Monday, February 28, 2011

Conehead enjoys the airport

Loyal readers of this blog will remember Conehead the Barbituate as a dedicated, if irregular, commentator on the posts of Carlo Sands. Conehead was also very kind to share with all of my fans his own personal cake recipe.

What my huge fan base may not realise is Conehead has come into some money through means I am really not at liberty to discuss in such a public forum (and one that is monitored so closely by 60 Minutes.)

No one quite knows where Conehead is or has been. In fact, no one really knows how the fuck he managed to catch his flight out of Sydney.

But the rumours are flying think and fast. The more reliable of them put Conehead first in Paris being chased onto a train out of there by Roma beggars who cleaned him out then tried to hit him up again after he went to an ATM — but not before Conehead was able to be infuriated by the arrogance of the French.

One story goes that even the lumpen elements in Paris have their standards and when one tried to scab a cigarette off Conehead at the Gare du Nord and Conehead offered him one of those weird black Gitane cigaettes that he couldn't wait to smoke in Paris, the guy said, “Gitanes? non!” and stomped off.

Further unconfirmed rumours put Conehead in Bonn, to his dismay and fury at being stuck in a place he is said by some to have described as the “Canberra of Europe, only more sterile”.

Well, Conehead has provided an actual message to the world in the form of two comments on my post The best fucking poem ever fucking written by fucking anyone that places him at an airport somewhere in Europe, I think.

One of the stranger, less believable rumours suggested Conehead was flying into Western Sahara with a team of marathon runners, which would without a doubt provide for the quickest game of “spot the odd one out” in human history.

This is hard to believe, though it could be one of those prank TV shows where the presenter says “What Conehead doesn’t realise is there is no flight out of Western Sahara and he is going to have to run the marathon... Our hidden cameras will capture his effort and you can join our online poll about whether he will make the 500 metre mark before collapsing.”

I post here Conehead’s observant little sketch of airports, a masterpiece of social commentary and story-telling that begins by paraphrasing the best fucking poem ever fucking written by fucking anyone (also known as John Cooper Clarke’s “Chicken town”):

“The fucking plane is fucking late
You fucking wait & fucking wait”

I post the rest below. It is important for the story to understand that there is more than one type of substance Conehead likes to chain smoke...

* * *

The worst thing is having already gone through passport control I CAN’T HAVE A FUCKING CIGARETTE

To tell the truth, I’m not really down with this passport control shit.

That's my impression of travelling. Like its fun & all that, except for the fucking passport control. And all that security shit where you have to put all your stuff like keys & money in trays and it goes through an x-ray & then because something goes beep they make you go somewhere else to get felt up or your bag rifled or whatever & you think I might need that money & keys & shit that are sitting over there in a fucking tray where any fucker could grab it.

Then you go through, the plane’s delayed, so you have to wait WITHOUT A FUCKING CIGARETTE!

Which leads to another question: as you, Carlo, observed in your gritty realist Western Sydney drama the thing you do if a bus or train is late & you want to make it come, what do you do? YOU LIGHT A FUCKING CIGARETTE!

So how can I make the plane not be any later when I can’t light cigarette because I’ve been through fucking passport control.

Whoever made up this airport procedure thing obviously hadn’t thought things through. The stupid fucker.

PS. wonder what all those comments in Chinese mean. Like why did 莊雅和莊雅和莊雅和 say practice what you preach?

* * *

Conehead then sent a second message through not long after that read:

“AHHHHHHHH! Now they've started making announcements ‘Passengers are reminded that smoking is not allowed!’

“Like they just want to rub it in! I DON’T WANT TO BE REMINDED!”

I believe Conehead eventually got his flight, presumably without too much innocent blood being shed.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Tell me more about the moral scruples of US dictatorships: a small question for the Wall Street Journal.

Well, it seems some big shit is goin' down in some place full of crazy Muslims wearing towells on their heads over there somewhere. Somewhere near Iraq, I think.

Actually, in Iraq too. I mean what the fuck is that about? We gave those ungrateful fuckers democracy. Some people are just always looking for an excuse to be upset.

God only knows what the hell is going on over there these days, though I must admit, as far as that place with pyramids and mummies is concerned, I found a very informative site called

But, the more I looked at the situation over there, there more something strange struck me: the United States of America, which is the World's Greatest Democracy by presidential decree, has gotten itself in a bit of a pickle.

