Migrant Mayhem

The increasing fallout from the mass inflow of migrants from N. Africa and the Mideast due to US aggression has created a refugee crisis not seen since WW2.

Europe is being swamped daily with boat-loads of migrants who risk their lives to escape the violence of their homelands. Many have given up everything they owned to pay their way to Europe, and some have paid the ultimate price by drowning at sea.

It’s clear that this migrant crisis is the fault of the US and their misguided, rotten allies. From Afghanistan to Libya to Ukraine, US aggression and regime change in pursuit of world hegemony has created chaos and death in its wake.

All the countries and peoples’ whom the US ‘helped’ have turned into failed states with broken economies, no public safety, and no future for the people affected.

What we are seeing in Syria today is a direct consequence of US meddling, and sponsoring of violent militant groups which the US and their cohorts trained, armed, funded and encouraged to go to Syria and overthrow the government.

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the west about this. He told them to leave Syria alone, that any attempts at regime change will result in bad consequences.

But the US doesn’t listen to reason. The further accumulation of power, control, and the wealth of other nations is all that matters to these demented inbreds in Washington, and their silly little European lap-dogs.

By pursing its mad dreams of world domination, the US has caused a crisis for multiple nations, including its allies in Europe. Certainly Europe bears responsibility for their current refugee problems. EU governments take orders from the US, and are members of the NATO terror club. That makes them equally responsible.

The question is: why does Europe allow itself to be dragged into this mess by the US? Haven’t they been paying attention to US actions and their ugly consequences for the past fifteen years? Why can’t they summon the courage and decency to stand up to the US and stop being accomplices to Washington’s horrendous crimes? With each stupid idea Europe allows the US to shove down their throats, things only go from bad to worse.

Europe has not yet recovered since the economic meltdown of 2008, yet it keeps on swallowing Uncle Scam’s putrid cum every time he has an orgasm of war. It swallowed the Iraqi load, Libyan load, Syrian load, Ukrainian load. As a result, Europe’s economy has become worse, and now it will have millions of new foreign mouths to feed and provide for. It may also cause ethnic tensions.

This sad state in Europe will continue until Europe has leaders and governments who are intelligent, patriotic, and have the courage to cut the bleeding and decaying umbilical cord between Europe and the US. Until that happens, they can only expect more of the same.

What did these European countries think? That their membership in the EU and NATO clubs is going to be all peaches and cream? That it’s all foreign investments, protection, dollars, feel-good propaganda, and some kind of a warped sense of prestige?

Oh no, no, no! As with any club membership, there’s a price to be paid for all these ‘benefits.’ Nothing is free.

Now the bill for Europe’s foolish and misguided collusion with the criminal regime in Washington, DC has come due.

As if on que, the neo-con filth, along with their deluded liberal interventionist buddies and the starry-eyed morons in the general population are once again trotting out their old discredited, failed, and dishonest arguments about ‘responsibility to protect,’ and are screaming that the world ‘must do something’ about this flow of migrants. Of course, such concerns do not exist when it comes to the people in E. Ukraine who are bombed by the Kiev junta.

What do the neo-cons want to do about this ‘crisis?’

They want to get rid of Bashar Al Assad, who they accuse of being the source of ‘evil’ in the region, and are accusing him of causing the refugee crisis.

These neo-con criminals want the Libya solution to be applied to Syria. They want to overthrow the government so they can ‘save’ the poor Syrians.

Yes! Like they ‘saved’ the poor Libyans by bombing their country, overthrowing the government, and murdering Muammar Gaddafi.

And what was the result of this US/NATO ‘protection’ of Libya?

Thousands of dead civilians, the same ones the US swore to ‘protect.’ The country was overran by ISIS-type militants, and descended into anarchy, chaos, and economic destitution. It has been there ever since.

Have people already forgotten the FACT that it was US/NATO ‘humanitarian’ intervention which CREATED the refugee crisis and turned Libya into a failed state in the first place? Are people so fucking dumb that they don’t see this?

What has been the result of the US intervening in Syria? For a year now the US and its allies have been bombing ISIS with nothing to show for it. ISIS is now stronger, and has made more gains, thanks to US intervention.

To add insult to injury, the US is also deliberately hampering the efforts of forces which are truly fighting ISIS, namely the Syrian Arab Army, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias, and other pro-Syrian government fighters.

