting up of liberal democratic regimes in the Gulf because that would cause countries there to want to “control their own oil”.

Yo Kaivey, ever hear of OPEC????

“Americans who funded Wahhabism throughout the Middle East which made life so hard for Muslim women.”

Ever hear of the Iranian hostage crisis? You’re saying that the US funded the Iranian hostage crisis????

Matt Franko said...

“ Muslim countries are “shit-holes”, to use Trump’s sophisticated terminology. ”

Bingo.... they’re economic refugees...

Matt Franko said...

“Jesus supposedly said, "Love thine enemy as thyself.”

Well maybe they don’t love themselves then?

Andrew Anderson said...

Of course it doesn't matter how many people they kill since they are "saved" and going to heaven regardless. GLH

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" Matthew 7:21-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Matt Franko said...

“depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’"

Then maybe as long as the killing is legal then they’re in....

Noah Way said...

“Kaivey claims the West opposes the setting up of liberal democratic regimes in the Gulf because that would cause countries there to want to “control their own oil”.

...

Ever hear of the Iranian hostage crisis?


The hostage crisis that happened because the US would not extradite the despotic Shah who fled the country after a massive popular uprising? The Shah that was installed by the CIA in Operation Ajax, which overthrew the democratically elected Iranian Parliment and Prime Minister after they nationalized oil?

Franko, are you retarded or just stupid?

John said...

Ralph: "Second, it’s not just the West that intervenes in Syria etc: so too does Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and just about everyone else. Third, if there were no military intervention in Syria at all, the war there between Assad and sundry Muslim groups would probably be just a vicious."

That's total gibberish and doesn't include the context. Russia and Iran were invited in by the secular governments to aid them against the jihadis. The Western powers and the Gulf states have been aiding the jihadis. Syria would have crushed the jihadis in no time at all had it not been for the crucial aid by the Western and Gulf states. So wrong on all points.


Ralph: "Next, Kaivey claims the West opposes the setting up of liberal democratic regimes in the Gulf because that would cause countries there to want to “control their own oil”. Well (revelation of the century this) EVERY type of regime wants to control its own natural resources. Whether the regime is a dictatorship, Communist, or a liberal democracy is irrelevant."

Ralph, you really should read what the declassified top secret documents say on this. It's all very straightforward. The internal documents (State and Pentagon in the US, and FCO in the UK, as well as any number of retired high-ranking military officers, intelligence officers and civil servants). Yes, every regime wants to control its country's resources, but not those who cannot survive without outside help and would be overthrown otherwise. Saudi Arabia is a good example, but so are all resource-rich Middle East countries. That's why there have been Western-backed coups in many. The coups weren't to overthrow jihadi states. No, they were to overthrow secular liberal DEMOCRACIES and secular liberal autocracies, and to then replace them with Islamist militarists (Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria), Islamist monarchies, or to use jihadis as a battering ram to install a genocidal maniac (Suharto in Indonesia).

Ralph: "If Islam is so wonderful, why do Muslims migrate to the West? Reason is, of course, that Islam is not wonderful: Muslim countries are “shit-holes”, to use Trump’s sophisticated terminology."

Other than the fact that almost all Muslims do not live in the West or have migrated to the West? Facts do get in the way, don't they, Ralph? The Muslims who have been migrating very recently are in fact refugees from war zones. Again, another fact that you don't want to accept. Other than the many indigenous peoples who have converted to Islam (it has the fasting growing conversion rate), the Muslims who did migrate to the West were invited here, just like all immigrants. They came because they were poor and looking for a better life. Just as the poor Irish, Italians, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, British etc who went to live in America. But I don't suppose you'll ever refer to these European countries which these immigrants left as shitholes?

John said...

Noah, you got there before me. Matt doesn't care for facts. They're the product of a liberal arts education, or it's stochastic bullshit or evolutionary nonsense.

