A reader writes querulously that he can’t understand why I link so-and-so (a Hindu right-winger), even though I am a believing Christian…..and why I deconstruct the Tamil Tigers, but say nothing about Sri Lankan racism.

He put it a lot more intemperately than that, but that was the substance of it, once the personal attacks are left out.

Another tells me that if I critique neo-conservatives, I must equally criticize Islamicists.

In other words, I have a point of view that is not neutral, according to my readers.

Well, guilty as charged.

I am not neutral, nor would I want to be.  I cordially detest the ideology and objectives of the global centralizers. I might call them Zionists or Elites or Power-Elite or any other term, but it’s clear whom I mean, and if it’s not,  please search Kleptocracy or New World Order or Zionism on my blog.

Given that,  this blog is my small attempt at deconstructing the unceasing propaganda put out by the Controllers,  propaganda that extends to every branch of human inquiry, from science to theology, from politics to academics.

One reader wants me to begin every critique of the Tamil Tigers with a “fair and balanced”  criticism of Sri Lanka. But why? Are the  Tigers, with the backing of Western intelligence groups, with a well-heeled Tamil diaspora and Western (left-wing) church groups behind them,  lacking in voice?

Sri Lankan racism is beside the point. If armed insurrection, assassinations, and terrorism against civilians is the proper response to racial chauvinism,  God help us all.

The facts show that the Lankan Tigers were manipulated and used by both a part of the Indian intelligence service (RAW) and the Israeli (Mossad). That is what is important.

If the Tigers were concerned about Tamils, they would not have killed them in such numbers. Until the civil war, they assassinated more Tamils than their enemies did.

I am sure Sri Lankans can be racist. Who doubts it? That goes with the human condition.

But my  primary interest on this blog is to show how the Controllers use such inter-ethnic frictions to push their own agenda, using the various players as tools in their larger game. And how that agenda itself drives the friction.

Explaining why some particular tool really had some cause against that other tool isn’t germane to my objective.  I am interested in the ones who use the tools. And my sole objective is to neutralize the propaganda.

I am fair, but unbalanced.

I could, of course, flame the fans of race or culture-war in the US, as some do.

And some people might consider some of my posts as tending in that direction. But I’m not interested in culture-wars, except as they are war-gamed by the elites.

I deconstruct homosexual propaganda, only because sexual “liberation” has long been the front behind which the global order brainwashes the young to turn against the very traditions that would protect them from the pathology of that order. For the rest, my beliefs  do not require anyone else to subscribe to them.

As for consistency, my political positions on war, the police state, and the government have stayed the same, but in the course of writing and reading, I’ve changed from staunchly pro-choice to strongly pro-life. I’ve gone from being a Christian skeptic to a believing Christian.  I’ve gone from being an ardent Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell anarcho-capitalist to a traditionalist conservative, but an antiwar, small government conservative. I have become sympathetic to the men’s rights movement (the part that the elites haven’t co-opted).

That is the nature of the intellectual life.  One learns. One grows; sometimes, down, but hopefully, up.

My old posts are up there for everyone to see, revisions, corrections and all. The things I got right, the things I got wrong (pro-choice,).

I link the Hindu right-wing when I think they are right. When they are wrong, I don’t link them.  I link others. Is that hard to understand?

Not if you think that truth is more important than ideology.

And that truth, in the realm of politics, doesn’t exist outside a context or a history.  And  what one takes to be context or where one starts one’s history is not just personal preference but judgment, which is objective and true, but not in an ideological sense. In fact, it requires the abandonment of ideology.