Furthermore, how is the so-called US ‘coalition’ against ISIS supposed to work? After all, isn’t this coalition made up of countries which have been quietly sponsoring and arming these ISIS militants in the first place? How can there be an effective coalition against ISIS when members of said coalition are sympathetic to ISIS?

But when forces which truly want to fight ISIS, and have been effective in doing so, want to join this anti-ISIS coalition, they’re told they can’t, are shunned, and are accused by the US of ‘destabilizing the region,’ ‘engaging in terrorism,’ and ‘war crimes.’

What is the US aim in all this? Is it to fight and defeat ISIS, or regime change? Judging by its behavior and that of its allies, the latter seems to be the case. The US is just doing so by stealth, and falsely claiming that they’re just ‘fighting ISIS.’

After all, the US and its allies are the creators of ISIS. The US invasion of Iraq gave birth to this group. 3-4 years ago the US and some Arab autocracies, along with Turkey started training, arming, and encouraging these freaks to go into Syria and fight the government.

It seems the US is helping ISIS more than it’s fighting it.

But as with all US misadventures in pursuit of world control, this one has backfired. Now Russia has sent advisers, trainers, and equipment to Syria to help it fight ISIS.

What is the US reaction to this?

They’re screaming that ‘Russia has invaded Syria!’ and that ‘Russia is destabilizing the region.’ This coming from a nation that has openly supported lunatic rebels, and has publicly called for the overthrow of multiple governments.

Syria asked for Russia’s help, so Russia is providing it. If this constitutes a Russian invasion of Syria, then all US and NATO military assistance for Kiev is also a US/NATO invasion of Ukraine, right?

But the real reason behind all this angry whining and vituperations against Russian assistance for the Syrian government and military is that with Russia backing Syria, US efforts at regime change will be fruitless. It will mean serious reversals for ISIS and other anti-government groups. It will also mean that Assad is here to stay, and eventually he (and Russia) will be a part of any solution to this US-manufactured crisis.

The US must be forced to act in a civilized and decent manner, no matter what.

As for the neo-cons and their failed policies, these criminals are screaming for the overthrow of the Syrian government to cover up their own mistakes and crimes.

These people have lied to the world, and have been proven wrong time and time again. They’re nervous that people will see through their criminal bullshit. So what do they do? They push the same old failed policies and looney stories and broken logic upon the world. They must distract the world from their failures by brainwashing and manipulating people into accepting more of the same.

These filthy neo-con creatures like Perl, Krauthammer, Cheney and others also know that their authority and livelihoods depend on the constant application of their demented worldviews by those stupid enough to listen.

This time, though, they’ve ran into a brick wall. As with Iran, their Syria plans won’t be realized. This time they won’t get a free pass at the UN from an ambivalent Russia and China.

Above all, it must be kept in mind that this refugee crisis is the result of US and its allies’ meddling, aggression and destabilization, from Afghanistan to Ukraine and everywhere in between. It’s not the fault of Syria, Ghadaffi, Putin or anyone in Iran. This chaos is a US product.

Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar Al Assad both warned the US against sponsoring these rebel groups. Both individuals told the west that they’ll be sorry. It turned out that they were right.

And as with every mess created by the juvenile US, adults will have to clean it up.

If things keep on degenerating anymore, in the years ahead the EU will become overran with non-Europeans to the point that native Europeans will no longer want to, or be able to live there normally, and for safety may very well flock to Russia, which will be the last outpost of European civilization.

When this starts happening, itwill get very interesting.

Slave State Ukraine

The letter below is a response from US Senator Richard Durbin to the criminal Ukrainian junta PM Arseniy Yatseniuk.

Read it, and see if there's anything about this letter that strikes you as odd.

This letter is clear proof of who really runs the show in the Ukraine, and it's not the Ukrainians. Here we have a Ukrainian Prime Minister taking orders from a US senator about who should, and shouldn't be in a Ukrainian government post.

This letter says a lot about the sad state that Ukraine has plunged to. It's just one of countless pieces of evidence that clearly shows that the country is directed by foreign powers. 

It's also proof of who the Ukrainian government works for. If there was ever any doubt that the creatures who run Ukraine today aren't US-installed drones doing US political and economic bidding, then this letter puts that doubt to rest.

