Archive for the ‘war’ Category

UN Peacekeeping

Wednesday, March 15th, 2017

Trump proposes radical cuts in US taxpayer funding for the UN, and in particular and especially, “Peacekeeping”

Now if you are a typical reader of this blog, your reflexive assumption is likely to be that “Peacekeeping” is code for mass murder, terror, and artificial famine.

A major part of our peacekeeping is Ivory Coast, where we “democratically” installed some guy with extensive connections to Harvard and the UN, but no particular connection to Ivory Coast, in power.

This was democratic because of population replacement. The people lost the confidence of the UN, so the UN elected a new people, importing the new people and expelling and dispossessing the old people.

OK, that is not mass murder and artificial famine, though it certainly is and was terror. But peacekeeping in the Congo (now wound down) was, for the most part, mass murder, terror, and artificial famine.

Another significant part of our current peacekeeping is Haiti, which is not mass murder and terror, but it is, or very recently was, artificial famine.

If you are an empire, you have to do this sort of stuff from time to time. And if you are an empire that is pretending it is not an empire, you have to do this sort of stuff one hell of a lot more that you would if you just put proconsuls openly in charge of your protectorates.

Of course if the world was not an empire, there would be chaos, and other actors would be creating mass murder, terror, and artificial famine. But they would be the ones paying for it.

The solution we do not want.

Wednesday, March 8th, 2017

One of my commenters asks “Why not just become Muslim?”

I presume he means conservative Muslim, since a whole lot of Muslims are pozzed, are not breeding and not getting any pussy.

That is the Mormon solution (control women’s socialization) plus the orthodox Jewish solution (make female status artificially low), plus the ever popular individual male solution (illegal violence or the quiet potential for it) plus you turn off the Cathedral’s ever vigilant immune system plus you have a pre-existing community. (Just grow a wildman beard, attend mosque, and you are in like Flynn.) If you want to marry those eighteen year old socially conservative virgins, you need high socioeconomic status (they are in high demand), which leads to a problem with the wildman beard (tricky to have high socioeconomic status with the wildman beard), but that one is easier to navigate than political correctness, plus if you are Muslim you get a pass for all political incorrectness relating to gays and women. No one is going to ask a Halal bakery to bake a gay wedding cake. I see a lot of engineers putting on a dress and declaring that they are trans women in order to get ahead. Declaring yourself to be a Muslim almost makes you trans brown. Should be almost as good for your career as declaring yourself a trans woman, a whole lot better for your sex life than declaring yourself a trans woman, and the wildman beard is not nearly as bad as the dress. You also get a free pass to be manly, which helps with the ridiculous beard. If you lift iron and do a little bit of high intensity training, the beard will not look quite as bad.

Plus this is the solution we are going to get if we don’t do anything dramatic, if we continue to drift along our present course, if the passengers don’t attack the cockpit and kill whoever is flying the plane to its doom. Wherever we get data on Muslim births in Western countries the data shows that Muslims are massively outbreeding the natives. I assume this is conservative Muslims, since anecdote suggests that pozzed Muslims have the same dreadfully low reproductive rate as pozzed Jews. Islam is quietly becoming the official religion, in that sacrilege against Islam effectively carries the death penalty (in most western countries if you drop bacon on the pavement outside a mosque the judge will give you a jail term comparable to that which he gives for raping and murdering small children, and while you are in jail some Muslims will kill you while the prison authorities turn a blind eye, like the blind eye Berkeley police turn to black bloc beating up pro-trump protestors) while sacrilege against Christianity is almost mandatory: (Gay wedding cake, Church required to pay for abortions, Pope kisses the feet of aids infested homosexual transvestite prostitutes, government funded sacrilegious “art”, free pass for gays and feminists to physically attack Christians and disrupt religious services.)

So, you ask, what is not to like?

What is not to like is that when Islam conquers a civilization, that civilization dies. When people talk about the great achievements of Islamic civilization, they are actually talking about the achievements of peoples enslaved by Muslims, and what remained of their libraries after the Muslims finished looting them for toilet paper and kindling.

The Trinity is God the father who, though he might seem pretty mean to merely mortal perception, is limited by law and logic, the God that can command genocide, but cannot lie, thus is compatible with science, a more approachable God the son, who is wholly man and wholly God, who experienced every suffering that mortal flesh suffers, including the sense of abandonment by God, and the Holy spirit, who talks to people.

Because the Christian God the Father imposes limits upon himself, unlike Allah, science is possible, and Christians do not have to say “God willing” all the time. The limitless and arbitrary caprice of Allah makes science impious, and promises impious. A good Christian says “I will do so and so”, and then does it. A good Muslim says “I will do so and so, God willing”, and then very likely does not do it.

If the Christian God decides to create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, then he cannot lift it. Allah cannot create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. Kind of like playing Solitaire. There is nothing preventing you or God from cheating at solitaire, but then there would be no point to the game. The Christian God not only throws dice, he throws dice where even he cannot see them. He is omniscient but we have free will. Allah, on the other hand, cheats at Solitaire. Hence no Islamic science.

The Christian God the Father cannot lie. The Muslim Allah lied all the time. During Mohammed’s career, Allah would declare one thing, that was convenient for Mohammed at the time, and then when convenient for Mohammed, would declare a different thing. Which is why science and promises are impious if you are a sincere Muslim.

Judeo Christianity sucks. We need Christian Christianity. The trouble with Judaism is that they keep reinventing their religion all the time to accommodate the times and the surrounding society, as any group in exile must, but keep torturing their holy texts to prove that they are not reinventing their religion. This results in an alarmingly creative attitude to truth, promises, and contracts. A negro or a Muslim will just casually break a promise or a contract. A Jew will not break a promise or contract outright, but he is apt to find, and with great chutzpah proclaim, an ingenious and surprising meaning for the promise, the bet, or the contract, much as he is apt to find, and with great chutzpah proclaim, an ingenious and surprising meaning for the words of his holy books. Hence the failure of Orthodox Jews to contribute much to science, compared to prog, atheist, and agnostic Jews, who have contributed immensely to science. Almost every Jew who has made important scientific progress finds the Orthodox Jew twisting and torturing his holy books to be rather ridiculous.

It also means that Judeo Christianity is not really capable of resisting progressivism. I have had a debate with by Jewish commenters as to whether Jewish Orthodoxy or Christianity is better and resisting progressivism, and I ask, where is the Jewish Phil Robertson?

Christianity inherits its solution to theodicity from the Jews in substantial part.
1. Evil exists because of human and satanic choices, free will. Genesis: Fall of man in the Garden of Eden was caused by, and caused, consequences remarkably similar to those one would expect in a universe of where natural selection and evolutionary psychology are true.
2. God allows evil because God is trying us, wants to see what we are made of, wants us to make hard choices that really matter. Book of Job.
3. The goodness and greatness of God is beyond mortal comprehension. If it does not make sense to us, if it looks to us that God is a mean bastard, hard biscuit. Book of Job.

But Christianity also inherited the Greek philosophers’ concept of the unnamed one god, God as the underlying cause, reason, and logic of the universe.
4. God created an orderly universe of cause and effect, and thus mere flesh and blood is apt to get squished as the cold logic of the universe unfolds.

You will notice that these features of Christianity support a world where truth is spoken, promises are kept, and science is actually scientific. Which is a big part of why it was Christians that made the scientific and Industrial Revolutions, not Jews and not Muslims, why it will be Christians that settle space and conquer the universe. (Maybe atheists are better at building rocket ships, but they will not have the children to fly those rocket ships to new worlds and settle them.)

What we need to do is import the good parts of Islam into Christianity: Patriarchy, repression of women, execution of homosexuals, holy war, intolerance of sacrilege, intolerance of heresy, and intolerance of apostacy. Retain the good bits of Christianity, the trinity, the attitude to logic, reason and law, the Orthodox communion of the saints, where the final authority on faith, doctrine, interpretation of the bible, and morals, is ancient Christians. Keep the Episcopalian married clergy, plus Episcopalian subordination to earthly authority. Decorate the result with a few Episcopalian symbols and call the result Episcopalianism, and make it the official state religion of the US empire in place of progressivism, with all other religions subordinated to it, second class, and unequally backed by the state. In school, kids get taught that official Episcopalianism is wise, good, and right, and all other religions are stupid, much as today they are taught that official progressivism is wise, good, and right, and all other religions (except possibly Islam) are stupid and evil.

We always have an official state religion: As Boldmug tells us:
The trouble is basically that sovereignty is conserved. If you try to design a political system that discards some element of sovereignty, like the right of the state to promote truth and suppress error, a parallel, informal state will rush into this gap and fill it.

Since control over information is incredibly powerful in the age of broadcast media, this parallel state will become the strongest organ in the actual government. It will be completely irresponsible and unaccountable, since it’s not even part of the official state. But there is no political, economic, or intellectual check on its operations. Once again, sovereignty is conserved.

This sovereign information-delivery system naturally assumes the religious imperiousness we expect from an intellectual sovereign. It is also disorganized, centerless and leaderless, which means there is no possible way for it to feel pity or shame. Sound familiar?

There is no way to disestablish religion. It’s just an unsolvable engineering problem. If the state disavows its religious authority, all it’s doing is disavowing control over that authority. Which leaves said authority in a perfect position to control the state. So the nominal objective of separating church and state leads naturally to the theocratic state. This is not a new phenomenon in Anglo-American history.

Even if you don’t care about quality of government, but just about quality of thought, putting the church in charge of the state — ie, the nerds in charge of the jocks — has a nasty effect on quality of thought. Thought is distorted not by the repulsive force of a fascist jock state that discriminates against nerds, but rather by the attractive force that offers free power to power-craving nerds.

The state which disavows religion is basically a flawed engineering structure that’s leaking power. The power leak has a horrific evolutionary effect on the nerd population, basically favoring sniveling, student-government weasels over good sensible open-minded people. Noticed anything like this around you? Anyone? Bueller?

This is only one of many reasons why humanity flourishes under leaders who unite both nerd and jock qualities, ie, true aristocracies, and has serious difficulties when these qualities are opposed or even just divided.

Anarcho capitalism is apt to tempt some more cohesive group, like Muslims, to come in and kill the men, and take your property and women, and separation of church and state is apt to lead to a hostile and cohesive religion taking over your state. Progressivism took over from Christianity, and in due course Islam will take over from progressivism.

Back in the seventeenth century, the Church was the mainstream media and the education system, and Charles the first appointed the archbishop and the Bishops, and the Church damn well taught what he wanted. The puritans, of course, felt this was a very bad thing, and were all in favour of religious freedom (except that they agreed that atheists and Roman Catholics should be executed) In 1640, they seized power, Bishops were in effect abolished, and the Established Church was formally stripped of almost all its power – while informally becoming Puritan, a hundred times as powerful, a hundred times as intrusive, and a hundred times as oppressive. Formally and officially the Puritans brought freedom of conscience, informally and unofficially they brought brutal religious repression.

Which is pretty much what we have today, except that today’s Puritans are holier than God.

In 1660 Charles the second returned, bringing with him official formal theocracy. The Archbishop crowns the King, and the King appoints the Archbishop. The Archbishop tells the Bishops what to say and think, the Bishops tell the priests what to say and think, and the priests tell the assembled congregations what to say and think. The British people celebrated this enthusiastically, recognizing the formal theocracy as abolishing informal theocracy. They celebrated by engaging in pagan festivals such as maypole dancing, that had been cruelly suppressed by the Puritans.

If we are openly ditching the first amendment, what about the second? Well, it turns out it is mighty difficult to deny organized hostile groups arms, so you might as well allow your support base to carry arms, as in Iraq. Ideas are more powerful than guns. The dictator Sadam Hussein of Iraq did not allow his people ideas, but he did allow them full auto military style weapons. Looks like he knew what he was doing.

All married property owning men, all soldiers, all cops, all authorized mercenaries, all rentacops, and all security watchmen should be allowed to keep and bear arms, because in a well functioning society, that is the ruler’s base of support. He looks after them, and they look after him. The rest, probably not. Not single men, nor men without property, because they have nothing to lose, and therefore will likely fail to defend society and uphold order. Guards and suchlike have been vetted that they will protect protect property and order, so should be allowed to keep and bear arms even if they do not have wives and property.

