“The so-called 'Left-Hand Path' - that of Kaulas, Siddhas and Viras - combines the... Tantric worldview with a doctrine of the Übermensch which would put Nietzsche to shame... The Vira - which is to say: the 'heroic' man of Tantrism - seeks to sever all bonds, to overcome all duality between good and evil, honor and shame, virtue and guilt. Tantrism is the supreme path of the absolute absence of law - of shvecchacarī, a word meaning 'he whose law is his own will'." ― Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar.

“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measures…. Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga.

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who died at his post during the eruption of Vesuvius because someone forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one that can not be taken from a man.” ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Wonderful Tactics of the Beloved Ox

Now my favorite music video!

Sunday, February 8, 2009


Ironically the Birkenstock anti-war demographic lined up behind their messiah, mostly to demonstrate to themselves how un-racist they are, while the anointed savior of all that is lame proposed his intention to implement the almost perfectly ass-backward strategy of pulling out of Iraq while escalating the presence of combat ground-troops in Afghanistan.

The argument is basically that resources should be directed against “Al Qaeda” as they are generally considered to be the main culprits in 9/11. The Taliban are targeted for protecting an enabling AQ in Afghanistan and N. Pakistan.

Most analysts worth their salt concede that “Al Qaeda” (sometimes referred to as “Al Qaeda Prime” to distinguish the original cadre from other groups claiming the name and others to whom the name is erroneously applied), has had its spine broken – its key members killed or captured, the survivors reduced to rag-tag holdouts issuing blustery cassette recorded messages from caves. While the Taliban in contrast continues to grow in power and influence in the countryside, controlling most areas outside the narrow and few urban bastions controlled by US-supported forces. Karzai is little more than Mayor of Kabul.

As Stratfor has pointed out in a recent bulletin, the burden of proof falls on those who think that “Al Qaeda” still remains operational. If so, targeting them is not going to be accomplished by a surge of conventional ground troops but by competent development of human intelligence sources and targeted killing. In short; by special operations, not conventional warfare – Identify the enemy, locate them, and kill them. Use the right tools for the job.

The Taliban on the other hand has demonstrated no inclination to make any concession to US demands, indeed they have no reason to. We lack the resources and the ability to suppress them in Afghanistan as a whole, much less Northern Pakistan.

As I have said before; Afghanistan has every potential to be another Vietnam scenario for the USA. Obama is being touted by his cult followers as the next FDR, where in reality he is more likely to be the next LBJ in the worst sense, possibly with some emasculated Carter-like foreign policy incompetence added in.

In spite of all the whining, Iraq never had the potential to be a Vietnam-like scenario. Afghanistan has EVERY potential to be another Vietnam-scenario. The parallels are many. The USA used Afghanistan to create a Vietnam-scenario for the USSR. There is a line at the door comprised of powers ready willing and able to make Afghanistan another Vietnam-scenario for the USA. The Vietnamese drove out the Mongols (three times), the Chinese, the French and the Americans. The Afghanis drove out Alexander the Great, the British, the Russians, and now the USA is going to shove its own face into the frying pan. Escalation of conventional ground troops in Afghanistan will be a bloodbath the likes of which will make the anti-war crowd pine for the saner days of GWB and Iraq.

"Al Qaeda" emerged from the Jihadists who congregated in Afghanistan from all over the Middle East and Central Asia to drive out the USSR. Full-scale escalation of US combat troops in Afghanistan will attract a similar flock of Jihadists from all over. Anti-US sentiment is arguably higher now than anti-USSR sentiment was at the time of the Russian occupation.

US support of Jihad vs. USSR was covert at the time, funds and weapons mostly filtered through Pakistani ISI. Compile a list of larger states that would be glad to filter similar support through proxy channels to undermine the USA at this point. Ironically one of our best potential allies against remnants of the Taliban would have been Iran.

Vietnam was largely "lost" through the media, which broadcast daily casualty statistics and pessimism. Look at how the media handled every casualty in Iraq and Afghanistan the first time around. I remember David H. Hackworth commenting how the media was wallowing in every single casualty report, when there were operations he was on in Vietnam and Korea that suffered casualties MANY times greater and were never mentioned in the press. The kill ratio of US vs. NVA/VC was something like 1/10, the US killing 10 communists for every 1 American killed. Analysts concede for the most part that Tet 1968, considered a major turning point in the war, was not a military victory for the VC/NVA, only a propaganda victory in impressing the home front (USA and V) that they were capable of orchestrating massive coordinated assaults. The USA doesn't possess the psychological fortitude for intensive prolonged warfare of the type that would emerge if combat troops are escalated in Afghanistan.

Aside from that, is there a clear conception of "victory" in Afghanistan? How concretely has the administration defined its objectives? It is a potential scenario of them not really knowing what they are doing and not doing it well. The media and anti-war crowd carped and whined about these questions regarding Iraq, which had only a fraction of the disaster-potential that Afghanistan possesses. Where are they now? Most people I've heard think Afghanistan is a "good idea" because in their minds that is where AQ is, only they have absolutely no concept of the military history of Afghanistan.

Consider how Iraq was mismanaged from the top down. Iraq is a birthday party compared to Afghanistan. As with Vietnam, the incompetence of the leaders isn't worthy to lick the boots of the average person on the ground fighting the war. It will be lost by sleazebags in ties sitting in offices making asinine judgment calls with divided minds and inconsistent motives.

Under Russian influence, Kyrgyzstan is already shutting down US bases and supply-lines needed for any US effort in Afghanistan. For Obama, this translates “Go get your fucking shine-box.”

I remember thinking (and saying) if Kerry won the 2004 election that the Democrats would reinstate the draft because they could get away with it, where the Republicans doing the same would instigate patchouli-soaked riots in the street, so it will be interesting to see if things reach that point under the new warm-fuzzy Democrat administration.


