x

x

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

AOUN between 2002 and 2016: A MASTER OF PERFIDY

[I found this piece from my archives from 2002 when Aoun was still in exile in Paris. In the interview with Assafir below, Aoun spells out clearly his positions on Hezbollah, the Shebaa Farms, Israel, Syria and other subjects. Compare these positions to Aoun's, and his poodle Gebran Bassil's positions today, and draw your own conclusions as to the lack of integrity of the man. Who in their right mind would want a prostitute politician like this to be president of this miserable country? [Note: Highlights are my own].
___________________________________________________________________________________


Translation of excerpts from a televised interview with MTV, by: Assafir Daily (Lebanon)  10/04/02

Aoun: The Shebaa Farms are not Lebanese and the Resistance (Hizballah) Prolonged the Occupation
  
General Michel Aoun appeared live yesterday from Paris and presented his views and positions regarding the developments in the region.

Aoun described the martyrdom missions executed by the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation as "suicide missions" and not "missions of martyrdom". He added that such operations "reveal an uncivilized conduct," and that the use of booby-trapped vehicles against Israel is an act of terrorism.

Aoun, in a televised interview with MTV, fiercely attacked Hizballah and Syria and accused them of nurturing the rejectionist discourse of the Palestinians. He also accused them of wanting to annihilate the Israelis, and of prodding the Palestinians to destroy a whole population.

Aoun criticized the military operations undertaken by the resistance (Hizballah) in the Shebaa Farms stating that "the Farms issue is a lie: the Shebaa Farms are not Lebanese; let Syria give us an official document that these Farms are Lebanese then we will work at liberating them."

Aoun described Hizballah's and Syria's position regarding the developments in occupied Palestine as "an extremist position stemming from either political recklessness or collusion with Israel." Aoun criticized "the rejectionist discourse that rejects even the human Israeli existence; such as the Hizballah discourse that considers the killing of anyone in the Israeli society as «fair game', and the discourse of President Bashar Assad that is identical to Hizballah's and proclaims that «there are no civilians in the Israeli society'. Aoun added: "We reject this kind of discourse. We reject such policy of extermination. Such things are contradictory to any human or civilized conduct. They are calling for the destruction of a whole people through terrorist means, and this is unacceptable. The use of such means released the destructive military power of Israel and legitimized it."

He also stated that the military victory of Israel "will not eliminate the Palestinian State nor the rights of the Palestinian people. However, those goals cannot be reached by the extermination of Israelis and wiping out Israel, as Hizballah and Bashar Assad want."

And regarding the resistance (Hizballah) that liberated the South from Israeli occupation, Aoun said: "The resistance prolonged the occupation. There was an Israeli proposal of withdrawal in 1994. Why did Lebanon withdraw from the negotiation process? Lebanon attached itself to the Syrian tractor and dissolved its own political and diplomatic identity, the resistance prolonged the occupation and damaged Lebanon economically". He called for the "disarming of Hizballah that keeps threatening us with civil war."

Aoun attacked Syria fiercely and said: "Is it allowable for Syria to kill in the name of brotherhood? Is it allowable for Syria to occupy Baabda (Presidential Palace) in the name of brotherhood? Why did it greet me with hostility from my first day as head of the interim government?"

 Aoun described the Lebanese constitutional institutions as "farms" and said: "The Baabda farm (Presidential Palace) needs to be liberated, so does the Kraitem (Cabinet) and the Nejmeh Square (Parliament) farms. There is no free decision in any of these places."[Today, Aoun and Bassil have created their own farm in Rabieh].

On the future of the region Aoun said: Peace in the Middle East is a civilizational condition that must evolve against the politics of violence. It rests on the acceptance of the "other", the right to be different, and the democratization of the political systems.

It is impossible to build a new Middle East with a war mentality. Competition through development and pluralism, which arises from the acceptance of those who are different, the plurality of races, genders, and origins, and the freedom of creed, is consistent with the stipulations of the Charter of Human Rights.