At the very least it shows how incompetent the current Ukrainian authorities are to seek direction from a foreign power about routine cabinet appointments.

Add to that the fact that the Ukrainian finance minister is an ex-US banker Natalie Jaresko, and the mayor of Odessa Region is Mikheil Saakashvilli, the Georgian ex-president who fled to the US to escape criminal charges in his native Georgia for corruption and abuse of power.

Ukraine, all the way from Porky Pig on down, is being ruled by a miserable line-up of losers and criminals financed and propped up by western governments. These pathetic fakes don't have an independent bone in their weak bodies. These pro-western elements have up to now racked up an impressive amount of criminal violations against their fellow citizens. 

Sooner or later they will be kicked out. When that day comes, we'll also see how much the US and EU truly care about 'Ukrainian peoples' democracy' when their Kievan sock puppets face expulsion and loss of power.

Some Thoughts on the MH17 Disaster

It is the Kiev regime and its western benefactors that had the most to gain from shooting down this plane. They blamed it on their two chief enemies, Russia and the rebels, who had nothing to gain and much to lose. When trying to find the guilty, the question 'who benefits' must be asked first and last. 

The MH17 crash has primarily benefited US geopolitical interests by forcing the EU to pass sanctions against Russia, freeze its assets, cancel the Mistral ship sale, as well as the South Stream gas pipeline project. Why would Russia deliberately do anything to cause such things to happen, and shoot itself in the foot? It's not in its interest.

Why was the plane rerouted over Donbass when on previous routes it flew near the Black Sea in S. Ukraine? Who made the decision to reroute the plane? Why did the Kiev regime allow non-military planes to fly over an active conflict zone? (bad weather is absolutely no excuse here)

These questions must be answered, and those who made these stupid and reckless decisions must be held accountable. The 'what' and 'who' brought the plane down is secondary at this point.

Why is the investigation taking so long? To date, it's been over a year. If Russia and/or the rebels were guilty, the US would've surely came out with all evidence proving this immediately. So what's the hold-up?

So far, the west has piled on heaps of accusations against Russia with no trace of credible evidence to back up any of it. Are they hiding something, or protecting someone?

The STILL Ugly American

I recently finished reading the book titled “The Ugly American.”

Although published in 1958 during the height of the cold war, and colored with the now-discredited ‘international communist conspiracy’ paranoia, the book does give an interesting insight into the workings of the US diplomatic corps overseas.

The book describes the bumbling, arrogance, cynicism, opportunistic careerism, and incompetence of US embassy diplomats, their American staff, and various ‘experts’ in Southeast Asia. The story starts in a fictitious country named Sarkhan, but also includes the real nearby nations of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

In the book, all these countries are backward and striving for development, and all face the ‘communist menace.’

The US ambassadors and other Americans there are pampered, privileged, untrained people who don’t bother associating with the regular natives or learning their language. These Americans stay within their comfortable embassy compounds, get whatever they need cheap at the US-built commissary and PX, and hob-nob with other American staff and French dignitaries at dinners and cocktail parties.

The book also tells the stories of Americans who really do want to make a difference for the better by starting small, spending little, and making the native peoples self-sufficient in producing what the need. They frown on the big multi-million-dollar projects that aren't practical and which don’t do anything to address the basic necessities of the peasants in the country who can barely eke out a subsistence living.

The book is fictional, but it’s based on real-life experiences of the authors, who served in diplomatic positions overseas.

There are some sobering chapters on how the US diplomatic corps operates, and why it failed more often than it succeeded.

One story deals with a man who spent time in the countryside talking with Cambodian peasants. He saw that they could really benefit from getting a stock of chickens from the US which would improve their native ones, and get more eggs out of them. This would increase the peoples protein intake, making them more productive.

He came up with a plan to just that, but when he presented it to the US ambassador and the Cambodian government, they shot it down in favor of ‘big’ (read expensive and profitable) projects like a multi-lane highway (in a country with very little vehicular traffic) and military aid.

When the man said he’d go back to Washington to complain, he was hustled by a French officer who took him on a tour of Asian countries, France, and back to New York, all expenses paid. The man was wined, dined, given expensive gifts all the way home.

After he arrived back in the US, he didn’t think writing a letter of complaint was worth it anymore. It’s not hard to see what happened here.

