The anti-anti reactionary FAQ: war and democide

Scott, good progressive that he is, assures us that with the rise of democracy, war has diminished.

He gets this bizarre conclusion in two ways:  By starting the clock at Zhang Xianzhong, after which violence diminished, and by starting the clock at World War II, after which violence diminished.

But Zhang Xianzhong was a radical leftist, not an emperor, and violence diminished after Zhang Xianzhong, because everyone was so horrified by the bloodthirsty record of leftism that they did not let it rise again for centuries,

Let us instead start the clock at the Restoration.  We then see wars and genocide getting steadily bigger and bloodier to World War II.

As the world got more demotic, war, and democide increased from the days of the Restoration until World War II, after which we got the pax atomica, the peace of terror, the nuclear peace. Things were, during the nuclear peace, if not quiet, comparatively quiet.

Then there is slavery:

Those mightily indignant about slavery that substantially increased the living standards of those lucky enough “to catch the boat”, as Mohammed Ali famously phrased it, just loved slavery that caused a hundred million or so to starve to death.  We also saw all the gliterati and the progressive intellectuals gathered to support Mengistu’s slave state.   In the twentieth century, we had more slavery, and more slavery related deaths, than through all of previous history.

As for the nuclear peace:

Let us look at the middle east.  Would anyone be worried if one of the monarchies had nukes?

No, they would be mightily relieved, confident that the Kings would keep the fanatics quiet.

But when the nearest thing to democracy in the middle east reaches for nuclear weapons, looks like the peace of terror may finally end in terror, probably with a kill level that substantially exceeds World War II.  And if we don’t have nuclear war this time, there will be a next time.

Tags:

63 Responses to “The anti-anti reactionary FAQ: war and democide”

  1. Jake says:

    Since you mentioned nuclear weapons in the Middle East, what do neo-reactionaries think about Iran?

    • Red says:

      Mostly that the country was better off under the Shah. Modern Iran is a theocratic democracy with lots of parallels to our own theocratic democracy, but it stems from a different root than our own system.

      • jim says:

        It was installed in power by the Cathedral because a progressive variant of Islam. They believe that Islam will naturally become progressivism the way Christianity did.

        Iranian Islam is soft on crime, allows women to frivolously divorce, and does not permit polygamy, so progressives figured, incorrectly, that it was transitioning into progressivism.

        Rather, Iranian Islam is undergoing an analogous evolution leftwards, but one that is not entirely convergent, leading to a conflict between leftisms analogous to that between Marxist communism, progressivism, and nazism.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Iranian Islam kills the hands off thieves, polygamy is mainly practiced amongst the pious, prostitution is integrated into polygamy as “temporary marriage” and Khomeini even allowed the literal rape of babies!

          • Jake says:

            Obviously Iran was better off under the Shah, who executed 300 people, versus the Mullahs who have liquidated over 100,000. But none of you consider Iran a threat to Israel or America?

            How did the Cathedral install Khomeini? Did Carter give the order, saying the shah had to go? Was the CIA involved? And where is the proof? The French may have been sympathetic, and Carter’s UN ambassador compared Khomeini to Gandhi, but I haven’t seen any evidence the USG engineered the Islamic Revolution.

          • Red says:

            Why would I care what happens to Israel? The primary terror threat to American comes from Washington DC that keeps letting terrorists into the country while they feel up grandma at the airports.

            >How did the Cathedral install Khomeini? Did Carter give the order, saying the shah had to go? Was the CIA involved?

            I’ve heard a couple of different stories about what happened, but here’s the one I believe: The US controlled the Iranian army and when the Shah told the army to put down the riots the CIA told him that army wouldn’t obey his commands. The Shah then made the smart move of leaving the country. I don’t know if we funded the rioters but there’s a decent chance that we did.

            Similar thing happened in Egypt accept that Mubarak didn’t take the hint and the CIA couped him.

          • jim says:

            Polygamy requires a pious wife who consents to it. Not a lot of pious. Iran does not cut the hands of thieves, though it should. It cuts the fingers of thieves, after first giving them local anesthetic. Not much point to that, since thieves typically have short time preference. Should not use anesthetic.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Are you trying to stop the left-wing singularity by advocating a right-wing singularity? Mutilation as a punishment is pretty hardcore, no matter how you slice and dice it (pun intended).

            • jim says:

              If the state claims to have Islam as its official religion, needs to mutilate. Singapore, however, gets quite adequate results from corporal punishment and execution.

    • Samson J. says:

      I don’t know about neo-reactionaries, but this reactionary combines a) a view that it’s pretty rad to see any religiously-informed government anywhere with b) respect for the historic Persian (not “Iranian”) people.