One of the most despotic butchers of the twentieth century is granted "asylum" by Washington, and Matt thinks nothing of it and believes there will be no repercussions by the people who toppled the dictator. Not that they did, but the Taliban had far more right to grant Bin Laden "asylum" than Washington did for the Shah, for who the US was legally obliged to return for trial. In actual fact, the Taliban offered to extradite Bin Laden. Washington never offered any such thing regarding their most favoured sadistic butcher.

Matt Franko said...

Kaivey is asserting that the US is financially fomenting the suppression of females...

Females are suppressed in Iran and we have had permanent financial sanctions on Iran since the hostage crisis...

Matt Franko said...

You guys are missing the whole thing with the Obama/Hillary policy over there was a big diversity initiative to include the tactic of military warfare in its imposition... racial gender lgbt....

That’s over now Trump has other priorities primarily commercial...

John said...

Why did so many British people move to America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand? Because the UK was/is a shithole. Why do so many British people retire to Spain, Portugal and Greece? Because the UK is a shithole. Why do so many Hindus and Sikhs live outside India? Because India is a shithole. Why do so many French, Italians and Spaniards live in other parts of Europe? Because their countries are shitholes. Why do so many Koreans and Japanese live in America? Because Korea and Japan are shitholes. That's Ralph's response. It has nothing to do with opportunity, poverty, freedom or anything else. People simply move because their own countries are shitholes. Why do the vast majority of Jews live outside Israel. Don't give me any nonsense about Jews being and feeling British or American or French or any of that other garbage and don't have any national or historic association with Israel; no, it's because they don't want to live in a shithole like Israel. As that great charlatan Milton Friedman would have said if he were alive today: migration is always and everywhere a shithole phenomenon.

Kaivey said...

I was talking about the present wave of mass immigration, Ralph, which was caused by western backed military action in ME countries. And does Ralph conveniently forget how Britain and the US installed the Shah in Iran throwing out the centrist government which had nationalised its oil fields. Now tell me that is nonsense?

And what about Afghanistan where women once when about in short skirts and did not have their faces covered until the US put the jihadist mercenaries in there to give 'Russia its Vietnam'.

In opinion, the only reason the right win any arguments at all is because the Western aristocracy spend £millions on mass propaganda and so millions of Americans today are so scared of communism that they reject a gentle social democracy which would serve them well. Ralph and Matt would get nowhere in their arguments if there was any real news in our corporate media.

If I was Chinese, or Russian, or anyone living in the third world, then the country to be most afraid of would be the US and its vassels in Europe which has raged a bloody war against their countries for decades. South East Asia Never Forgets, by Andre Vitchek.

John said...

Matt: "Females are suppressed in Iran and we have had permanent financial sanctions on Iran since the hostage crisis..."

For pity's sake, Matt, everyone is suppressed in Iran, not just women! Sanctions weren't imposed because of the hostage crisis. It was to prod the military to overthrow the new regime. That's why Reagan was illegally selling weapons to Iran and siphoning off the proceeds for a terrorist war in Nicaragua: arm the military, who may still be loyal to the Shah, and initiate a coup to return the status quo ante.

Anyway, compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran looks like California or Oregon. So that can't be the reason for Washington's insane cold war against Iran. Internal national security documents admit that Iran has very little to do with international terrorism, and that's with an extremely wide definition of "terrorism". The intelligence agencies, who are pretty good at intelligence gathering, all admit that almost all jihadi terrorism comes from Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, UAE and plucky little Kuwait far behind. But since Saudi Arabia's jihadi onslaught on the rest of the Muslim world is crucial to Washington's imperial strategy, Iran gets blamed. It's quite clever really. You have to suspend disbelief to believe a word of any of it, and you have to disregard all the books by former intelligence officials, military officers and former grand strategy planners who spill the beans on all this because they know it's a totally bonkers strategy.

John said...

Matt: "You guys are missing the whole thing with the Obama/Hillary policy over there was a big diversity initiative to include the tactic of military warfare in its imposition... racial gender lgbt.... "

Matt, Alex Jones has hacked into your account and is writing nutty conspiracy stuff about the US military trying to turn the world into transgender homosexuals.