Another story involves a US Navy Captain, a weapons expert, who was to attend a very important conference where military aid and weapons would be discussed. At the same time he also met a Chinese lady who studied in the states, as well as in a school on the ‘outskirts of Moscow.’ He ended up having an affair with the lady, which distracted him so much that he made a fool of himself at the conference, and insulted all the Asian attendees with his lack of attention. The conference was a failure.

There are other stories where good ideas and good advice given by people who genuinely cared was ignored or even reprimanded in favor of the ‘big picture,’ namely politics, propaganda, and various officials career prospects in Washington.

There are things that this book teaches, but also things that it omits. Part of the reason is that it came out in the late 1950s, a decade before the worst excesses and failures of the Vietnam war.

The book’s positive attributes are:

1. It admits that US diplomatic corps personnel are driven by self-interest, propaganda, and career prospects

2. US diplomatic staff are ignorant of the country they serve in. They don’t know the local language, customs, traditions, and don’t spend any time with the native populations. They only associate with the wealthy and influential English-speaking elites

3. Aid efforts are concentrated on big projects that benefit the pockets of US-based companies which reap great profits from supplying equipment and materials, and serve pro-US propaganda purposes

4. Very little, if any projects are undertaken to genuinely help the native people by teaching them to become self-sufficient by starting and running their own industries

5. The admission that the Russians were better at engaging the populations of the countries where they had a diplomatic presence. The Russian ambassador knew the language and customs of the country he served in, and so did his staff, which was all Russian. The Russians also sent their workers to live among the people and teach them basic techniques for farming and automation so they could be self-sufficient

6. It admitted that the writings and tactics of major communist revolutionaries like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were valuable information that should be studied by western diplomats, not ignored

The book’s negative attributes are:

1. It tends to label those who resist westerners as ‘communists.’ It never considers those ‘communists’ as people who are simply fighting to be free of foreign control and colonization

2. It never makes the connection between hatred of the west and embrace of communism, which is quite simple: the people in Southeast Asia were colonized, oppressed, and exploited by westerners, not Russians Therefore, in the minds of the people everything associated with the west, especially the capitalist system, was seen as bad. These people then saw that Russia and communism also were against the western system. Russians also offered real help on the ground where the Americans wouldn’t go. This made Russia and communism look good. This is why countries like Laos and Vietnam gravitated toward socialism. The enemy of their enemy was their friend.

3. It never asked why the US seems compelled to occupy, and order a country half a world away to do things their way. It’s very involvement in a country’s internal affairs is testimony to America’s disregard for real freedom of those countries

This book politely admits that the Russian and communist ways of operating were more effective because the Russians associated with the common people.

When we add the experience of the Vietnam war to the mix, it only reinforces the above fact with another very important one: It was the westerners, first the French then the Americans, who bombed, killed, and devastated while saying they’re there to ‘help.’ The Russians didn’t fire a single bullet in Vietnam. This is the chief reason why the US lost in Vietnam. Its actions contradicted its words and propaganda, while the Russians supported the Vietnamese from a distance, both economically and militarily. 


The Vietnamese weren't fighting so much for communism as they were against colonialism. The US failed to learn from the mistakes of the french before them, and ended up being much worse than the French.

This book also presents another important, but unfortunate reality about Americans.

There are intelligent Americans that genuinely care about others, and truly want to help. The problem was, and is, that these types of Americans are a scant, unnoticed—and ignored--minority.

The majority of Americans are ignorant, self-centered fools who don’t give a shit about the world, and those their government exploits and hurts.

This sad tradition continues to this day, and in fact has gotten worse.
 
The US seems to have this notion that just because some country out there likes them, that that country is automatically willing to be exploited and abused by the US.

This kind of disgusting attitude isn’t winning the US any friends, and frankly has been responsible for more countries dissociating themselves from it.

The diplomatic shortcomings and lack of respect and professionalism of US diplomats described in this book haven’t changed. If anything, they've gotten more brazen.

The fallout and failures from such behavior are also sure to become more frequent.

The Fake Crisis Continues . . .

The P5+1 negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program are in their final stretch.

After following this issue since it first reared its fake head in 2003, it’s clearly obvious that this has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

Throughout these negotiations the US has been insisting on unreasonable and excessive demands from Iran, mainly the inspections of their military sites for any evidence of illicit, military-related nuclear work.