I do not trust states that engage themselves in the path of peace and try to develop their systems, but that do not recognize the right of freedom of creed, which by the way is not limited to religion, but also includes political and all other forms of freedoms. There are underdeveloped autocratic and theocratic states that are anachronisms and are incompatible with the times in which we live. The Bin Laden school is such a belief system and it cannot survive. The slogan of war on Christians and Jews is an aberration that cannot survive, neither in the East nor in the West. Lebanon is the only oasis for the reconciliation of cultures because of its Moslems and Christians who have lived the experience and found it to be viable.

Aoun said his return to Lebanon is tied to "changes on the ground" he expects to happen soon and which are linked to regional developments. 

[Background]
PRIME MINISTER OF LEBANON (1988-1990)
Aoun finished his secondary education in 1955 and enrolled in the Military Academy as a cadet officer.  Three years later, he graduated as an artillery officer in the Lebanese Army. In June 1984, nine years into Lebanon's civil war, General Aoun was named commander of the Lebanese Army. In the fall of 1988, Syria and others created a political crisis by preventing the Lebanese Parliament from convening to elect a new president (Lebanese presidents are not popularly elected).  Damascus staunchly opposed the election of any candidate unwilling to sign a treaty recognizing Syrian hegemony in Lebanon.  In order to break this impasse, just 15 minutes before the expiration of his term, outgoing president Amin Gemayel appointed Aoun as interim prime minister until Parliament could elect a new president.  Although Aoun's government was constitutional, Syria backed the formation of a rival regime, supported by Syria's client militias.  While Aoun's government was officially recognized by several countries, most countries declined to formally recognize either regime. In an effort to assert the authority of his government, Aoun sent his army to close illegal ports run by both Christian and pro-Syrian Muslim militias.  After fighting that destroyed much of Beirut, General Aoun agreed to an Arab League-brokered cease-fire in September 1989.  After the cease-fire, a Saudi-sponsored meeting of Lebanese parliamentarians was held in Ta'if, Saudi Arabia, ostensibly to approve an agreement providing for the unification of Lebanon and the withdrawal of Syrian forces from the country. Aoun rejected the agreement, mainly because it failed to provide for a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon by a date certain.  However, the agreement also stipulated constitutional changes that Aoun believed should be subject to a popular referendum, a procedure that Syria opposed.  Foreseeing that the Lebanese parliamentarians would bow to Syria's will, Aoun dissolved Parliament, but it met anyway in Syrian-controlled territory in November 1989 to elect a new president and remove Aoun from office.  Aoun remained in office, however, and fought Syrian-led efforts to remove him.  In October of 1990, and with a green light from the United States and Israel, Aoun succumbed to Syria's superior military force and took refuge in the French Embassy.  He was allowed to leave Lebanon for exile in France in August of 1991 and has been there ever since. He returned to Lebanon in May 2005 following the Hariri assassination and the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. He founded the "Free Patriotic Movement", today headed by his son-in-law, Gebran Bassil. 
 

Monday, August 8, 2016

Sectarian Proportionality: Oxymoronic Reform



Many well-intentioned people are calling for modifying Lebanon’s electoral system to one based on the principles of “proportionality” (an-Nisbiyah النسبية) and “one-man, one-vote”. 

Proportional representation is an electoral system in which candidates or parties gain seats in parliament in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. Under the one-man, one-vote principle voting districts for a legislature need to have about the same population size. The idea behind the rule is that one person's voting power ought to be roughly equivalent to another person's voting power within the state, AND one’s person’s vote to be reflected in a fair and equal representation of each individual voter in parliament.

The devil being in the details, however, below are some of the built-in contradictions between the proportionality and the one-man, one-vote principles on one hand, and the sectarian foundation of the Lebanese entity on the other. A lack of awareness of those contradictions denotes either ignorance or ulterior motives on the part of those calling for proportional and one-man, one-vote representation. If it is ignorance, these people need to inform themselves better. If it is some other motive, then they need to be more honest, speak up clearly and declare their otherwise commendable goal of sacking the sectarian basis of government in Lebanon.