The US military is nothing more than an imperial army. It has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. It has nothing to do stopping genocidal maniacs, warlords and whatever scare story is doing the rounds. Although if forced to choose, I would say there is more chance that the US military, especially the special forces and the CIA, has a secret mission to convert the world into transgender homosexuals than spreading freedom and democracy.

Matt Franko said...

You should just hope that Trump can extricate us from that entire shithole over there before Iran would take a swing at us on the way out...

I have a feeling Trump would lose his shit if they were to do that...

Matt Franko said...

Everybody has a breaking point .. even Trump...

Kaivey said...

Iran was in the West to becoming a Western style liberal democracy until we put the Shah in power and when he got above his station Britain and the US helped the unknown at the time Ayatollah Khomeini, a right wing fascist, to get in and this is what turned Iran into a 'shithole country'. But today it's a lot better.

In the video, Riding a C90 Through Iran, you get to see a very friendly people who often give food away to travellers. At one point the English traveller goes to get some petrol and he is invited into the garage to have food. The Iranians can't speak any English but the biker lad has a splendid lunch with them. Then they offer him a choice of cigarettes and at the end they fill his bike with petrol but don't want any money for it. At another point a lorry driver hands him a orange out of his cab window while driving along, and so it goes on. The English traveller says he never needs to buy any food. Now how can anyone call that a suitable country? It's seems to have a very friendly and beautiful culture.

Tom Hickey said...

Everybody has a breaking point .. even Trump...

Matt, I am beginning to think that you have past yours.

John said...

Matt, I suspect war with Iran is a high probability now. Trump is fucked, and he needs to distract attention from his criminal escapades. The worst thing about losing Trump is Pence taking the gig, and that man is a serious whacko. Trump's just a two-bit hustler with a tremendous weakness for women with big hair (he and Bubba Clinton must have liked each other). Pence is a scary piece of work, and that may be why Trump chose him. Let's bygones be bygones and let us all unite to save the Orange One. Just like the entirely innocent/guilty/guilty as hell O.J. Simpson, from way back in the day, let us proclaim: "Don't Squeeze The (Orange) Juice". Save the Orange One!

John said...

Kaivey, a friend of mine had exactly the same experience in Iran. A few years back, we took a holiday to Egypt and I stayed on. He had already organised to go on to Iran. From what he tells me, he made the right decision and I made the foolish decision gawking at pyramids and the like. Iran, he said, is easily the best country he has ever been to, and he's been everywhere. The only downside, he said, was that he couldn't get a drink, or at least didn't know where to look.

Iran is nobody's enemy, except perhaps its own population. The regime is a corrupt mafia-style gangster operation. But the idea that it is a threat to anyone is nonsense. It couldn't beat Iraq, yet apparently it's going to steamroller over the entire West. The way to bring the regime down is to allow the people to do it. If the Egyptians can bring down Mubarak, the Iranians can certainly overthrow the Mullahs.

Konrad said...

“Kaivey is talking complete nonsense. First, he claims Muslim migration to the West is caused by Western military intervention in Muslim countries. One flaw in that argument is that that migration started long before the Iraq war: e.g. Pakistanis have been migrating to the UK in large numbers for a good 50 years.” ~ Ralph Musgrave

Musgrave is blinded by his hate. I shall clarify...

[1] Kaivey was talking about military and economic attacks. The latter are more devastating. The West has caused more destruction via engineered coups and weaponized credit than via bombs and invasions. Result: refugees.

[2] Regarding Pakistan, if you forcibly occupy a nation, then your own nation will eventually get refugees from the occupied nation. England forcibly occupied India and Pakistan for over three centuries (1608 to 1947). Result: refugees.

[3] The West does not “intervene.” It attacks. Sometimes it occupies and colonizes, directly or economically. Result: refugees.

“Second, it’s not just the West that intervenes in Syria etc: so too does Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and just about everyone else.” ~ Ralph Musgrave

Russia and Iran do not wage global military or economic war like the West does. As for Syria, it is only one case. It was the scene of a proxy war between the USA / Saudi Arabia on one side, and Russia / Iran on the other. The USA / Saudi Arabia started it in 2011. Russia entered the picture four years later.