Despite doing their very best to support the democracy in the region, as President Barack Obama emphasised so strongly in his 2009 speech in Cairo, they have somehow ended propping up vicious dictatorships that, in a total coincidence, just happen to then implement policies favourable to the interests of US governments and corporations.

This has begun to worry me a bit, as it isn't a great look.

Now my love, admiration and respect for the United States of America and the values it upholds is very well known.

And so I was very heartened to hear just last December US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton say after a visit to Bahrain that its monarchy is, like, a *totally* modernising govnerment.

"I am very impressed by the progress Bahrain is making on all fronts — economically, politically, socially," said Clinton.

I thought it was actually quite lucky, really, seeing as the US has a quite important airforce base there and had just signed an agreement to significantly increase the US navy presence. To strengthen democracy.

But it *would* seem unfortunate when impoverished people, many from the persecuted Shiite religious majority, took part in protests to ask the king - not to resign but for a few reforms that might alleviate their crippling suffering. And got rather rudely met by soldiers opening fire on them, killing simply *dozens* of unarmed people.

Investigate journalist Robert Fisk wrote from the scene, in a really quite unpleasant story: "'Massacre – it's a massacre,' the doctors were shouting. Three dead. Four dead. One man was carried past me on a stretcher in the emergency room, blood spurting on to the floor from a massive bullet wound in his thigh ...

"One poor youth – 18, 19 years old, perhaps – had a terrible head wound, a bullet hole in the leg and a bloody mess on his chest. The doctor beside him turned to me weeping, tears splashing on to his blood-stained gown. 'He has a fragmented bullet in his brain and I can't get the bits out, and the bones on the left side of his head are completely smashed. His arteries are all broken ...'

"Blood was cascading on to the floor. It was pitiful, outrageous, shameful. These were not armed men but mourners returning from a funeral, Shia Muslims of course, shot down by their own Bahraini army yesterday afternoon."

And then I thought about this a little more. And I must admit it seemed to me, without trying to be unfair to the no doubt sincere intentions of the United States government, that this was a little similar to what happened in Egypt.

The US kindly gave the now former president Hosni Mubarak about US$1.3 billion a year in military aid and next thing you know more than 300 pro-democracy protesters were killed by Mubarak's security forces and 20 million people were on the streets forcing the poor guy out.

And, now I think about it, when people protested against the US-backed regime of Ben Ali in Tunisia, the United Nations said more than 200 people were murdered by the security forces.

The US has had a really bad run of luck. They really seem to be poor character judges, what with them loving democracy and yet so unfailingly ending up supporting murderers and torturers.

It is just like that friend with a terrible taste in partners, but you are never sure whether it is polite to point it out.

I was starting to get worried about this. But then I read a thoroughly reassuring editorial in one of my personal favourite newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, on February 16.

But it also raised a further question in my mind. So I wish to take the opportunity to ask the journal a question from a friend.

Dear Wall Street Journal,

I have been worried about all this apparent evidence that the United States of America has been backing brutal dictatorships in the Middle East.

So, as you might imagine, I was *very relieved* to read the following in an editorial in your February 16 edition: "To put it another way, pro-American dictatorships have more moral scruples. The comparison is akin to what happened in the 1980s when U.S. allies led by authoritarians fell peacefully in the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan, even as Communist regimes proved tougher."

This is a real load of my mind.

It would seems, *yes* America does actually prop up dictatorships. But it really is not *that* big a deal, as you explain, because *your* dictatorships have more moral scruples than dictatorships not allied to the Land of the Free.

But I must confess to some lingering questions.

I am hoping that perhaps the good people at the journal will prove kind enough to answer my questions and resolve my confusion (I know you are all *great* fans of the blog so will see this request).

I was thinking about this and, basically, what I want to know is *how exactly* do you torture someone utilising moral scruples?

Does this perhaps mean the torture implements have been blessed by the Pope?

I mean, what *exactly* is the moral procedure?

I was wondering about how this worked in the case of the torture of Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib in Egpyt - personally carried out by Egyptian intelligence head Omar Suleiman.

There must have been some exerising of moral scruples, because when the democracy uprising was underway in Egypt, Suleiman was the man the US pushed to replace Mubarak - and I am confident that would not be the case unless Suleiman had some moral scruples of which to speak.

Dictatorships, and ones that more or less belong to the United States are yet to prove much different, have a nasty tendency to kill opponents - be it through extrajudicial assassinations or "disappearances".