Dumping Flynn

Tuesday, February 14th, 2017

Dumping Flynn looks weak and will encourage the left to go after more scalps. And the people that were after Flynn are seeking war with Russia and Syria. War is easy, peace is hard, for it is always easier to create disorder than maintain order.

But, on the other hand, Flynn was expendable. On studying his career, I find he was a neocon, and an advocate of Coin (counter insurgency warfare). There is no such thing as counter insurgency warfare. There is only warfare. The stronger force wins, the weaker force loses, unless a large outside power (the Soviet Union or the United States State Department) has its thumb on the scales. In warfare, you don’t worry all that much about hearts and minds, for if you have to choose between being loved and being feared, you choose to be feared. If choosing to be loved was a realistic option, it would not be war. It would be social work.

If every time someone shoots at you from a girl’s school, you incinerate the school with girls and teachers inside, people stop shooting at you from girl’s schools. Or, more likely, the girls decide to skip attending school for the duration of the war.

The reason the Taliban has defeated the US in Afghanistan is that the US forces are infested with lawyers, the political commissars of the State Department, while the Taliban is not. The Taliban has the close equivalent of lawyers, priests, but their priests are interested in winning, they are warrior priests, while the State Department, the Blue Empire, is more interested in defeating the Pentagon, the Red Empire, than defeating the Taliban. If one side is fighting by police rules, and the other fighting by warrior rules, of course the warriors will defeat the police.

So quite possibly Trump initially chose Flynn as a compromise candidate, to sooth his enemies until his Pentagon powerbase is more secure, and is merely ditching him earlier than planned.

The hard core Trumpist position is that Russia should be allowed to be Russia, rather than being forced to accept progressivism, but Muslims should be smacked around till they stop making war on us. To get the Pentagon behind this position, he needs to do a Grenada – decisively defeat some penny ante bunch of Islamic extremists, preferably in cooperation with Russia. Maybe set up safe zones in Syria with the cooperation of the Russian and Syrian government.

After the Flight 93 election

Saturday, February 4th, 2017

Comes the hour, comes the man. Trump, vivat rex, is president, and may well take the throne and save America from catastrophe.

But what happened at Berkeley University when Milo attempted to give a talk shows that winning, we can never afford to lose again – if there is danger we might lose, we cannot afford a free and fair election, for the left intends to devour us. The stakes are now too high to allow democratic elections to continue. A single defeat will be absolutely permanent and fatal. Once in power they will utterly crush us, and never give white males a chance to regain power. So we have to do them before they do to us.

They have stopped listening, they will not hear. So, inevitably they fear us, demonize us, and will attack us, are beginning to attack us. Berkeley is Krystalnacht for “racists”. We therefore have to attack them, in a more organized, efficient, systematic, and deadly fashion, to ensure that they will never regain political power.

The attacks in Berkeley were done under the protection of a police no arrest policy and where there is a police no arrest policy, you can be pretty sure that the person issuing those orders to the police, is the same person issuing orders to the rioters, and that destruction and the conflict between police and rioters has been scripted and choreographed, usually by someone who loathes and despises rank and file cops.

You can also be sure that if we did the obvious thing and organized some brownshirts to protect our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, the original purpose of Hitler’s brownshirts, that no arrest policy would be instantly dropped.

So, if brownshirts are out, then blackshirts. Fortunately Trump, vivat rex, is president

Trump, vivat rex, has threatened Berkeley funding, and his FBI (yes, the FBI is mostly loyal) is examining that no arrest order and examining Berkeley for complicity in organizing the riots.

Imagine if Hillary was president. Then any campus that did have an arrest policy would be getting the black-lives-matter treatment from the justice department, and pretty soon there would be a no-arrest consent agreement to allow antifa to beat people up and set fire to stuff.

Once you have the terrorists out of the cockpit, you do not let more terrorists board the plane on the next stop. If they had won this election, their victory would have been permanent and irreversible. They would have crushed us with physical violence, and brought in a hundred million black male military age Muslim voters to maintain the superficial appearance of democracy. If they win any subsequent election, their victory will also be permanent and irreversible.