“Third, if there were no military intervention in Syria at all, the war there between Assad and sundry Muslim groups would probably be just a vicious.”~ Ralph Musgrave

Musgrave pushes the Syrian “civil war” lie. In reality the war was between the Syrian government vs. non-Syrian terrorist mercenaries who were armed, funded, and logistically supported by the West and by Saudi Arabia and Israel.

“Next, Kaivey claims the West opposes the setting up of liberal democratic regimes in the Gulf because that would cause countries there to want to ‘control their own oil.’ Well (revelation of the century this) EVERY type of regime wants to control its own natural resources. Whether the regime is a dictatorship, Communist, or a liberal democracy is irrelevant.”~ Ralph Musgrave

Gulf State kings and sheikhs cooperate with the West. Kaivey was referring to the Gulf’s people controlling their oil, in which case the Gulf would be like Iran, which the West will not allow.

“Hopkins actually asks very good and simple question (which is way above the heads of lefties) namely: if Islam is so wonderful, why do Muslims migrate to the West? Reason is, of course, that Islam is not wonderful: Muslim countries are ‘shit-holes,’ to use Trump’s sophisticated terminology.”~ Ralph Musgrave

Musgrave’s hate and stupidity are showing again. In many cases, nations become “shit holes” because the West intentionally made them so. Libya had the highest living standards in Africa until NATO destroyed Libya. Iran was progressive and Westernized until the CIA installed the Shah by a coup. Afghanistan was progressive and Westernized until the West started supporting drug lords, war lords, and then Al Qaeda. Syria was progressive and Westernized until the West launched its proxy war.

Regarding Islam, religious issues are outside the scope of this topic, which are refugees from military and economic wars waged by the West. (I do not consider Islam or any other religion to be “wonderful,” but that’s just my opinion).

“And finally, it’s good to see Kaivey tossing the word ‘racist’ around. Lefties only know half a dozen words, which they repeat like demented parrots. One is ‘racist’ and another is ‘fascist.’ But in this case, the word racist is not really relevant because Islam is a religion, not a race.”~ Ralph Musgrave

Musgrave is not a racist. He just hates everyone whose heritage isn’t 100% white European.

Blacks, Arabs, Asians, Latinos, Native Americans – he’s an equal opportunity hater.

Tom Hickey said...

If the Egyptians can bring down Mubarak, the Iranians can certainly overthrow the Mullahs.

In my view this comparison is off the mark. Mubark was essentially a military dictator, taking over after Sadat was assassinated and backed by the US. He rule with an iron fist and corruption was rife. The comparison is more apt with the Shah. When Mubark was turned out of office, a Muslim Brotherhood guy was elected in a close election. The military promptly took power back.

After the US and UK had ousted the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, the Shah was installed as dictator and he rule brutally and corruption was rife. When he was overthrown Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to become the spiritual head of an Islamic democracy. Iran is a Muslim country and most people there are Shi'ite Muslims. This is not an Islamic "dictatorship," or if it can be termed that, it is an extremely liberal one compared to the Sunni Islamic dictatorships in the Gulf, e.g., KSA. For example, the standard for women in Iran is modest dress and behavior as defined by Islamic law and culture, including the covering of one's hair with the traditional headscarf. This is portrayed in the West as "female suppression." Conversely, Muslims women in France are not permitted to wear the head scarf, or burka, if they choose. This is "freedom."

Standards are culture and they are different historically and geographically, as reflected in tradition, religion, religious law, positive law, customs and institutions. All cultures set standards and judge others on the standards they set for themselves.

There is huge kerfuffle in liberal countries over where to draw the lines once the traditional lines are erased. Now many feminists in the West are actively protested suppression of their right to go topless. Nudist are protesting their right to go naked if they choose. Why can't they do this? That's were the line are drawn now. Why? Custom and tradition.

All this agitation to bring Western values and spread freedom and democracy is just a cover to pursue "liberal globalization," which is really expansion of the Anglo-American Empire globally in the interests of Western financial and economic special interests.