Or just - as in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain (and for that matter Libya, seeing as Gaddafi has been a pretty reliable friend of the West for quite few years now) - by gunning people down in cold blood in the streets when they protest unarmed.

So, what I am interested in, for my own understanding, is exactly how many of their own people do dictatorships have to butcher before they can be considered to have lost their moral scruples?

I am wondering, you see, about the case of Indonesia. In 1965, the CIA helped organise a military coup that overthrew a nationalist government and brought General Suharto to power.

Estimates of the number of people killed over a four month period in 65-66 range from 500,000 to three million.

Now I realise most of those killed were members of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and that the only good red is a dead red (unless it is shiraz, in which case it is far better drunk).

Given that we can *all agree* that the life of a Communist Party member is worth less than the life of someone in full agreement with the aims and practices of US foreign policy, I am wondering: how many of the workers, farmers, slumdwellers, students and intellectuals who made the choice to join the PKI would have had to have been killed before it could be considered that Suharto had lost his moral scruples?

And then I was wondering about East Timor. The occupation of East Timor, started with US approval in 1975 by Suharto and finally ending in 1999, one year after Suharto's overthrow, resulted in the death of about one third of the Timorese population.

It may be an impolite question, and I would never dream of being intentionally rude to a nation so great it has produced your journal, but given the fact that the ratio of those killed was greater than in Cambodia during Pol Pot's reign, exactly how many Timorese would have been killed had Suharto not enjoyed the moral scruples belonging to pro-US dictators?

And, also, did Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge develop moral scruples when the United States started to back them after Vietnamese forces ending their genocidal rule?

If so, with these new found moral scrupples, should the new US-backed Khmer Rouge have found it was way back in power, how do you think they would have applied their new found moral scruples to the second round of their genocde?

Also, I have to ask, is it *really* true that the struggle that bought down the US-backed Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines 1986 was "peaceful"?

It is just I happened to be in Manila last year and there was this giant wall called the "Wall of Heroes" and it had all of these names, more than I could count, of people who were said to have been killed in the struggle against the Marcos dictaotrship - whose military, armed and trained by the United States, had an awful tendency to murder and torture opponents.

I was told the wall did not come close to naming all those who fell fighting the pro-US dictatorship.

Again, I realise quite a number of those killed were Communists, but far from all.

I would also be interested to hear about the application of moral scruples in Chile under Pinochet, Guatemala under succesive US-backed military regimes, El Salvador, Nicaragua or any of the other military dictatorships across Latin America in the 70s and 80s that commottied horrific crimes and were US trained and backed.

Oh, I nearly forgot, also the US-backed dictatorship in Honduras, how does it apply moral scruples when it assassinates farmers, democracy activists and gay rights activists?

I thank you for your patience in dealing with so many questions on the role of moral scruples as it relates to the killers and torturers promoted by the United States. I do realise you are busy with the complicated task of explaining how it is that the democracy-promoting United States has got itself tangled up with promoting so many brutal dictatorships.

It is just that it does some raise some uncomfortable questions that all us proud supporters of the United States and its freedom agenda would be very glad to have clarified so we can continue our full support for the US-led struggle for democracy just absolutely *everywhere*.

I await with eagerness for your reply.

Your friend in the fight for freedom,
Carlo Sands.

Oh, and by the way, I nearly forgot: FUCK YOU, GADDAFI. Muammar Gaddafi is Carlo Sands pick for Arab ruler most likely to end up like Mussolini.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

'The Worst Day Since Yesterday': This Flogging Molly song is for everyone in the world

As I am taking forever to do my post on comparisons between Tom Waits' songs and cover versions of them (in small part, at least, due to a sustained outbreak of a condition known to medical experts as “drunkeness” that I have been afflicted with in recent evenings), I offer this in the interim.

I dedicate it to the entire world, except Justin Bieber.

“And this endless crutch, well it’s never enough...” As far as your faithful blogger can figure out, Irish American Celtic punk band Flogging Molly just do not know how to fail. I have never heard a song by them that was not, more or less, fucking awesome.

Friday, February 04, 2011

Don't these people realise Mubarak agrees with them?

Somewhere between 6-8 million people took to the streets of Egypt on February 1 to demand Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt via martial law for three decades, get out of office.

Now the thing is, Mubarak agrees with them. He is “fed up” with being in power.