1- Proportionality is extremely difficult to implement in a sectarian system. For it to work, any district that is not drawn along sectarian lines would immediately violate Lebanon’s sectarian basis of government. Any district that is heterogeneous would require two seats for the principle to be applicable. For the sake of example, if a district is majority Christian and has only one seat in parliament, you would be forcing the Muslims in that district to be voting for a non-Muslim representative, which violates the sectarian setup of the country. If you then must assign a second seat to satisfy the Muslim minority in that district, you would in essence be splitting the district in two, one Christian and one Muslim, each of which would obtain a separate representative. You might as well redraw the boundaries and create two districts. In other words, for Lebanon, you would need to draw the boundaries of the districts according to two implausible criteria: They each need to have a homogeneous sectarian population (all Maronite, all Druze, etc.), AND they need to be all of equal population size.

2- The Lebanese constitution gives مناصفة (fifty-fifty) to the Christians (i.e. half the seats in parliament) even if, by any account, Christians no longer make up 50% of the population.  So, in order for proportionality and the one-man, one-vote principles to apply in Lebanon, you would have to artificially create more Christian districts to meet the fifty-fifty rule, and those districts would in reality represent less than 50% of the people. In other words, you would have to invent virtual Lebanese citizens who would be Christian by faith, to whom you would ascribe parliamentary representation.

3- Lebanon’s parliamentary representation and so-called democracy are a fallacy. Rather than being a “demo”cracy in which the object of government is the individual, Lebanon’s form of government is a plutocracy-oligarchy-theocracy hybrid.  Since the core of the Lebanese system of government is the religious-tribal identity, rather than a national identity, then the one-man, one-vote and proportionality principles cannot be implemented. As a Lebanese individual thinks of himself or herself first as a Sunni or a Maronite or a Druze, and second as a follower of a local, village, tribal or religious boss, and only then beneath these other layers of identity, as a Lebanese, then the one-man, one-vote and proportionality principles are just an absurdity.

In other words, those calling for the proportionality principle should start by eliminating the sectarian basis of the constitution and the country, and that requires a major upheaval because the Lebanese, in their primeval underdeveloped state of societal and political development, remain attached to their religions and religious bosses like stink on a monkey. 

But are there alternatives that may provide for a modus vivendi between archaism (religious-tribal identity) and modernity (individual identity)? Below is a modest proposal that has been on the market for a while, but which has found no currency because the establishment (religious and tribal) sees it as a threat that would undermine its monopoly over power.

In the Lebanese system, the object of government is NOT the individual; rather, it is the religious community. Lebanon, as a political entity, is NOT constituted of individual persons; it is constituted of religious communities that willy-nilly were forced into a vague federation around 1923.  Individual rights do not really exist in Lebanon; they are subsumed under the rights of the religious community to which any one individual is forced to belong from birth. Within each religious community, individual rights are merely assumed or vaguely referenced, but are rarely, if ever, enforced. Parliament in Lebanon is more like the Upper Chamber or Senate of genuine democracies in which considerations of history, legacy, and social makeup recognize alternate elements alongside the individual citizen as constituents of the state and as sources of legitimacy and authority. In Lebanon, parliament is not a House of Commons or House of Representatives representing individual voters free of their religious affiliations; it is a Senate representing only the religious communities.

The solution therefore, perhaps, lies in a bicameral system – a people’s assembly (House) AND a religious communities’ assembly (Senate). In the former, one may apply the one-man, one-vote and proportionality principles regardless of sectarian identities, while in the latter only the religious consideration is the criterion for representation. For example, in the English system, the House of Lords gives consideration to the monarchy and the nobility, while the House of Commons represents individual citizens. In the American version, the Senate considers the States as a parallel constituent alongside the individual citizen who is represented in the House of Representatives. By population, the largest state (California) and the smallest state (Alaska) each gets two senators in the senate. In Lebanon, a Senate would represent the religious communities, say 2 or 3 representatives per community regardless of its size, while the House would represent individual voters without any consideration of religious identities. Obviously, the sectarian virus is so ingrained in the Lebanese ethos that even with a bicameral parliament you’d still have to face the sectarian monster. How do you draw the districts without regard for religious identity? How can “secular” candidates run for elections if the voters insist on associating them with a religious or sectarian identity? Those perhaps would be smaller devils to deal with piecemeal. For now, the country needs a miraculous leap out of the swamps of backwardness and into the light of modernity.