Iran has refused to allow this measure, and rightly so. After all, wasn’t the demand for inspections of Iraq’s military sites, under threat of US bombing, that led to the eventual regime change in 2003?

The world knows where the US is going with its demand for surprise, non-announced inspections of Iran’s military sites. This is all about espionage and recon of Iran’s military capabilities so that the Pentagon and Israhell, along with their EU whores, can size up Iran’s military capabilities for the eventual regime change bombing campaign.

Such access would allow US, the Zionist criminal mafia state, and their European vassals to inject spies and agents into the inspection teams to gather information, plant bugs, engage in sabotage, and get precise targeting information.

This is EXACTLY what happened in Iraq, and it’s the reason why in 1998 Saddam Hussein ordered all inspectors out of the country and blocked any further inspections until 2002.

But what if an agreement is signed, and Iran even allows inspections of its military sites? What can we expect from all this? 

1. It must be borne in mind that even if an agreement is signed, it will only end the nuclear-related sanctions. Sanctions that the US/EU passed on Iran based on self-serving politicized reasons such as ‘human rights,’ ‘sponsoring terrorism,’ etc., are still intact, and will continue to be. 

2. Will the US and its vassals, after signing the agreement, keep all the sanctions in place by simply finding other reasons for them such as the ones mentioned above? This will effectively tie Iran’s hands while providing virtually no sanctions relief. 

3. What guarantee does Iran have, if it allows inspections of military sites, that the US and its vassals won’t use Iran’s possession of ballistic missiles as an excuse to find Iran ‘in breach’ of the agreement, and therefore turn on the sanctions switch again? US will most likely argue that because the missiles can technically (although not truly) carry nuclear warheads, that they are illicit and must be scrapped. US will totally ignore evidence that Iran has no nuclear warheads to place on the missiles, though. This will be part of the plot to destroy Iran’s most effective conventional weapon since the US knows Iran has no nukes, and no nuclear weapons program. Without the ballistic missiles, it will be less risky to bomb Iran in the future.

I’m not very hopeful that the west will abide by whatever agreement it signs with Iran. After all, not long after Iran signed up to the interim agreement in 2013, the US and EU still enacted sanctions against Iran. They did so again earlier this year against Iranian banks. Never mind that Iran has faithfully abided by the interim agreement until now, and no evidence of illegal nuclear weapons-related work has been found.

There’s also a fly in the ointment, the pathetic US congress. This bunch of inept failures, willfully-ignorant know-nothings, and simple-minded extremists have insisted that any final deal with Iran be approved by them.

If it comes to that, and congress votes it down for whatever idiotic, zionist-inspired reasons, then the US will shame and embarrass itself. It will have only itself to blame for any and all consequences, and the world will know this. 

Originally, the US planned regime change in Iran not long after Iraq. But Iraq turned into such an embarrassing quagmire that those plans were put on-hold.

So the US trotted out more sanctions against Iran, hoping that this would make life for Iranian people so bad that they'd overthrow their government. US even attempted to use the 2009 Iranian elections to launch a color revolution. That didn't work, either.

After President Rouhani was elected, the negotiations were started. The US then decided to use the process to further regime change by attempting to trick and trap Iran, and giving back very little.

This hasn't worked, either. So now the US is making unreasonable and unfair demands which they know Iran won't agree to. The US plans to push those demands in order to force the Iranians to walk away first.

The US will then use this to show that Iran wasn't being serious, acted dishonestly and refused to cooperate. This Iranian 'non-cooperation' will then be used to scare the world and rally US vassals and other fools into another war against Iran.

If Iran does accept these demands, then the US will simply wait for Iran to be softened up militarily, then find some trivial excuse (real or made-up) to bomb and invade.

These so-called negotiations are just a ploy by the US to get what they want by non-military means: to subjugate Iran politically and economically. But if Iran doesn’t fall for any of the US tricks and refuses to get suckered, the US will most likely try the military route. Whether this will take the form of what was done to Iraq in 2003, or the form of ISIS, or some other CIA-manufactured terror group that will be let loose on Iran is still uncertain.  

Agreement or not, regime change in Iran was, is, and will be the aim of the US.  

The nuclear program was always just a cover.



UPDATE: Just found this tid-bit of news below on rt.com. It backs up perfectly what I stated in point #3!