Mubarak does not want himself as president either. I mean, who would?

He has reluctantly committed himself to staying on till September, but Mubarak has been telling anyone who’ll listen (which I think right now is pretty much the Obama administration, the Israeli cabinet, the Palestinian Authority, a couple of Arab kings and Tony Blair) that, like the protesters, he actually really, really wants himself to stop being president right now too.

It is just he can't leave the presidential office at this moment. He has locked himself in and lost the keys, or something.

And there is chaos. How could Mubarak possible abandon his beloved people in the middle of such chaos?

It is really hard to imagine. Because what is going to cause chaos in Egypt right now is Mubarak leaving.

The chaos on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere has nothing at all to do with him staying, despite him ignoring a week-and-a-half of the largest protests in Egypt’s history demanding he get on a plane and fuck off to a villa in Saudi Arabia.

Mubarak insists he would love to, but the flights to Riyadh are all booked out till September.

Now, February 2 saw some unfortunate clashes on the streets when, as the media keep telling us, pro-Mubarak protesters just happened to run into anti-Mubarak protesters on the streets.

It is the sort of awkward accidental meeting of someone you are in a dispute with that could happen to anyone — the type in which you never know whether to acknowledge them with a brief hello or just hurray on and pretend you never saw them.

A lot of people blamed the pro-Mubarak protesters, but how were they to know there were tens of thousands of anti-Mubarak types camped in Tahrir Square? It is like when walk into a party, stop in your track and whisper to your friend: “You didn’t tell me they would be here!”

It was an innocent mistake made by the roaming gangs of paid thugs and undercover cops armed with bricks, petrol bombs, knives and batons. Some were even riding horses and camels and found themselves in the middle of the crowd before they know what happened.

‘Oh, hi! Fancy seeing you here ... Well, this is awkward.’

In their shock, some bricks and petrol bombs were accidentally dropped from surrounding buildings and bridges on the protesters and before anyone could apologise for the misunderstanding, it was on for young and old.

You may be thinking that launching yourself on an unarmed crowd with petrol bombs and bricks and baton-wielding men on horseback, even by mistake, makes for a funny sort of a protest.

You may feel, perhaps, it comes across less as a protest and more as a sort of... violent assault.

But, remember, this is the Middle East and these are Arabs. They do things differently there, as the media like to tell us.

We can't impose our Western standards of “freedom of expression” on these people. Sometimes, this is just how those people express themselves. They are different from us.

This is exactly why Tony Blair is so concerned about the need to “manage” any post-Mubarak regime to ensure a “proper democracy”.

It is a very dangerous part of the world, so the West must step with care and be careful to avoid doing anything rash, such as stopping US military aid worth US$1.5 billion each year to the Mubarak dictatorship.

I mean, by all means “investigate” and “review” such aid in light of recent events. But let us not just stop propping a regime up because its people want democracy — anything could happen! Even democracy.

Meanwhile, at Tahrir Square, the poor US-funded army didn’t know what hit it and spent the day wandering around in utter confusion and shock before realising at least 13 people had been shot dead in a terrible accident in which some of the pro-Mubarak protesters’ automatic machine guns had accidentally gone off.

More than 800 anti-Mubarak protesters were injured, but I am sure a large percentage of these injuries occurred when they tripped over, and at least some of them walked into a door handle.

And no one was more surprised or upset at this tragic turn of events than the Egyptian government. Hell, they even announced an “investigation” into the incident!

They’ll get to the bottom of these terrible events.

And, rest assured, there really was no one was more disappointed and upset than Mubarak himself. Here he was, desperate to finally relinquish the power he is “fed up” with after 30 terrible years, and this chaos breaks out!

He can’t leave his people now, he just can’t.

It is always the way, these things happen at the worst possible time. My heart breaks for this dedicated public servant.

So, we now have a stand-off between a US- and-Israeli-backed dictatorship, whose figurehead is teetering, and more or less the rest of Egypt — a few paid thugs, security force members and public officials whose jobs depend on the regime notwithstanding.

Western governments and Israel are all in spin and frankly seem to be getting a bit desperate.

How desperate? The Obama administration even took up George Bush’s offer to give Mubarak a bell to help sort this whole mess out.

Bush said he volunteered coz Mubarak is “an old friend”.

Dragging in George Bush to help with your foreign policy is up there in desperation stakes with calling on Carlo Sands to run your AA class.