      Off-topic, but Jim, I’ve been reading a little about recent protests in the Ukraine, and it’s interesting that I now scan these things for certain signs that I’ve learned from you. For example, check this out:

      In France, meanwhile, a group of women from Femen, a Ukrainian feminist protest movement, staged a topless protest in front of the Ukrainian embassy in Paris and urinated on photos of Mr Yanukovych. The slogan “Yanukovych piss off!” was painted on their torsos.

      Femen? Sloganeering in English? Who’s this message for, anyway?

  2. Hidden Author says:

    The nearest thing to democracy? So you’re one of those people that think Israel is the greatest threat in the Middle East. Or do you think Iran is somehow more democratic than Israel, even though Iran vets which candidates can run in “elections” while Israel does not?

    • Red says:

      I’ve heard that Israel has something called the Samson option, which involves nuking every state around them and parts of Europe if the nation appears to be in imminent threat of destruction. I’d say that qualifies as the greatest threat in the middle east in terms of pure destructive power. Monarchs tend to go down fighting or they flee. Demotism states are often willing murder the whole world when they fail.

      • Jake says:

        Comments like this make me doubt that neoreactionaries really know what they are talking about. Where are you getting your facts from–delusional far-left Jewish conmen like Ari Ben-Menashe, Israel Shamir, Seymour Hersh, and Noam Chomsky?

        The media says Carter and Brzezinski repeatedly assured Shah Pahlavi they backed him “to the hilt”, and even tried to encourage a last-minute military coup to prevent the radicals from taking power. Since the Cathedral is the media, we can’t trust them, and instead have to rely on random innuendo from conspiracy nuts spread over the Internet. Some of it might be true, eh?

        Of course the far Left and the far Right both admire the Iranian regime–and even I find Khomeini a lot more interesting than a simple thug like Saddam Hussein–but I don’t think your story would hold up in court. On the other hand, Iran has been found liable in federal court for sponsoring terror attacks including the 1983 Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/world/meast/beirut-marine-barracks-bombing-fast-facts/index.html), the 1996 Khobar Towers attack (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200455.html), the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-12-08/opinions/35285776_1_al-qaeda-sophisticated-bombs-nuclear-weapons), and 9/11 (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-district-court-rules-iran-behind-911-attacks-136148008.html)–and has inflicted thousands of casualties on US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan with impunity.

        You shouldn’t give a damn about what happens to Israel, but put your anti-Semitism aside and look at things from their POV. Given Iran’s massive support for hundreds of Hezbollah/Hamas terror attacks on Israel, their weekly threats to wipe the cancerous tumor of Israel off the map, and their development of nuclear weapons which Khameini has publicly threatened to use for offensive purposes; is Israel a cruel bully to threaten a strike on Iran? Is the Iranian threat as imaginary, and the Iranian regime as docile, as the far Left asserts?

        • Red says:

          Jake, I’ve looked around seeing if anyone actually disputed the “Samson option”. No one seemed to. If you makes you feel better Russia had a “Samson Option” as well. Not that doesn’t change that fact that with 200-300 warheads that makes Israel the greatest threat to the middle east.

          >The media says Carter and Brzezinski repeatedly assured Shah Pahlavi they backed him “to the hilt”, and even tried to encourage a last-minute military coup to prevent the radicals from taking power. Since the Cathedral is the media, we can’t trust them, and instead have to rely on random innuendo from conspiracy nuts spread over the Internet. Some of it might be true, eh?

          Read between the lines in the Wikipedia article. It’s pretty clear what happened. Keep in mind the Iranian military was train, equipped, and was partially funded by the US.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Declaration_of_Martial_Law_and_Black_Friday

          >You shouldn’t give a damn about what happens to Israel, but put your anti-Semitism aside and look at things from their POV.
          Calling me names than expecting me to listen to you? Very poor tactics.

          >Given Iran’s massive support for hundreds of Hezbollah/Hamas terror attacks on Israel, their weekly threats to wipe the cancerous tumor of Israel off the map, and their development of nuclear weapons which Khameini has publicly threatened to use for offensive purposes; is Israel a cruel bully to threaten a strike on Iran?

          There’s be a lot less terrorist threats to Israel if you didn’t bring in Palestinians to do your manual labor. And the next time you get attacked by missiles, move in, and level a large buffer zone from where the missiles came from. Repeat that a few times and even Arabs will get the messages.

          But don’t try to sucker me into supporting your nation. All I see from jews these days is hatred for whites and I’m not in the slightest bit interested in furthering your cause.

          • jim says:

            There’s be a lot less terrorist threats to Israel if you didn’t bring in Palestinians to do your manual labor. And the next time you get attacked by missiles, move in, and level a large buffer zone from where the missiles came from. Repeat that a few times and even Arabs will get the messages.

            Leveling will not work. They already tried that. I would suggest kill the men, castrate the male children, and enslave the women – it is not quite Old Testament, but close enough.