Tuesday, June 28, 2016

WARNING: Remember 1975? It is back

From the perspective of Lebanon's Christians, the situation today on the ground resembles the years circa 1975 and the eruption of violence and the war that ensued between the Christians and the Muslim-backed Palestinian refugees and militias. As is the case today, government was paralyzed, then by the boycott of Muslim (Sunni) political and sectarian blocs, and today by the boycott of Muslim (Shiite) sectarian blocs, and the only standing institution was the Lebanese Army. But it would soon collapse too and splinter into sectarian militias.

Remember that Al-Qaa, the village that saw the multiple suicide bombings over the last 48 hours, is a Christian village that suffered a massacre in 1978. Many other Christian villages suffered similar massacres by never-identified attackers suspected to be Palestinian or Syrian operatives. Yasser Arafat's PLO and assorted Palestinian terror groups had been chased out of Amman, Jordan by King Hussein, and had established their headquarters in Beirut and Lebanon. They thrived in a country where government was weakened by a Muslim community who refused to join its Christian counterpart in condemning Palestinian exactions, violence, and terrorism. In fact, the Muslims of Lebanon - all of them, Sunnis, Shiites and Druze - supported the Palestinians against the Lebanese Army, and pledged allegiance to Hafez Assad of Syria. The Muslims wanted Arab unity at the cost of Lebanese sovereignty; they believed in liberating Palestine at the cost of the integrity of Lebanon; and most of all, they wanted more power in a the power-sharing formula that had worked so well since the 1940s. It is in the DNA of Muslims not to compromise; living in a country whose president was a Christian with constitutional powers was - and still is - anathema to Lebanon's Muslims. Ever since the 1920s, they resented being part of Lebanon, and would have much preferred to remain part of Syria (See the earlier post).

Yesterday's massacre of Christians and the attack against a church in Al-Qaa is a major reset in the current stalemate. Just as in the early 1970s, if the Lebanese Army and the government are incapable of providing security against lawless militias and terror groups, then the Christian population is likely to begin building its own militias to defend itself. They did it in the 1970s against the PLO and Syria, they will do it against ISIS and Syria again.

To the liberal press of the world: Do not blame the Christians if they undertake to defend themselves. Back in the 1970s, you accused them of being "right-wing fascists who were bent on killing Palestinian refugees". What would you accuse them of today when they try to defend themselves in their country that is - again - run over by 1.5 million Syrian refugees harboring ISIS operatives?

For 5 years now, the Lebanese have welcomed the Syrian refugees with open arms. There are no hate incidents against them to speak of. The Syrian refugees work and live among the Lebanese. But if refugee centers and camps become foci for launching terror attacks against specific communities, and the refugee population and those who oversee them are unable to identify the bad apples, then what gives?

This is an alert. An early call to action. Lebanon's Christians are not like the other Christians of the Middle East. They will not keel over, run away, turn the other cheek, or huddle in refugee camps. They will fight back.

THE SYRIAN REFUGEES MUST BEGIN RETURNING TO SYRIA IMMEDIATELY. THERE ARE LARGE AREAS IN SYRIA WITHOUT CONFLICT. LET THE REFUGEES SETTLE THERE, IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, UNTIL THEY CAN RETURN TO THEIR HOMES.

H.A.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Al-Qaa: Hezbollah fails to defend Lebanon

The Iranian terrorist party in Lebanon, Hezbollah, continues to claim that its fighting in Syria alongside the barbaric Syrian regime is to protect Lebanon against ISIS and other Sunni terrorists. It says that the reason it went into Syria proper - instead of protecting the Lebanese borders - is that it wants to defeat the Sunni terrorists "before" they enter Lebanon. Hezbollah also claims that the Lebanese Army is incapable of protecting Lebanon, thus justifying its existence as an unlawful paramilitary terror organization which, thanks to a weak and corrupt Lebanese oligarchy, is part of the Lebanese government.