The details of the phone call are not known, but the New York Times said government officials told the media it did not involve Bush asking Mubarak to resign.

However, we can probably guess the conversation involved a phases such as: “Egypt. That’s somewhere in Iran isn’t it?”

I am not picking on Bush. It is an easy error for Americans to make.

But never let it be said the Western media are racist.

Sure the British Independent is running eyewitness coverage by Robert Fisk — in which the veteran journalist betrays his terrible bias towards unarmed, peaceful mass demonstrations demanding an end to a dictatorship that has imposed poverty, corruption, censorship, rigged elections, torture and murder on its people for 30 years against small gangs of thugs seeking to kill said protesters.

But it is balancing it up with thoughtful commentary such as this by Julie Burchill: “It would be wonderful to think that what replaces Mubarak will be better. But here’s the thing about Middle Eastern regimes: they’re all vile. The ones that are ‘friendly’ are vile and the ones that hate us are vile.

“Revolutions in the region have a habit of going horribly wrong, and this may well have something to do with the fact that Islam and democracy appear to find it difficult to co-exist for long.”

I think we get the picture. Arabs in general, and Muslims in particular, are basically vile.

A fair point that needs to be considered and debated on its merits, without all this “political correctness” causing liberals, leftists and terrorist-apologists to jump to kneejerk reactions and accuse her of VILE RACISM.

Some terrorist-lovers might, in response to this useful contribution, suggest that if you replace the world “Middle Eastern” with “Jewish”, and “Islam” with “Judaism”, Burchill may be mistaken for Goebbels.

But some people are just totally unbalanced like that.

Actually, Goebbels confessed he thought Burchill had a point.

Despite Mubarak’s insistence he really wants to resign, it seems this thing is going to keep going with big demonstrations today.

No one knows how it will end, but, as there are reports that the protesters have started chanting for Mubarak to be hanged, it could easily have a very happy ending.

‘History doesn't happen it's made. How much did you get paid today? Pulse of the city stops, we're met by a thousand cops. Black's on Blue lines they cross and justice is a baton wound. You have the right to remain silent, we're gonna have to use violence’

Thursday, February 03, 2011

Now this is going too far

It seems Tony Blair was right, as usual.

(In fact, I am not sure he has ever been wrong - and if you want the evidence check out this wonderful site Keep Tony Blair for PM, which is both informative and gives an indication of to what end Tony Blair spent his last days in office.)

Mr Blair expressed his concern that a transition to democracy needs to be carefully managed, something the former British PM knows how to do correctly, as any Iraqi or Afghani will happily tell you.

And now we see why.

The fundamentalist anti-Semites calling for an end to 30 years of martial law in Egypt have given us an indication of just why not torturing Arabs is such a bad idea.

They say they are for "democracy" and yet when confroned with a peaceful, legitimate demonstration of paid thugs, violent prisoners kindly given leniency by the government and released from jail, and cops out of uniform - whose views just happen to differ from them, we see how they behave.

If they really were "democracy protesters", the right response to having their terroristic mass demonstration challenged by an expression of views and a rain of bricks and petrol bombs would be to accept that some people don't agree with them and to go home and let the Mubarak government get on with its mandated job of imposing poverty-causing neoliberalism and violently repressing anyone who resists.

I mean, a few freedom-lovers happen to ride in on horses and camels and start bashing everyone in sight and next thing you know the terrorists show their true face by insisting they will not leave Tahrir Square that they have taken over and imposed Sharia law on, as Robert Fisk clearly explains.

(Note, the renowned investagive journalist Fisk is talking in code. When he says, from Tahrir Square, that the protests are totally secular and not in the slightest Islamic in nature, he is merely sending a signal that such is the terrible fundamnetalist terror that he is unable to speak freely.)

They clearly don't understand that even a dictatorship's police force and paid thugs have the right to freedom of expression and association. If they want to express themselves with batons and petrol bombs, then that surely is as much their right as those who have sought to terrorise society with their peaceful marches.

The violence of the "anti-Mubarak forces" (as so much of the corporate media correctly call the millions of people who have taken to the streets), responding to the bricks, petrol bombs and batons by actually seeking to defend themselves rather than lying down and getting burned or bashed to death shows just how unreasonable these people are.

And *still* the government, in its incredible display of restraint and moderation, says it is *still* willing, despite everything, to neogitiate with those involved in the terroristic protests.