Liberalism is now hitting a bunch of brick walls in confronting traditionalism in various parts of the world, but also domestically. There are still a lot of Western traditionalists in the Western countries and they view the rolling back of lines to the degree that it has as already alarming.

Ultimately this is a battle over where to draw lines, that is, set standards. There are no absolute criteria in a naturalistic world. Unless one takes one's scripture as supernatural, where the lines are drawn is arbitrary. They is why libertarians-anarchists are for dressing the lines in terms of individual sovereignty, e.g., the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as one sees fit.

Is everyone ready for that? No. As traditionalists point out, freedom necessitates responsibility and most people not capable of being responsible, so lines have to be drawn more tightly than they would be if people in general were. It's like bringing up children. They have to be socialized, e.g., not soiling the nest.

Tom Hickey said...

Saudis Move to Behead Woman Activist as Facebook Censors Anti-Saudi Content

GLH said...

"Nudist are protesting their right to go naked if they choose. Why can't they do this? That's were the line are drawn now. Why? " Because I don't look good naked anymore.

Matt Franko said...

“Saudis Move to Behead Woman Activist“

The govt program to get off the oil should have been commenced by 1:00 pm on Sep 11 2001 and been over for 10 years now...

John said...

Tom, actually I'd agree with that. All that I meant was Mubarak's regime was the most solid. It was thought impossible to overthrow. But on reflection the Shah's regime is probably a better fit with the Mullah's regime. In many ways, they simply took over the Shah's autocratic operation but Islamised it. Were there genuinely fair elections, the Mullahs' candidate would probably come third, possibly second, because of the rural support. A nationalist conservative, in the shape of Erdogan, would probably win, and a liberal would probably come second, possibly third, having to fight it out with the Shia clergy's choice. In either case, whoever won wouldn't be anything but an enemy of Washington.

Iran's interests just do not coincide with the Washington mafia's. It's said quite openly that the only thing stopping Iran getting nuclear weapons is the Mullahs. The liberals and the conservatives are the most anxious to arm themselves with nukes, presumably to stop Washington from overthrowing their democracy. Given their history, I can see their point of view. I don't particularly want to see a nuclear Iran, but I do appreciate the quandary they find themselves: arm yourselves with nukes or surrender to the empire and allow your country to get raped by Goldman Sachs and Exxon. Having given up their CIVILIAN nuclear programme, Washington has increased the sanctions. Washington never lives up to its commitments, and it's now coming back to haunt it. No one in the world now trusts Washington, which is now in the role of late Rome: everyone fears it, though not nearly as much as before, what with the debacles in Afghanistan, Iraq and everywhere else, but everyone despises it and wants to see it brought down more than just a notch or two. It's dangerous times for the empire, but thankfully it has a philosopher warrior king in the shape of Drumpf who can bring back the glory days.

John said...

Matt: "The govt program to get off the oil should have been commenced by 1:00 pm on Sep 11 2001 and been over for 10 years now..."

That tells you that they don't actually mean what they say about "foreign oil". The US is about to become energy self-sufficient as it was for many decades. What's it doing? The same as last time: exporting the self-sufficient energy it has, and importing "foreign oil". How anyone can believe the story Washington spins about "foreign oil" and being self-sufficient is beyond my comprehension. It's so evidently a crock of shit, yet so many believe it, and that's why, ahem, we have to stay in the Middle East and blah blah blah. Access to oil is not and never has been the issue. The US could have a thousand times as much oil as the rest of the planet put together, but it would still want to control the energy resources of the Middle East because it sells it to Washington's competitors. However, if Washington controls Europe's and Japan's and most importantly China's energy supplies, then it has them over a barrel.

Matt Franko said...

“How anyone can believe the story Washington spins about "foreign oil" and being self-sufficient is beyond my comprehension.”

They are all Art Degree people that is how... I’m assuming you are Science trained...

Larry Kudlow Art Degree in history from Princeton now CEA to POTUS can you believe it...

Science Degree people just went out and increased US production by 7mbpd instead... nat gas now coning our of our ass too...