What makes someone a Holocaust denier?

My comments are posted after the article below:


What makes someone a Holocaust denier?

By Christopher Beam

Posted Friday, Feb. 6, 2009

Ultraconservative Catholic bishop Richard Williamson apologized to the pope this week for his "imprudent remarks" concerning the Holocaust but did not recant. The bishop accepts that some Jews died in concentration camps but claims that fewer than 300,000 were killed, rather than 6 million, and he denies that the Nazis used gas chambers. To be a Holocaust denier, do you have to deny the whole thing?

No. There's no single definition of Holocaust denial or "revisionism," but scholars generally agree that it means claiming that the Nazis had no official policy to exterminate Jews, that the gas chambers are a myth, or that the figure of 6 million murdered Jews is a gross exaggeration. At the extreme, denial can mean hiding or suppressing evidence of the Holocaust by destroying gas chambers, as the Nazis did at the end of World War II, or by burning documents. But denial can also take the form of relativization—saying that, yes, the Nazis killed Jews, but the killings of Gypsies, Poles, and Jehovah's Witnesses were just as bad.

That said, there are plenty of aspects of the Holocaust that are still hotly debated by historians without charges of denial being tossed around. One is the exact number of Jews killed. Most historians agree it was somewhere between 5 million and 7 million. (Solid documentary evidence exists for about 5.3 million deaths.) But the numbers vary because of the circumstances under which some of the killings occurred. For example, no one knows precisely how many Jews were evacuated when the Soviet army retreated from the western regions of the USSR under German attack, or whether they were killed. Legitimate debate also continues over how widespread Jewish resistance was against the Nazis.

The closest thing to a codified definition of Holocaust denial is found in European law. Thirteen countries have laws banning Holocaust denial, including Austria, Germany, France, Israel, and Switzerland. (Other countries, like Canada, prohibit hate speech against any "identifiable group," including Jews, but don't refer specifically to the Holocaust.) Most of the laws are broad, like the Czech Republic's law punishing the "person who publicly denies, puts in doubt, approves or tries to justify Nazi or Communist genocide or other crimes of Nazis or Communists." In Israel, any published statement of "praise or sympathy for or identification with" the Nazis is a crime. Germany requires that the statement be part of a "public incitement." Those found guilty of Holocaust denial might get jail time—from six months to five years—or a hefty fine.

Anti-denial laws have resulted in some high-profile trials. In 2006, British historian David Irving was sentenced by an Austrian court to three years in prison for denying the existence of gas chambers in a 1989 speech. (He pleaded guilty and told the court he had changed his views.) In 2007, denier Ernst Zundel was convicted on 14 counts in Germany and sentenced to five years in jail. German neo-Nazi Horst Mahler was sentenced to prison in 2006 for denying the Holocaust. He gave a Sieg Heil upon arriving at the prison, for which he was put on a trial again in 2007.

He also gave an interview to Vanity Fair in which he said "the systematic extermination of Jews in Auschwitz is a lie." The German interviewer brought charges.

Christopher Beam is a Slate political reporter.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2210632/



Google the distinction between "intentionalist" and "instrumentalist" debates among "kosher" holocaust historians.

Basically the "intentionalists" say Hitler and the Nazis planned to physically exterminate Jews from the get-go.

Basically the "instrumentalists" concede that there was not a specific policy of extermination, that the intention was originally deportation, then segregation when deportation was not completely possible, then they descend into quibbling where and when (or if) internment camps became "death camps" and/or if the largescale death of Jews in camps was a side-effect or systematic extermination. They also quibble greatly about numbers and estimated casualties.

Even Michael Shermer and others concede that the "intentionalist" school of thought is no longer adhered to by most so-called "legitimate" holocaust historians.

Basically revisionists belong to the "instramentalist" school of thought and are basically questioning the same "facts" and figures that "kosher" holocaust historians are questioning. The crucial difference is the PERCIEVED motive. If you are PERCIEVED to be an "anti-semite" in your orientation or motives for inquiry, you will be rubber-stamped "Denier" and thrown into the bin marked "crimethink" even though you are basically asking the same questions as kosher historians. No revisionist that I am aware of self-applies the term "Denier."

The "denier" epithet is an over-simplified PR device to make it more efficient to categorize and dismiss people asking uncomfortable questions and who are not sufficiently Judeophile to gain the approval of the "intelletual establishment" or the academc-media complex, largely dominated by Jews and Marxists of various species.

Also note how unevenly the "human rights" pathos is applied to Nazis and "Fascists" in contrast to Marxist and Communist regimes whose wholesale slaughter is acknowledged even by the "kosher" intelligentsia.

It is also worth noting that Deborah Lipstadt in her book DENYING THE HOLOCAUST explicitly avoids discussing this distinction in her rush to accuse and condemn everyone on her blacklist of anti-semitism.

She explicitly states "without going into the 'intentionlist' vs. 'instrumentalist' debate..." repeatedly if I remember correctly, which is lazy and/or sleazy because it bears crucially on what would be any "honest" discussion of "revisionism" ... but of course most of us here realize she has no interest in honest discussion or debate, only in suppressing honest discussion and debate that calls certain agendas into question.




Shakhmatnaya goryachka: Also known as "Chess Fever". "With an international chess tournament in progress, a young man becomes completely obsessed with the game. His fiancée has no interest in it, and becomes frustrated and depressed by his neglect of her, but wherever she goes she finds that she cannot escape chess. On the brink of giving up, she meets the world champion, Capablanca himself, with interesting results." Directed by Vsevolod Pudovkin and Nikolai Shpikovsky, written by Nikolai Shpikovsky, 1925.