*All* the vice president Omar Suleiman, a wise statesman with many years experience in torturing terrorists gathered from the streets of Egypt or sent his way by the United States (allegedly), has asked in return is these people end their demonstrations for democracy.

And protest organisers respond by refusing to meet or negotiate with the government! I really don't know what more this government could do.

Mubarak, last Friday, promised reforms. He promised reforms to deal with issues such as price rises and poverty.

And his supporters, in what must be an early government pogram along the lines promised, go to the protesters with petrol. Petrol prices are far too high, so, as price rises are said to be a cause of the protests, you might think these people would be grateful.

But what do they do? They throw petrol back!

Well, Mubarak has done all he can, and this is how his people repay him.

If Mubarak can truly no longer guarantee security and manage the transition to democracy he has so kindly promised, then perhaps it really is time for him to sadly leave the scene.

My suggestion is it is time to fly in Tony Blair and instal him as president for life to oversee this transition. If these terrorists don't agree, let US marines and the Israeli Defense Force go there to prop him up.

And these people are smart... you just wait for the calls for "intervention" to "restore stability".

Supporters of President Mubarak seek to peacefully express their views by taking over military tanks to use agaisnt protesters

And just LOOK at how the "pro-democracy" terrorists respond... those are ROCKS! really, what chance do those who want to keep Mubarak and his 30 years of martial law intact have?

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Those fucking Arabs are doing it all wrong

Well, this year has sure gotten off to a bad start. So far, 2011 has caused your beloved blogger to fall into such deep despair I am still yet to do my post announcing the winner of the 2010 Carlo Sands' Person of the Year for Services to Humanity and Drunkeness.

How do I loathe the year so far? Let me count the ways.

First, some bastard thought a good way to cheer me up as we head into a new godforsaken decade would be to send me a press release from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that explained: “Beer consumption in Australia has fallen gradually but consistently since the 1960s ...”

Overall, Australians only drank 10.4 litres of pure alcohol per person in 2008/09, down from 13.1 litres in 1974/75.

Second, fucking goddamn Newtown bouncers. Seriously, just because we were pissed out of our fucking brains in the early hours of Sunday morning is no god damn reason to deny us entry into pubs to drink more.

Even worse was one of them was an Irish pub! An IRISH PUB! Do you know how distressing and demoralising it is to be rejected as too drunk BY THE FUCKING IRISH?!

Third, and worst of all, a bunch of fucking Arabs have decided they want to run their own fucking countries.

First Tunisia, now goddamn Egypt and there are suggestions this fucking wave of fucking Arabs fucking taking their own affairs into their own fucking hands is spreading to such places as Jordan, Yemen and god knows where else.

Frankly, this just proves how anti-Semitic Arabs truly are. This turn of events is going to make it even harder for Israel to keep insisting it is “the only democracy in the Middle East” without every person within earshot collapsing into laughter.

I mean, presenting Israel as a democracy is hard enough by itself without a bunch of rabid, Jew-hating fascists giving a display of popular power and participatory democracy in glorious revolutions that actually overturn dictatorships backed by Israel and the West.

This can only undermine the moral force of the Jewish state and gives its enemies ammunition. Popular revolutions in Arab countries to overturn US-backed dictatorships are a cruel anti-Semitic maneuver truly worthy of Hitler himself.

This helps explain why Israeli leaders has taken such a clear line against democracy in Egypt.

Another reason why this is such bad news is Arabs are supposed to be all Muslim, all fundamentalist and all terrorists. This state of affairs exists to allow Hollywood writers not to have to actually use their imaginations when inventing bad guys.

A secondary, less important, effect of all Arabs being fundamentalist Muslims terrorists is it enables Western governments to use racism to divide their own people and justify wars for natural resources on behalf of big corporations.

If ordinary people of the West actually come to view ordinary Arabs as ACTUALLY HUMAN like them, as having the same aspirations, the same values and many of the same struggles as them... well god help the Free World is all I can say.

And yet the mass movements in Tunisia and Egypt, by all accounts, are FUCKING SECULAR! Sure, the largest opposition party in Egypt is called the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a pretty good start you might think.

But, first of all, by all accounts they are not behind the mass protests and even abstained in the early stages. Also, it turns out they are actually pretty fucking moderate and EVEN RENOUNCED VIOLENCE back in the 1970s!