If Hezbollah's arguments were to stand, then one would expect that the Lebanese Army would do the same thing: Intervene in Syria as a preemptive move against the infiltration of ISIS operatives into Lebanon. But the Lebanese Army respects itself and respects the sovereignty of Syria, and does not wish to take any offensive action inside Syria proper. It acts as best as it can, within its limited means, to protect the borders.

The Sunni terrorist bombings of early this morning in the Christian Lebanese town of Al-Qaa on the Syrian border are proof that Hezbollah is NOT protecting Lebanon. In fact, it is providing a justification for ISIS and assorted Sunni terror groups to enter Lebanon to fight Hezbollah. By fighting in Syria, Hezbollah has pushed many more Syrian refugees to enter Lebanon (and with them thousands of ISIS operatives) than would have been the case had Hezbollah in fact refrained from entering Syria.

The truth of the matter is that Hezbollah's fighting in Syria is NOT to protect Lebanon. That is one big Iranian lie. Hezbollah is in Syria to defend the Syrian regime of Bashar Al-Assad which has been the lifeline bridge for Hezbollah between Iran and Lebanon. Money, weapons, mercenaries, terrorists.... all transit from Tehran to Damascus, then infiltrate Lebanon. None of Hezbollah's actions is lawful. Hezbollah's very existence is the definition of lawlessness, and in breaching every norm of sovereignty, Hezbollah has nurtured a culture of lawlessness, violence, and destruction, while undermining the State and its institutions.

All the above has been said over and over for decades. Since the 1960s, the Lebanese Christians have warned their fellow Muslims against plunging Lebanon into other peoples' wars. They said NO to Lebanon's enmeshing itself in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Druze, with the backing of Hafez Al-Assad's Syrian regime in Damascus and his army of occupation, thought better and sold the Lebanese South to Yasser Arafat and his PLO to "liberate Palestine". Never mind that those same Muslim sects refrained from "liberating the Golan Heights and Palestine" from Syrian territory. Only Lebanon was fair cannon fodder in their delusional Arab causes.

After scoring some pathetic gains against the Christians in the Taif Agreement, the Lebanese Sunnis, now in power, adopted the Christians' platform of staying out of other conflicts. They forgot all about Palestine and liberation. They now believed in a "Lebanon first". Only the Shiites continued in their endless Quixotic "resistance" pursuits at the behest of Iran, first against Israel and now against Saudi Arabia

After bringing Lebanon in 1920 out from under 400 years of Turkish occupation, Lebanon's Christians, dragging their fellow Lebanese Muslims along, transformed Lebanon into a jewel of a country between the 1930s and 1960s. But the Muslims continued to challenge a leading role for the Christians. They undermined every effort by the Christians to keep the country safe and prosperous. From the 1970s to the present, the Muslims have dominated, and what do we get? War and mayhem with foreign (Palestinian and Syrian) occupiers from 1975 to 1990, then garbage corrupt governance from 1990 to the present day, all of which have set Lebanon backward into a failed third world lemon republic that can barely stand on its feet.

The ISIS bombings in Al-Qaa remind us of the enormous sacrifice that the Christians of this country make by continuing to believe in some reasonable way to share power with the Muslims. The failure of the Muslims to stabilize the country, protect it, and keep it out of conflicts that can only hurt it makes for a reflection as to the future of the country. Many Christians have some time now contemplating some sort of separation, perhaps a federated Lebanon in which Christians and Muslims, while sharing the country, govern themselves separately. It has become untenable after 50 years of plunder and mayhem.

One hundred years ago, Lebanon and the region were in the midst of World War I. The Maronite Church bears the responsibility for its greed in seeking to expand the borders of the then-autonomous Christian Mount Lebanon Province and create the Greater Lebanon monstrosity that is failing today. In annexing Syrian Muslim provinces, the Maronite Church and its French sponsors planted the seeds for the heartbreak that Lebanon is today. Just like the Zionists did in Palestine in collusion with their British sponsors, Lebanon's Christians thought they could forever control Muslim minorities and keep them subjugated. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism has thwarted these naive prospects, and both Lebanon and Israel today face the disastrous consequences of political greed. 

H.A.




Monday, May 9, 2016

Municipal Elections 1: The Lebanese People Deserve their Garbage

If yesterday's elections results are a sign of anything, it is that the Lebanese people are really either jerks or idiots.

In the backwoods of the Shiite heartland, 50% of eligible voters voted for Hezbollah and Amal against a minority of "opposition" Shiites.

In the Christian Zahle district, a traditionalist "political party-based" coalition defeated two traditionalist "family-based" coalitions (the Skaff and Fattoush families, both equally backward and corrupt).

And in the supposedly more enlightened Beirut district, people who should have voted for reform-minded technocrats did not even bother to haul their asses and go vote, and the same 18% of eligible voters who voted for the Hariri neanderthals in 2010 voted yesterday for the same neanderthals.

In other words, neither the Syrian crisis, nor the endemic corruption of the ruling class and the scandals that plague this country because of that political class, including the the garbage crisis of this past summer and fall, nor the endless string of sit-ins and demonstrations have stirred any life in the brain-dead Lebanese people. We are like a dead corpse on which the political ruling class feeds like so many leeches, worms, and other bloodsuckers. We have known this indifference to be a feature of the Lebanese people, but no one suspected it would so enduring. It is one thing to be indifferent in a country where things work normally (as happens often in the West, for example, where voter apathy seems irrelevant to a well-functioning system), but it is a different thing when you are surrounded by garbage of all kind, when your life is rotten because of how your own politicians treat you, when the infrastructure is primitive (roads, streets, garbage, water, internet, electricity, pollution....), where you are forced to become a corrupt individual because of all the corruption that surrounds you... You'd think that the bastard Lebanese would be stirred to action to try and improve their lives, but they did not show any sign of that yesterday.

I have no hope that the upcoming municipal elections in the remaining districts will make a difference, because they are mostly all in more rural environments where familial and sectarian barbarism and traditionalist politics rule supreme.

To all my fellow Lebanese who did not vote for change yesterday and who contemplate emigrating, start preparing your documents. This country has no use for your sophisticated nagging. Just be gone and abandon this country to the real barbarians who love it "as it is" and who voted yesterday for their local bosses. You will still need the useless "إفادة مختار" by the new moukhtar, the even more barbaric "إخراج قيد", and $400 to get a passport. You will still have to be humiliated a final few times at all the funky Lebanese administrations and the doors of foreign embassies before you escape this Gulag of barbarism, corruption, pollution, garbage, and, lest we forget, this " بلد الحضارة والعيش المشترك ".

H. Atheos


Sunday, May 8, 2016

Donald Dumb: Americans Now Proud to be Dumb

Donald Dumb seems to have given white anglo-saxon protestant America a jolt of adrenaline, which he calls "Make America Great Again". Allow me to deconstruct that for you.

For decades, if not for the couple of centuries of the age of the United Scams of America, Inc., white protestant anglos sat at the top rung of the pecking order ladder. Everybody else was fair game for discrimination, racism, filthy arrogance.... Keep in mind that white Americans are largely the descendants of illiterate, ignorant, poor Protestant peasants from the boonies of Western and Northern Europe, followed by hordes of equally ignorant and backward peasants from Catholic and Orthodox Southern and Eastern Europe.

As they encountered a peaceful indigenous native American population, the white anglos proceeded to decimate them in one of the grandest episodes of ethnic cleansing and genocide that the world has ever seen. The militarily inferior Indians did not stand a chance and were soon wiped out, leaving a new country with unlimited resources to a bunch of peasant idiots without any competition. Counter to the myths and lies that Americans propagate about how tough it was to making it in America (Settlers, pioneers, Wild West frontier, etc.) or how they and the Indians got along eating turkey and corn (Thanksgiving), settling in America was very easy, a lot easier than in the Old World. All you have to do was to be dumb enough to know where the port was in your town, get on a boat and cross the Atlantic to a land emptied of its native peoples and without any competition whatsoever.

As the 20th century came along, newer immigrants began arriving, technology was changing, human rights were advancing, and the US - thanks to the backward and arrogant genetic pool - was always the last one to join these advances because peasant Americans "knew better" than following the opinions of more enlightened people. No to the metric system. No to emissions controls. No to the UN. Any move by humankind to evolve out of its neanderthal past, Americans opposed.

Then one day, all these white anglo-saxon neanderthals, who had gotten used to easy jobs and entitlements simply because they were white and dominated the landscape, began losing their safe jobs to smarter, more educated immigrants who developed the new technologies and mastered them better than the backwoods white idiot from the boonies of America. As they began falling behind and refusing to evolve, these white neanderthals began blaming everyone else for having to actually compete and earn a serious living by using their brains. Knowing how to cut trees, shoot guns, kill Indians, lynch Black Africans, and drive pickup trucks were no longer marketable skills. Losing their jobs in big corporations that took care of them from cradle to grave, they blamed all the other Americans (Blacks, Indians, Hispanics, Arabs, Catholics, Muslims, Indians, Chinese....).

Last year, one of their best specimens, a man by the name of Donald Dumb, who inherited his billions from his daddy and made himself some money building buildings (not rocket science if you already own billions from your daddy), decided to run for president to rescue the white bastards from their stupidity. White anglos already knew they were the dumb and ignorant, and for decades they nurtured their inferiority complexes vis-a-vis smarter peoples from around the globe stoically and silently because they lacked knowledge, language skills, and other basic brain functions to argue with smarter people. And so they contended themselves with discriminating against everyone else when they could, shooting them on the streets when unarmed, compensating for their inferiority with stupid racist supremacist ideologies that included, among other manifestations of white power, stashing food in the woods for when the time comes to fight their war of liberating white asshole America from the invading hordes.

What Donald Dumb, and let us give credit where credit is due, George W Bush before him, showed these frustrated disgruntled racist white protestant peasants from the boonies of America is the right to be publicly dumb. No longer did they have to suffer in silence because of the shame of being a dumb asshole, for Donald Dumb showed them that you can be a total idiot, blather it every day on the news, and best of all be proud of it! That is in essence the explanation for Donald Dumb's popularity: He liberated the white protestant idiots from the shame of being idiots, and he taught them to be proud and "great" again..

Instances of white Americans now openly displaying the courage of be public fools are best exemplified by the rash of people getting kicked off planes because a stupid white American suspected a terrorist.

- Apr 16, 2016 - A Muslim woman was kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight at a Chicago airport because the white female flight attendant 'did not feel comfortable' that the traveler switched seats with a fellow passenger.
 
- April 18, 2016 - Khairuddin Makhzoomi, a UC Berkeley student, was kicked off another Southwest Airlines flight because he called his uncle in Baghdad after getting on the plane and chatted with him in Arabic about the dinner event he had just attended with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. "Speaking Arabic" is suspicious, especially when the white fellow passenger who reported this "terrorist" activity did not understand Arabic himself. For dumb Americans who barely know English, any foreign language is suspicious.

- May 7, 2016 - Guido Menzio, an Italian economics professor at the University of Pennsylvania was just scribbling down math equations on a piece of paper while waiting for his American Airlines flight to take off frpm Philadelphia en route to Syracuse NY. The white woman passenger sitting next to him decided, since Menzio's looks are Mediterranean/Middle Eastern and the math scribbling appeared to her as Arabic, that he was up to no good and the math he was doing was suspicious "terrorist" activity. So she proceeded to alert a flight attendant who immediately recruits the pilot of the plane into delaying the flight, removing Menzio from the aircraft, then have him interrogated by a customer service manager for the airline and local security on suspicion of terrorism because of his note-taking.


The preceding is only a sample of how white Americans have become proud to display their dumbness, thanks in no small way to Donald Dumb. His vigor and pride at blathering vacuous inanities and mistakes (he believes that the 9/11 attacks actually happened in July 2001 at a 7/11 store) has reinvigorated and unchained the dumb white asshole peasants of America.

America did not sink this low even under George W Bush. Funny how white America's dumbness is constant regardless of region. We used to think that George W Bush was an idiot because he was from Texas. Now Donald Dumb has proven that New Yorkers too can be dumber than Texans, and that their so-called "sophistication"  is itself a fake, a figment of their inferiority complex that rightfully plagues them because they are genetically a dumb people, having inherited the dumb genes from their peasant ancestors from the boonies of Europe.

H. Atheos