I think the main core problem is the Art Degree people being allowed to get involved in real (material) stuff... they have never been trained for this type of work and just screw it all up...

They should all be barred from any of this...

Matt Franko said...

Look at Bill Mitchell the other day he is advocating we go back to road gangs with picks and shovels to do road construction... ufb...

John said...

Matt, this stuff has nothing to do with educational subjects or to what university level someone has read these subjects. Most people who run government have been trained in political science, economics and law. There are quite a few trained in science, but the results are the same because the policy is the same. The arts and humanities graduates may run the show but they certainly know what's what, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if they were all physicists, biologists or engineers. Margaret Thatcher was a terrible disaster for us here in the UK, and she was a trained scientist (chemist). Assad, from what I know, was a good ophthalmologist. Angela Merkel was also a chemist, but she's tearing Europe apart. Apparently, Jimmy Carter was a trained nuclear engineer, but he watched as Volcker sent interest rates to the moon, wrecked the US economy and ensured he was replaced by an actor so bad that he was acted off the screen by a chimpanzee named Bonzo.

But the fact is, Matt, YOU do believe all this stuff about "energy independence" and "self-sufficiency" and "not being reliant on Middle Eastern oil". The facts speak for themselves: pick any year the US was "energy independent" and see what the policies in fact were. Were they any different than otherwise? No, they weren't: the US exported oil, imported foreign oil and meddled just as before in the Middle East, the most important region for energy. Why? Again, the declassified top secret documents tell you the entire story: controlling energy is "a lever of world power". Are you seriously telling me that the US, unlike any previous great power, saw an opportunity to become the greatest superpower in world history and declined it? I understand why Washington acted as it acted. You seem to not believe what's right in front of you, or blame it on people educated in the arts.

Some of the brightest people I know were trained in these subjects. Some of the dumbest people I know are scientists. I've met brilliant scientists who literally know NOTHING outside their tiny sliver of expertise. I personally know some of the most celebrated and brilliant theoretical physicists in the world, and they've all been just about the dumbest motherfuckers I've ever met. I used to have more intelligent conversations with the poorly educated immigrants serving us lunch. Educational attainment and/or the subject is a red herring. Many of my friends are scientists, and yet again outside their narrow specialisations they haven't got a damn clue.

You can choose to disbelieve the officials who wrote and then ran the policies. You can disregard what all the highest officials in all branches of government have written about what the policies were and still are. Instead, you can, if you so wish, believe the official government position, just like when the director of the NSA says that US intelligence agencies don't spy on Americans without a warrant. None of it is true. It's all theatre. The truth isn't hiding. It's not a secret...well, it is secret until it's declassified. I choose to take seriously what high officials say and do behind closed doors. I certainly make a careful note of it when it becomes clear that what they said and wrote was diametrically at odds with what was said at the time. And if all of this then fits like a jigsaw puzzle to the actual events at the time, then I believe it no matter how hard it is to accept. For example, the Iraq war was a gigantic lie. The inquests we've had here in the UK have determined that much. Similarly, oil has nothing to do with accessing a resource without which we'd all be in trouble. It has to do with control of the world.

Matt Franko said...

The oil states piggy back off the OPEC prices that (previously) contained about $75/bbl of pure monopoly rent... they were never going kill that golden goose...

Price stayed high enough for long enough to bring new investments in the Dakotas,etc and now we’re net exporter...

Matt Franko said...

“believe the official government position, just like when the director of the NSA says that US intelligence agencies don't spy on Americans without a warrant. None of it is true. It's all theatre.”

Why did the Obama people have to get the FISA warrant on Carter Page to hack the Trump campaign then????

Why when the day after Mike Rogers met with Trump at the Tower Trump moved his ops to Bedminster NJ all the way over to NJ from Manhattan to be secure?

Ever work in Defense Communications?

Well I did for over a decade...

You don’t know what you are talking about.... and are promulgating conspiracy theories...

Matt Franko said...

https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-for-the-first-time-is-importing-more-oil-than-its-exporting-2018-8

Matt Franko said...

