Stupidity Exposed

The Obama administration wants to bomb the Syrian regime, and in that way unavoidably help its enemies to go to power. For the Obama administration the Government are the baddies, and the Muslim militants the “freedom fighters”. Happily, the military action does not take place; but the stupidity of a Middle East policy based on populism shows to every sensible person that a real idiot sits in the Oval Office.

Not too many months go by, and even the US administration is forced to realise what kind of mistake they were about to make.

It astonishes me that there is no huge uproar exposing the immense stupidity of this administration not only in Syria, but in countries like Libya and Egypt, where they have acted with the same immense stupidity. This US administration proved so stupid that the Egyptian government – a military regime born out of the sense of the Egyptian army and the exasperation of the Egyptian people, and against the will of Golfing Cretin – openly mocked them calling the US to “restraint” in Ferguson. And this, even if Egypt still receives help from the US to the tune of several billion bucks a year.

I would love to read more and harsher criticism of this bunch of amateurs. Only a systematically realistic approach, aimed at bringing all of the Middle East under the control of Western-friendly dictators willing to leave Christians in peace, can bring lasting peace to the region; and be it the peace of a bloody dictator, if the native do not – as they have abundantly showed – deserve anything better.

As it is now, the West will, in time, contain or destroy – more likely destroy at some point – the threat of the ISIS. But without a serious strategic intent of putting a solid lid over that boiling pot of madness that is the Arab world the Western powers will end up playing fire brigades as violent insurrections develop elsewhere, or keep reappearing at some point in those realities – like Iraq – where a democratic solution is stubbornly pursued after now many years of evidence that the recipe does not work.

The US must now start to actively look for a candidate that will – with their approval, support, and bribe money – take control of army and country, arrange things between Iraqi ethnic groups in a way considered fair by his Western masters, and start kicking a few ISIS asses.

The time for this parody of democracy is up, as the suffering of countless Christians abundantly proves. Now that high officers of the US armed forces start to officially expose the immense stupidity of a Middle East policy by popularity poll, the way might in time be opened for a more realistic approach to all things Arab; though I doubt that the current administration will ever see the light on this, rather preferring to continue to be very stupid first, and timidly right when it’s already very late.

Every time you read or hear news about Syria, think that Obama wanted to bomb Assad’s regime. And pray that 2016 may come in time to reverse the course in the Middle East.


Posted on August 24, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.

  1. A happiest Negroni Sunday to you, my dearest online brother Mundy!

    I simply must disagree with your premise, that stupidity is the driving force behind such policies.

    I wonder how Aquinas would analyze how a series of stupid actions and policies which relentlessly drive toward evil outcomes can merely be birthed from stupidity alone. I wonder if Aquinas might eventually conclude that evil is the root cause and not merely stupidity in many events.

    Evil is clever and wears many faces. Evil is happiest when it is not judged by its truest nature.

    That modernist creature, Obamgoglio, is just such a chameleon.

    “Vaya Lio!”

  2. Mundabor,
    “And pray that 2016 may come in time to reverse the course in the Middle East. ”
    Who is to reverse the course? Hillary Clinton and the credible Republican candidates are criticizing Obama for being too “dovish”. They wanted to bomb Syria even more than Obama. They are now even pushing for trade war with Russia, and possibly even hot war, if Russia does not back down in Ukraine. These people are even more dangerous than Obama on foreign policy. They are all in favor of further destabilizing the entire Middle East in order to impose the idol of Western Democracy by force on Islamic populations who do not want democracy, except as a tool to assert the dominance of their specific religious group.

    • See the other reply.
      We do not know who will be the next President. It might be a surprise. But whoever he is, he will be able to tell his people that “you gotta do what you gotta do”.
      Btw, I trust Hillary to destroy the ISIS backside – if she wants to – without any problem. But she must see a political advantage for herself in that. Believe me, that is one cold-blooded bitch.

    • Mundabor,
      “Btw, I trust Hillary to destroy the ISIS backside – if she wants to – without any problem”

      I do, too. But there is almost no Democrat and not many Republicans more strongly in favor of forcibly exporting “democracy, human rights and western values” to the Middle East. Given her actual foreign policy track record as a Senator and as Secretary of State, I can imagine nobody less capable of a return to realism in foreign policy, apart from McCain/Graham. These are the very people who destabilized the Middle East in service to their ideological democratism in the first place. If she were to “destroy the ISIS backside”, the only result would be some sort of Iraqi democracy, starting the cycle of idiocy all over again.
      I think, at least regarding Clinton, Pat Buchanan hits the nail right on the head in his newest column. (Link:

    • Very true. She is a true liberal. But once they become Presidents, even liberals start, at times, to think. Hillary Clinton would do, as she has always done, what is best for her. If she sees what is best for her is to massacre ISIS, she will proceed to it at once.

      By the by, I disagree with the proto-isolationist mentality of Buchanan, and I think the invasion of Iraq in 2002 was a great feat of civilisation (though I can see, 12 years later, that Bush and myself, an dmany others, had overrated the Iraqis).

      The West simply can’t let the Christians die in Iraq just because the local Muslims are a bunch of morons. Best thing to do is to annihilate the present threat, and take care some local bastard cares there are no onew ones (as far as practicable, of course).