I mean for fuck’s sake, they weren't even terrorists in the 1970s??? I mean, who WASN’T a terrorist in the 1970s? It is like the old saying, if you never blew some shit up in the ’70s, you weren’t really there.

It is even worse in Tunisia, where the previously banned Islamic party Hizb an-Nahda came out and said they support women’s rights and do not support imposing Islamic law. They even formed a united front with secular democratic groups as part of pushing for democracy against attempts by remnants of the old regime to hijack the popular revolution.

I mean, fucking hell! What are the Arabs playing at now?

In Egypt, by all accounts, Muslims and Christians are marching together. And some of the sentiments are highly disturbing.

Watch the video below. Seriously, check out the protester at 0.45.

This guy has really let us down. And he seemed so promising! Dark skin and big beard? Check. Shouts really fucking angrily? Check.

Says "It doesn't matter if you are a Muslim, a Christian, or an Atheist! You will demand your goddamn rights! And we will have our rights, one way or another!"? FAIL!!!!

I know Meatloaf said two outta three aint bad, but what would that fat git know? In this case, two outta three aint even close to good enough.

And aren't all the women meant be all downtrodden and shit? Then WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH THESE PICTURES?

Oh for fuck’s sake, you are supposed to be DOWNTRODDEN!

This disturbing portrayal of ordinary Arab people as inspiring, brave, secular, freedom loving democrats totally undermines ALL THE HARD WORK Israel and its supporters have done, as a legitimate means of self-defence, of presenting itself as a small besieged nation amid a sea of dangerous Muslim fundamentalist terrorists.

How can Israel possibly defend itself under such circumstances?

But the worst thing, what really grates, is not even that these ungrateful bastards want democracy.

I mean, fair enough, no one likes being tortured or suffering extreme poverty while their dictators, fat with Western “aid” and loans, get even fatter by stealing the nations wealth.



This point was noted by hero of the free world and all round great guy Tony Blair.

(I believe the Egyptian people actually asked specifically for his opinion. There are widespread reports of people on the streets chanting “Mubarak out? Tell us Blair, please, what do you think?” and walls sprayed with the slogan “Tony where are you? We need your help!”)

In response to such calls, what Blair said, and quite rightly, is that it is perfectly legitimate for Egyptians to want democracy. Democracy, everyone but Israel totally agrees, is a lovely concept for Egypt.

But with the proviso, Blair added, that this move is “managed” properly so ensure a “proper democracy”.

I really shouldn't have to spell out what this means, but there has been so much confusion caused in the minds of ordinary people in the West who are usually fed a steady diet of racism and Islamophobia by this most uncalled for outbreak of popular uprisings that I fear I must.

It means, if they want democracy, the CORRECT procedure, as all freedom lovers know, is to FIRST OF ALL have your nation invaded by the United States and whichever other nations it can bribe and bully into tagging along.

THEN you get the invaders to install a puppet regime and privatise state-owned assets so multinationals can buy them up. All this should be enforced by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of foreign troops.

The foreign troops really have two key roles: to brutally repress any opposition to the occupation (including by bombing weddings and gunning down foreign journalists) and to foment a civil war by arming sectarian militias to stir up strife where there was never any before, thus justifying the presence of the foreign troops needed to prop up the puppet regime to hand the resources over to the US corporations.

And then, if the Egyptians or any of these countries no one can find on a map and have only just discovered even exist, are patient, in about a decade or so their countries will be just as free and as prosperous as Iraq and Afghanistan are today.

THAT, loyal fans, is how democracy comes to the dark, uncivilised, bearded Muslim parts of the world.

It most certainly does not come from a mass uprising of the oppressed, defying brutal repression, overturning regimes the Land of the Free has painstakingly propped up with billions of dollars of military aid each year.

We all know what will happen if a government comes into being in Egypt responsive to the popular will.

Extremism will reign, possibly even going SO FAR in its anti-Semitic designs as to actually get rid of the giant fucking wall on the border with Gaza that quite rightly stops the Palestinians getting medicines, building materials, coriander and chocolate for their evil, terroristic plots.

We live in strange and disturbing times.

Images of anti-Semites from across the Arab world threatening Israel with their mass, popular uprisings for an end to dictatorships that have killed and tortured them for decades. These disturbing pictures were posted on site of the fundamentalist terrorist lovers’ central, Al Jazeera.