            Mencius Moldbug suggests converting the dead into synfuel, and using them to power military vehicles. Keep doing this until Arabs conclude that peace is preferable.

          • Red says:

            >Leveling will not work. They already tried that. I would suggest kill the men, castrate the male children, and enslave the women – it is not quite Old Testament, but close enough.

            Well, I was thinking more leveling, paving it over and killing anyone who stepped into no mans land. Expand it by a mile per missile till there’s not a lot of land to live on. But your method would probably work better.

          • Jake says:

            According to Wikipedia: “The Shah, who already was not willing to use violence to end the protests, became unwilling to do anything to risk the wrath of the Carter administration and thus did not want to take any action that could put him at odds with the US president. As a result, the Shah in effect granted the protesters a free rein and restrained the military and SAVAK from fighting back.[24] Unsurprisingly it not only failed to stop the revolutionary movement, but fuelled it further, and undermined confidence among his supporters in his own government.”

            Is that any less plausible than your version? Pahlavi was always a coward in the face of conflict. The CIA had to try long and hard to convince him to go along with the coup against Mossadegh, and when it appeared to fail he quickly fled the country.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Jim does not inform the police when people he knows abuse children. He advocates the castration of Palestinian children. He holds disturbs attitudes towards children’s genitals!

          • B says:

            Castration of human and animal males is explicitly forbidden in the Torah, and deriving benefit from a dead body is also forbidden. If the proper reactionary Jewish perspective on what to do with the Arabs interests you, you couldn’t do better than to read a book by Rav Kahane, for instance, Uncomfortable Questions for Comfortable Jews, available here: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/710.htm

            Rav Kahane was, I think, the only real reactionary to take a piece of the public discourse in a Western democracy in the 20th century, for which of course he had to die.

          • B says:

            “Old Testament” implies the existence of a “New Testament” on the same footing, but better. It is as though some Cathedral postmodernist wrote a blog called Jim’s New Blog, reinterpreting everything you said to mean something completely different from your intent, then claimed that was your intent all along. Then when you attempted to discuss your blog with people, they would say, “you mean, Jim’s Old Blog?” We call what you refer to as the Old Testament the Tanakh (Torah, Prophets and Writings,) or the Written Torah (as opposed to the Talmud, which is a codification of the Oral Torah.) Anyway, the prohibitions on castration and deriving benefit from dead bodies are in the Written Torah in a sketchy form and explained in detail in the Oral Torah. By the way, we were the only Mideastern group to forbid castration. Everyone else had eunuchs, and some of the early Christians self-castrated.

            As for what we would do as far as the Arabs are concerned, I have nothing to add to the book by Rav Kahane I linked:

            “When we achieve power, with the help of G-d, we will offer the Arabs of Israel, who so understandably hate the Jewish State and so dream of its demise, the following options:
            1) Within a certain limited number, to be set by security considerations, all Arabs who are prepared to accept the State of Israel as the exclusive state of the Jewish people and of no one else, will be allowed to remain the land with the status of “resident stranger,” as per Jewish laws. They will be granted personal rights but no national ones. They will have general economic, social, cultural and religious freedom but will not be citizens of the Jewish State and will have nothing to say in its future in any way. Accepting this status, they are welcome to remain and are entitled to all the respect and decency that Judaism demands we grant to all humans who are resident strangers in our land and who bow to its laws and concepts.
            2) Those Arabs who are not prepared to accept this will be offered the opportunity to leave voluntarily and peacefully with set compensation for their property (more than they ever dreamed of offering the 800,000 Sephardic Jews who fled Arab lands beginning in 1948). Those who are not prepared to leave willingly will be forceably removed from the land.”

            Of course, you can see why Rav Kahane had to be harassed, jailed, ostracized in the Knesset, have a law passed specifically to make his reelection illegal and then be assassinated. It is unthinkable to have a public figure speaking Hatefacts in a modern democratic state, especially a state that was on the brink of bringing Arafat back from Tunisia and giving him a fiefdom in the Land of Israel.

            • jim says:

              “Old Testament” implies the existence of a “New Testament” on the same footing, but better. It is as though some Cathedral postmodernist wrote a blog called Jim’s New Blog, reinterpreting everything you said to mean something completely different from your intent, then claimed that was your intent all along.

              That is what the Talmud does. What the New Testament does is blow off most of the Old Testament, rather than re-interpret it.

              1) Within a certain limited number, to be set by security considerations, all Arabs who are prepared to accept the State of Israel as the exclusive state of the Jewish people and of no one else, will be allowed to remain the land with the status of “resident stranger,” as per Jewish laws. They will be granted personal rights but no national ones. They will have general economic, social, cultural and religious freedom but will not be citizens of the Jewish State and will have nothing to say in its future in any way. Accepting this status, they are welcome to remain and are entitled to all the respect and decency that Judaism demands we grant to all humans who are resident strangers in our land and who bow to its laws and concepts.
              2) Those Arabs who are not prepared to accept this will be offered the opportunity to leave voluntarily and peacefully with set compensation for their property (more than they ever dreamed of offering the 800,000 Sephardic Jews who fled Arab lands beginning in 1948). Those who are not prepared to leave willingly will be forceably removed from the land.”