    • Mundabor,
      “I disagree with the proto-isolationist mentality of Buchanan, and I think the invasion of Iraq in 2002 was a great feat of civilisation”

      I am no isolationist and certainly no pacifist. (Neither is Buchanan, by the way. He is, rather, one of the few sane conservative thinkers on foreign policy urging caution in an ocean of liberal interventionist democracy-and-human-rights crusaders.) But wars should only be fought for a worthy and reasonable goal. You recently said you wanted to install moderate dictators who tolerated Christians throughout the Middle East. Well, Saddam was exactly your man, then. But, of course, liberal Jacobin democratists like Bush and Hillary Clinton did not want stability or toleration of Christians. They thought he had to go, because he did not allow elections, and because this petty dictator was some imaginary “threat to America”. Probably he oppressed perverts, too. Or was that Russia, the country the same crowd is now desparately trying to engineer a war with?

      It seems we will have to agree to disagree, as I will never allow myself to even consider that massacring at least (according to conservative estimates) 100.000 human beings, among them lots of women and children, in order to forcibly impose godless mass-democracy on an unwilling populace, thereby destabilizing an entire region, is “a great feat of civilization”. It is, rather, a despicable crime against both God and humanity, the perpetrators of which will – unless they repent – almost certainly be damned for all eternity.

      I will abstain from commenting any further on this matter, as neither of us will succeed in convincing the other, given how radically we differ, and you have often stated that the comment box is not for extensive forum-like discussion.

    • Catocon, do I have to explain the obvious?
      A genocide who is a danger for the entire planet is not good even if he does not massacre Christians.

    • Mundabor,
      do I have to explain the obvious? He was no danger for anyone except enemies of his own regime in his own country. Yes, he gassed some Kurds who were opposed to his regime in 1988. So what? That’s what dictators do. He was evil, but rational. The West dealt with him for decades, before the West went insane with Jacobinism. Just the kind of dictator the region needs, if it is to stay even partly controllable. But then the genocidal maniacs who deposed him did not want stability. They wanted to impose their satanic ideology of democratism.

    • You really do not grasp[ the obvious.
      Not only has he showed to be able to whatever atrocity, but he has also showed he was able to invade a neighbouring country, in a mad move who would have destabilised the entire planet.
      As to the chemical or dirty nuclear weapon, post hoc, ergo propter hoc does not work.
      He was clearly trying to obtain nuclear power. Very probably he was told he was very near to his aim. There is no doubt if in possession of such weapons he would have used them to blackmail the West.
      He was, in short, the exact contrary of “our son of a bitch”.
      The west did not “deal with him”. The West was weak, because Clinton & Co, were pussycats. And the West did not go insane with jacobinism, it decided that after 11 September there was no place, none whatsoever, for nutcases in positions of such power.
      That they also wanted to impose demiocracy on the West is very obvious, and very meritorious. An attempt that had to be made, and for which the least fanatical and best educated country in the Middle East was best suited. It hasn’t work. But this couldn’t be said before. It has worked even the japanese before.
      Actually, it has worked even with the Germans.

  3. Three things I hope after reading this post:

    I hope that it is mere idiocy and stupidity that we are witnessing. (I fear that this person who occupies the office of president in the U.S. and who was raised a Muslim in Malaysia according to documents, and whose half brother is in charge of funding the Muslim Brotherhood — I fear that this person has another agenda on his mind, the advancement of Islam in the world.)

    I hope that in the 2014 and 2016 elections the votes that are cast will reflect the votes that are counted. There is a saying “You can’t fix stupid” — but I hope if it is indeed stupidity we’re dealing with that we can vote it out of office. (all the offices)

    In a sense, we Americans deserve this uncertainty: we allowed ourselves, as a nation, to be hoaxed and conquered. There is goodness in America, and I hope it can show itself to be strong.

  4. That is the tragedy of many African countries, too:artificial borders.

    I hope that once the attack begin, the West will have his face on it, and will prefer to send the boots rather than lose face. I do not think boots on the ground are avoidable, but a I also think no politician would say it so at this point.

    Let the air attack do what they can, and then it will be unavoidable to send the troops to “finish the job”, etc.


    • Mundabor,
      something strange seems to be going on with my comments on this thread. I wrote two of them on August 24, both of which you have obviously read and replied to. The second one, however, seems to be missing now. That, in itself, might just mean you decided not to publish it, in which case there is no problem. But since you replied to it specifically (you wrote “That is the tragedy of many African countries, too: artificial borders), nobody reading the comments will be able to read what you are reacting to, obstructing readers’ ability to follow the short conversation.
      If that is intentional, again, no problem: just ignore this comment.
      If not, you might have replied to my comment without actually allowing/publishing it, in which case the comment should sit unpublished in your comment queue (or you might have misclicked and accidentally deleted it).

    • I use, at times, a tablet software to reply to the messages.
      This software seems to randomly consider some messages “not approved” even if they are “approved”. Only some of them, mind. It is a very annoying fact, but I find this particular app useful in order not to lose the contact with the commenters.

      This means that at times I must access the site from my desktop, and there re-click for “approval” messages that have been already approved and are published, but are still “queued” when I access the site from my dektop.

      In your case, I have decided to trash your message when I saw it again, because its excessive lenght seemed to me, on second thought, not worth the publishing.

      I will, in time, look for another suitable blogger app, but really they all have their problems, of one nature or another; the inability to properly interface with the WordPress website being one of them.


%d bloggers like this: