31 May 2006

Savage Grilling: Florian Back in the Crossfire

The follow-up portion Savage Justice's interview of Florian Guererro - who recently interviewed me on his own blog, Florian's Insensitivity Training - follows below.

I appreciate Florian's courage and honesty and will have plenty more to say about his responses in the post-interview section.
JB: Many point to Venezuela's Missions - Mission Mercal, Mission Barrio Adentro I & II, and Mission Robinson among others - and their willingness to share their nation's massive oil wealth with the poor of the world as reason for its support. What are your thoughts on these programs and, specifically, on the Bolivarian Revolution?

It's interesting how a Marxist like Hugo "comandante" Chavez loves to profess his love of the poor and attempts to do so with his various petrol missions. I'm not amused and neither are a lot of Venezuelans living in his supposed utopia. Anybody who steals will lie. Chavez has stolen thousands upon thousands of acres of land from people in his "land reform" who legally owned property in Venezuela--some for many generations. Sure, Venezuela has large oil deposits and has been willing to sell them for a fraction of the cost to people at the bottom of the Totem Pole--but his alterior motives are revealed. By showing the peasant classes that he "cares" for them it has started a shock-wave of Leftist government takeovers in Latin America. Chavez is way superior than Castro is at knowing how the Political game works in Latin America. Bolivia is a prime example. It's the poorest nation in Latin America and they have just elected Evo Morales. They are following Chavez's Venezuelan policies exactly the way any good communist would: Nationalizing the energy market, confiscating foreign businesses and properties, eliminating all foreign investments and creating monopolies nationwide. He claims to want to eliminate poverty, but after many years the vast majority of Venezuelans are still living in poverty. Poverty will never be eliminated in the world, no matter what form of government is in place, and Hugo Chavez cannot convince me if he cannot convince himself or his people.


JB: What are your thoughts on Luis Posada Carriles? Is he a terrorist? What about the School of the America's and Alpha-66?

He's scum--pure and simple. He's also a terrorist no doubt about it. Refer back to my definition of terrorism. While his motives may have been justified in his own mind--he should have targeted Castro instead of so many innocents.


JB: When was the modern-day state of Israel created?

1948 as stated by the UN mandate. The nation of Israel (the Israeli and Hebrew people themselves), on the other hand, has existed since well before 2000 BC--beginning with their founder Abraham.


JB: Since the 2nd Intifada began on 29 September 2000, 3,895 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis have been killed. Among those dead include 121 Israeli children 722 Palestinian children. Over the same period, 7,633 Israelis and 29,865 Palestinians have been injured; more than 4000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed and more than 60 Israeli-only settlements created. Given these numbers, who do you believe to be the aggressor in the conflict over Palestine?

The cycle of violence in Israel is really very simple. Here's what happens all the time: 1) A Palestinian detonates a bomb and kills Israeli's 2) Israel launches a counter-strike or retaliatory measure as they work with some Palestinian forces to maintain order. 3) The Palestinians launch more attacks in retaliation to Israel's "aggression" 4) Israel performs some covert opperations against PLO or Hamas leaders. 5) Truce or stalemate 6) Repeat steps 1-5

While numbers don't lie the wording of your question does. Israel is never the instigator of any military or violent clashes. It's always some hate-filled Palestinian wanting revenge or paradise with 72 virgins who begins the violence. If you look at how the intefada started, it was instegated by a loud rabble who protested Ariel Sharon's visit to the holy tomb. The Palestinians are their own worst enemy, they started this cycle of bloody violence--not the other way around.


JB: What is your take on the recent uproar over the story which reported that the Iranian government passed a law mandating Jews to wear armbands?

It smacks of 1938 Nazi Germany all over again, just in Iran this time. Jews aren't the only ones subject to this law in Iran either. Christians, Zorastrians, and Buddhists are as well. Ahmedinejad obviously has a nack for making waves and he's following his hero (Adolf Hitler) perfectly to a "T". Iran is a theocracy, we all know how much people on your side of the aisle love to roll Christianity and the inquisition together. Theocracies stink. They infringe on everybody's right eventually. I'm for a student overthrow of the current Iranian regime, but unfortunately that will never happen as the mullahs have most of the population brainwashed. It's a shame another political leader has to inject religious prejudice into his country again--the results are always bloody.