We’re leaving all of these hell holes.... (not fast enough)

You guys WISH we cared about these shit holes...you WISH....

US has no concern whatsoever for these places anymore those mfers can come CRAWLNG on their knees for help and they will get a boot in the face and kicked down the stairs into the gutter....

Matt Franko said...

“For example, the Iraq war was a gigantic lie”

NOBODY cares.... except you biased anti war guys...

If POTUS says we’re going to go kick Iraq’s ass then that’s what we’re gonna do... get over it already...we don’t need a reason...

And I’ll say again you guys better hope Iran doesn’t take a swing at Trump in these current conditions....

Matt Franko said...

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/082418-analysis-bakken-drilling-approaches-19-month-high-as-oil-prices-irrs-rise?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=oil&utm_content=photo&utm_campaign=news&hootpostid=fbf747779fb7d258a8d089e3cc44431f

Konrad said...

@ John:

Please don’t feed the troll.

By giving it your attention, you caused the troll to leave seventeen idiotic comments on this thread alone.

John said...

Matt, why do you never answer anything put to you, and instead rant about people being anti-war, anti-stochastic (which you clearly don't understand) and dummies who believe in scientific facts like evolution (another thing you clearly don't understand)?

Everything that you've said is not just wrong but unimaginably wrong. What I wrote has been proven wrong again and again by the US government and US officials. The Pentagon says you're wrong. The State Department says you're wrong. The intelligence agencies says you're wrong. The officials who planned and put into operation these very these things we're debating say you're wrong. Presidents say you're wrong. Generals and Admirals say you're wrong. Not just wrong but as wrong as it is possible to be. Yet, according to the book of Matt, they're all liars and fools. They don't know what it is they planned or what it is they in fact did. Presumably they've been brainwashed by the transgender homosexuals brigade who, according to Matt, are running US foreign and defence policy! Apparently, they are the last people to ask because they don't know anything and are probably transgender homosexuals, not real 'Muricans. So don't ask them. Sean Hannity and Matt know, and the story is about a shining city on a hill, and any other propaganda he picked up from John Wayne and Chuck Norris films. What planet are you living on?

Not content with ignoring anything and everything that dampens his wacky 'Murica world view, Matt throws his pearl-handled rattle out of his Chuck Norris-emblazoned pram: fuck everyone, they're all motherfuckers, let everyone in the world die! 'Murica!

And Matt has the temerity to belittle and laugh at libertarians. At least libertarians engage with an argument, rather than shouting fuck off and die to the world. Worse still, this genocidal lunacy is suffused with endless chapter and verse from the Bible. Yes, Jesus would be proud. When people rhetorically ask: "What would Jesus do?" Matt has an answer: "Kill anyone who refuses to do as we say, preferably by the tens of millions. Watch Fox and listen to the holy words of Sean Hannity."

Matt: "If POTUS says we’re going to go kick Iraq’s ass then that’s what we’re gonna do... get over it already...we don’t need a reason..."

Wow, you really are "to the right of fascism", as you once described yourself! "POTUS says fuck mom in the ass. Come here Ma, and get your panties down, bitch!" You really shouldn't advertise that fact that you don't actually have a mind of your own and take marching orders, no matter how totally demented, from whoever happens to be the Republican prez.

Don't need a reason! Have you had a massive brain haemorrhage? You've lost wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and soon in Syria! Russia, China, even NORTH KOREA, are running rings round your dimwitted president. The world is laughing at your continued comical incompetence, usually the result of GOPhers in office, the reduction of your military into limbless vegetables and braindead pieces of walking meat who masturbate themselves in public and will require trillions of dollars in medical care. Of course, you need a fucking reason, and it better be an amazingly good one, if only to save your own military from a meat grinder.

Matt, if you're so gung-ho, get yourself down to a recruiting office and sign up for the front line, or do you prefer others to do your killing for you, preferably working class people who aren't real 'Muricans anyway and can be disposed of? What a surprise, another chicken-hawk GOPher who cheers from a very safe distance, in between gulps of beer siphoned into his mouth through a novelty drinking helmet that was made in China.