The basic theory of democracy is that instead of holding a civil war, every so often you count heads, declare who would have won if you had actually held a civil war, and proceed in a civilized manner, thus avoiding a lot of death and destruction. But if you count women and blacks you are not really doing this. Further, if one side will not listen to the other, and thus inevitably demonizes the other, you are not going to get enough civility for the losers to peacefully acquiesce. The left is not civil enough for us to peacefully acquiesce. Should we hold an election and they win, we just cannot afford to yield power, so best not to hold anything like a fair election.

Politics, they say, is war by other means. With “no platforming” it has become war by familiar means. If they have the power, they will not allow us a platform. We have the power, we dare not allow them a platform.

Poll on the Jewish Problem

Friday, January 27th, 2017

The Jewish Problem

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Analysis of the shooting near Milo’s talk.

Sunday, January 22nd, 2017

I examined the video frame by frame.

At nine seconds, Yellow Hat is walking swiftly and calmly through the crowd of thugs blocking access to Milo’s speech, and no one pays him any attention. He appears to be just another protester helping block access.

At 17 seconds Bald Man suddenly starts running towards him, and Yellow Hat abruptly starts backing away

At 19 seconds, a big yell goes up from the crowd. Yellow Hat appears to be being beaten up by the much larger Bald Man, or possibly more than one much larger man, and is fleeing, dodging, and zig zagging.

He is trying to evade Bald Man, and Bald Man is pursuing. It looks like some more people are joining in to cut off Yellow Hat’s escape.

At 26 seconds, Yellow hat is not facing towards Bald Man, who is right behind him in hot pursuit, but rather facing towards another man who appears to be moving into the path of Yellow Hat’s escape, so that Yellow Hat is trapped between Bald Man whom he is fleeing, and people moving into his path. Possibly several men are moving to intercept Yellow Hat. One man is advancing towards him hands outstretched as if to grab him, another hits him with a piece of cloth, perhaps a crumpled up banner. At 27 seconds a shot rings out. Bald Man falls, and Yellow hat reverses course, paying absolutely no attention to the fallen Bald Man, and retreating from the man he was facing when the shot was fired. Yellow Hat runs towards a group of left wing banners.

Either someone else shot Bald Man to take the pressure off Yellow Hat, or Yellow Hat shot Bald Man while glancing at him out of the corner of his eye in order to give himself a path of retreat. Yellow Hat did not look at Bald Man immediately before, during, or immediately after the shot, yet his reversal or course indicates he was aware that Bald Man had suddenly ceased to be a threat, and that he was now ignoring Bald Man because he had far more urgent problems.

Immediately after the shot, we see a big bunch of people with black masks over their heads and faces run from behind the camera towards the place where Bald Man was shot. Black masks being a pretty good indication of bad intent. Whether by accident or design, Bald Man had been chasing Yellow Hat towards the place the black masks appeared from. To the left of camera, everyone starts looking at the place the black masks came from, like there is something there much more important than a mere shooting.

In conclusion, leftie on leftie violence. Either Yellow Hat shot Bald Man in self defense, or someone else shot Bald Man to take the heat off Yellow Hat, fearing Yellow hat was about to suffer grave harm, possibly at the hands of the black masks. Probably Judean People’s Front versus the People’s Front of Judea. What do you expect when you hang out with violent thugs? Maybe everyone involved was a bad guy, but the one who got the bullet was the one who attacked first, unless a different bald man got popped in the confusion. Looks like justice on the face of it. Back in the sixties and early seventies I noticed that radical left organizations had a mysterious unfortunate mystery death rate similar to that of Clinton Associates.

Police fine with left wing violence

Saturday, January 21st, 2017

Milo attempted to give a talk. Leftists arrived to blockade the talk and prevent people from entering. The blockade was allowed to succeed, in that only those who came early got in. People who merely arrived on time were prevented from entering.

Bricks, firecrackers and paint were thrown at officers and others — and then a gunshot rang out.

Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole said there were no arrests and no serious injuries other than the shooting on the UW campus. “Things went well,” she said

Evidently I am a bit old fashioned, but it seems to me that if bricks are thrown, and people are prevented from going where they wish by violence and the threat of violence, there damn well should have been some arrests.

If you allow violence, violence will escalate. Hence the shooting. My guess is that someone who was unaware of events was suspected of attempting to attend the meeting, probably wrongly, was attacked, and defended himself. Because that is what happens when some privileged people are allowed to engage in violence with impunity. The police presence is to not to keep ordinary people safe, but to enable impunity, to keep those who are attacking people safe.

Smoke grenades and such are merely providing the drama to entertain violent people. Violent people need to be arrested and removed from society.

Seeking war with Russia

Wednesday, January 18th, 2017

I have been reading the rationales for actions and policies likely to lead to nuclear war with Russia, and they are incoherent, absurd, and make no sense. They are obviously post hoc rationalizations. The person posting wants war, and looks for justifications until he finds something that is socially acceptable and that he can pretend makes sense. They use Argumentum Ad Baculum (we need to blow up Russia or I will call you a ignoramus and a nazi and destroy your career), Argumentum ad Misericordiam (the guys we sent to destroy Aleppo and murder the Alawites are being bombed), Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (you cannot prove the Russian are not attacking our democracy), Argumentum ad Verecundiam (the CIA says so), Argumentum ad Hominem (Trump is stupid, hateful, and rapes women, therefore we need to go to war with Russia), and Non Sequitur (Hitler caused World War II by invading Poland, therefore we should go to war with Russia over the Ukraine).

Obviously, these people want war for some reason unspeakable and unthinkable even to themselves

Remember when Pussy Riot trashed a Russian Orthodox Cathedral, and the Russian government treated them like thieves and whores?

US government, professorial, and mainstream media reaction was that Pussy Riot is high status, and Christians are low status, therefore Christians should stop offending Pussy Riot, rather than that Pussy Riot should stop offending Christians – pretty much the same reaction as when left wingers riot to shut down right wingers.

Well if Russia treats people like Pussy Riot and the European University as low status, maybe they are low status, and if Pussy Riot and the European University are low status, then the people making arguments likely to lead to nuclear war with Russia are also low status, since they are the same sorts as Pussy Riot and the European University. Nuclear war with Russia would erase this threat to their status – assuming that US nuclear weapons are still mostly functional, which they believe but which I do not believe.

Progressive Jews divorce Israel and religious Jews.

Saturday, January 14th, 2017

German court calls torching a synagogue free speech against Israel. Arsonists get suspended sentences, which is to say, go unpunished.

If you say that the holocaust was not exactly as officially depicted, that is not free speech, but an act of hate. Molotov cocktails, however are OK.

Trump against the spooks

Thursday, January 12th, 2017

Some of the spy agencies are loyal the red empire, some to the blue. I have reason to believe that Five Eyes and No Such Agency are loyal to the red empire, but it is mighty hard to tell, because, hey, they are secret.

However the people that have been overthrowing regimes are totally blue agency. You can tell that tree is poisonous from its poisoned fruit.

And this apparatus, the apparatus that destroys regimes, is now turned against Trump. The story that Trump had golden showers in Moscow was reissued to the press, given authority, and made into news, by the organization that briefs him that it was Putin that stole the Democrats emails and gave them to Wikileaks to publish.

At the end of his press conference Trump tells us:

I have many meetings with intelligence. And every time I meet, people are reading about it. Somebody’s leaking it out. So, there’s — maybe it’s my office. Maybe in my office because I have a lot of people, a lot of great people. Maybe it’s them. And what I did is I said I won’t tell anybody. I’m going to have a meeting and I won’t tell anybody about my meeting with intelligence.

And what happened is I had my meeting. Nobody knew, not even Rhona, my executive assistant for years, she didn’t know — I didn’t tell her. Nobody knew. The meeting was had, the meeting was over, they left. And immediately the word got out that I had a meeting.

So what happens is that the spooks meet Trump, tell him propaganda designed to legitimize the overthrow of his government, then report to the press propaganda designed to legitimize the overthrow of his government as the official findings of the spy agency, which Trump stubbornly and unreasonably refuses to accept.