JB: What are your thoughts on the the Sadrist movement in Iraq and Hizbullah in Lebanon? How does their posesssion of arms shift the balance of power in the region?

Scary to say the least. The Sadrist movement caught the US military totally off-guard and is a thorn in a side to this day. Hopefully something can be worked out soon--preferably a total annhiliation of the Sadrist leadership by Iraqi and US forces. If not I forsee this being a problem for years to come. Hezbollah in Lebanon is quite surprising. I would have thought that the Lebanese government would have dealt with them by now. Lebanon is a Christian majority nation, but their government lacks the means or will to fight Hezbollah. In any case, this area of the Middle East has been the center of instability and tribal fighting for centuries. Where was the balance of power before? Whoever has the bigger guns I would assume.


JB: My data on the world's prison populations was correct - China has several hundred-thousand less prisoners. That being said, I found your thoughts on the drug war interesting. How do you think such a policy - decriminalization - would influence Uncle Sam's foreign policy abroad: in particular, the $3,000,000,000 in aid we give each year to Colombia. How would it affect the racial makeup of prisions?

First off, I will concede your point that the US has more of a prison population than China--at least according to what China distributes in their UN reports. The money we give in aid to Colombia and any other nation on the so-called drug war is money down the toilet. It hasn't worked, it isn't working and it will never work---not as long as you have idiots addicted to drugs. You want to fight the drug war and win, it's quite simple. Eliminate the demand. You eliminate the tens of thousands (or higher) of addicts that consume this garbage and you eliminate the supply of drugs being funneled in, along with the other sleazy behavior brought about by the drug trade. This money would be put to way better use here at home with our own people. There is a huge need for schools, roads, families, even social programs here--spending this money here at home would better serve our nation than wasting it on corrupt politicians overseas who fight a half-ass war on drugs. On your last point, I'm not sure if it would affect the racial makeup of prisons--but it would be much better spent prosecuting and encarcerating the violent criminals than the non-violent drug traffickers.


JB: Since you don't attribute it to systemic White supremacy, how do you explain the vast discrepancies in income, unemployment, incarceration, health care coverage, infant mortality, lifespan, debt, and home ownership between Black and white people?

If it were due to White supremacy, than why do Asians have better statistics than whites on all of the above mentioned? Plainly, Blacks (for the most part--and yes I'm generalizing) have come to live in and expect this "nanny-state" form of government that helps them along the way from womb to tomb. Nothing is guaranateed in life to anybody--yet a lot believe they are entitled to high salaries, health insurance, home-ownership etc. Good things do not come to those who wait and do nothing. Good things come to those who apply themselves and work hard for it. The achievers so to say. If you compare and contrast Black families and White familes for the most part, Whites have a higher percentage of two-parent households. Blacks have a higher percentage of illegitimacy and abortion. Whites tend to work harder in school, blacks look at studying as "acting white". So the patterns begin to emerge and instead of doing what must be done to achieve their goals, a lot of blacks (with no male role-models) begin to define for themselves what is important and what isn't (the latest 50 cent album as opposed to a book). All of these would take too long to tackle one by one by a lot of it has to come down to attitude. A Black with a racial chip on their shoulder will be far less likely to succeed in life than a Black without one. A White who studies hard and applies themselves in school and at work will succeed far better than a White who doesn't.


JB: How do you explain that several of the supposed 911 hijackers were alive and well after the attack? Why did General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of the Pakistani ISI, who met with Bob Graham and Porter Goss on the morning of 911, give Muhammed Atta $100,000 before the attack?

Oh really? Where were the 9/11 hijackers after the attacks if they were alive? What would Atta do with $100,000 if he was going to die that same day? Do you realise how insane your questions sounds?


JB: What are your thoughts on how the 2006 & 2008 election cycles will play out? Would you consider voting for another party or candidate for President? If so, under what conditions?

Dems will take the house in 2006. Republicans will perhaps keep the Senate, but they should lose that too. The only reason for any conservative to vote Republican is that the alternative would be much worse. Right now there aren't any true conservatives in the Senate--or White House for that matter, and I wouldn't fault any conservative who just plain out abstained from voting in 2006. 2008 is far off, but I would bet that Republicans lose everything else they've lost since they've morally betrayed all conservative voters with government spending and illegal immigration. I would definitely vote for another party or candidate for President. Libertarian or even Green Party if the Republicans get any more out of control than they already are.
|

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home