7 July, 2015

16:06

Iran to face restrictions on missile program even if nuclear deal agreed - US

A senior US official has said Iran will continue to face restrictions on its missile program under an emerging nuclear agreement. Tehran will also be limited in trading conventional arms, the official added, as cited by Reuters. The official, who spoke under the condition of anonymity, said there were still differences between the two parties. The 5+1 group and Iran are still trying to reach a nuclear deal, which would restrict Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but in return Tehran would get relief from Western economic sanctions.

Source: rt.com

No Means No!

Thankfully, the Greek people have issued a resounding NO to the Eurocrat bankster mafia’s latest threats of financial fleecing of the country.

And why would Greeks make any other choice? After five years of depraved thievery by banksters from the EU/IMF/ECB, voting yes for more of the same would’ve been nothing less than collective national suicide.

The yes/no referendum in Greece was an excellent exercise in democracy, something that the rest of the EU is seemingly repelled by, judging from their admonitions and threats.

Now why wasn’t the Greek populace consulted like this back in 2010? It would’ve most likely prevented things from getting as bad as they have for Greece. But back then, Greece’s government didn’t care about the people, but only their wealthy supporters, within and outside Greece.

The decision by Alexis Tsipras to hold the referendum quickly was also a great move. Doing so deprived the Eurocrats from highjacking and manipulating the entire process in their favor.

If this referendum was held a month later, then by the time the polls opened the Eurocrat banksters would’ve had Greeks believing that they will be nuked from space by extra-terrestials if they didn’t vote yes.

But even with the short time the Eurocrats had they did make sleazy attempts at ad hoc disinformation and psy-ops by releasing so-called ‘opinion polls’ done by EU banks and pro-EU institutions and other non-official EU outfits that predicted a majority yes vote.

So there was some manipulation, but thankfully not long enough to brainwash and scare the Greek voters.

So now the ball is in the EU’s court. From the actions they will take the EU bosses will show everyone, once and for all, what the EU is really about, and where their priorities lie: the people or the banks.

This referendum was more than just about Greece. It was about what type of a Europe and world we shall live in. A yes vote would’ve told the EU bankster mafia that threats, pressure, financial fleecing, and rule by decree works, and this would then be applied to other nations.

By voting no, the Greeks nullified the Eurocrats project of perpetual debt servitude.

The Greek government now has a truly popular mandate to reject further economic rape of Greece. It’s now time for the EU to accept reality, and deal with Greece in a respectful manner that helps Greece, not hurts it further.

No more lies, threats, ultimatums and bluffs from Brussels. They have been called and rejected.

Confederate Flag Controversy

The Charleston, SC shootings have been the news lately.

As a result of the killings, there are increasing calls for the Confederate flag to be taken down in the state capital of Columbia.

This whole confederate flag/racism controversy is just yet another moldy reminder of how imbecilic US society has become.

If non-whites are so offended by the confederate flag and the negative policies and past that it represents for them, then what do Afghanis , Iraqis, and other victims of US 'regime change' think and feel when they see the US flag, and the evil is represents?

The US flag to date represents more blood, violence, pain, and carnage than the confederate flag ever will. Doesn't anyone see this?

Taking down the confederate flag won’t end racism. It will entrench it. It will only anger those who still support the flag’s display, and cause more divisions. It may even lead to future shootings, so those calling for its removal may want to think twice.

The problem here isn’t the Confederate flag and even what it represents to its opponents.

The problem here is the one that has existed in the US since the beginning, before it was even the US.

It’s the problem inherent in a multi-racial society.

Where there’s a society dominated by one type of race, and attempts are made to ship in people of other races among them, racism and racial tension is the natural and inevitable result.

It doesn't matter whether someone is racist or not; white or black.That's just the plain reality of living a multi-racial society.

No amount of feel-goods speeches, longing and praying for an ‘end to racism’ will change this.

Look what happened in S. Africa and Zimbabwe. Look what is happening in the US, and now Europe. This is the result when people, white or not, are taken out of their homeland and injected somewhere else, whether by force, bad circumstance or by choice. History shows that such experimentations don’t end well in the long-run. 

It’s funny how people in South Carolina are demanding the removal of the Confederate flag. My parents were there on vacation a few years ago and saw a black guy selling confederate flags as souvenirs.

Perhaps covering the whole thing up with money may dampen tempers. This seems to be the classic US fix, even if it doesn’t work.