              That solves the problem of Arabs inside Israel. Your big problem however is that Arabs outside Israel can make war on Israel at no risk, while Israel faces existential risk, thus Arabs outside Israel will never make peace, having no incentive to do so.

              Those measures solve the problem of Arabs inside Israel, but do not provide a deterrent to Arabs outside Israel.

              So. What is your solution to the problem posed by Israel’s neighbors attempting to invade over and over again?

          • B says:

            >That is what the Talmud does. What the New Testament does is blow off most of the Old Testament, rather than re-interpret it.

            Not really. There is a lot of stuff with Jesus explaining that G-d doesn’t have a problem with what you eat but only with what you say, that he comes not to abrogate the covenant but to fulfill it, etc. Doubletalk like that.

            >So. What is your solution to the problem posed by Israel’s neighbors attempting to invade over and over again?

            You may have noticed that those neighbors are spiraling down into apocalyptic social decay, caused by a surplus of violent retards and a relative shortage of productive and decent human beings. Of course, 40 years ago they had massive Soviet-trained and -equipped juggernauts, and even ten years ago they looked quite formidable, but overnight they went up in smoke. So overall, the focus should be on the Jews trying to live up to their designation as a holy people and kingdom of priests. This priority will prevent the current leftist degeneracy, where every dead child of an enemy is sobbed over, held up to the camera, used to sabotage the morale of the soldiers and so on.

            Obviously, every sovereign kingdom must have a well-trained and -equipped military and a policy of using that military if it wishes to remain sovereign. Fortunately, halacha has such a policy outlined, with two kinds of wars, wars of commandment (milchamot mitzva) and wars of authority (milchamot reshut.) For wars of authority, there is a decent amount of procedural stuff the government has to follow to launch one, and it is limited in whom it can draft. For milachamot mitzva, which include all wars when the enemy threatens the borders of Israel, the Torah requires a total mobilization, down to mobilizing a bride and groom from their chamber. Even a war where an enemy comes demanding only straw and chaff from a border city counts as a milchemet mitzva, and demands total mobilization-we are not allowed to give them what they want so they go away, because tomorrow they will come back to rape and pillage all over our country. Once an enemy has been conquered, an agreement must be made with them whereby they accept upon themselves the Seven Noahide Commandments and pay a tribute in perpetuity. If they do not accept this agreement, you kill all males past majority and take the rest as spoil (actually, there is a bit of ambiguity here.) Details here: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1188350/jewish/Chapter-6.htm

            • jim says:

              There is a lot of stuff with Jesus explaining that G-d doesn’t have a problem with what you eat but only with what you say, that he comes not to abrogate the covenant but to fulfill it, etc. Doubletalk like that.

              That is not re-interpretation, and scarcely doubletalk. That is flat out abrogation. Jesus fulfills the law so that you don’t have to. The Talmud, on the other hand, elaborately rationalizes that the Torah does not say what it says nor mean what it means.

              Even a war where an enemy comes demanding only straw and chaff from a border city counts as a milchemet mitzva, and demands total mobilization-we are not allowed to give them what they want so they go away, because tomorrow they will come back to rape and pillage all over our country. Once an enemy has been conquered, an agreement must be made with them whereby they accept upon themselves the Seven Noahide Commandments and pay a tribute in perpetuity.

              Ah, reparations. That will deter them.

              And if, like Germany after World War I, they complain of inability to pay reparations, and inflict on themselves self induced collapse to render themselves actually incapable of paying reparations?

              Well, I see you have an answer to that one also:

              If they do not accept this agreement, you kill all males past majority and take the rest as spoil

              That sounds pretty much similar to the Moldbug/Jim program.

              So the Talmud says you don’t go Old Testament on them right away, even if they attack first. First you go early twentieth century on them, and then if that does not work, then you go Old Testament on them. Sounds pretty reasonable. The credible threat of going Old Testament would make it seldom necessary to actually carry out the threat.

          • B says:

            I will not go around in more circles about whether the Torah meant what the Sages said it meant, or whether they are reinterpreting it in a postmodern way, because it is unproductive. I will say that originally I was skeptical but upon further investigation concluded that the Sages were, in fact, the real deal. Of course, there are parts where they are explaining a law from the Torah, parts where they are adding restrictions to it to protect the law from being broken inadvertently, and parts where they are using the Torah as a sort of nail upon which to hang their personal philosophies-but it is generally obvious which parts are which.

            As for what happens if the conquered play games, I feel it would be better to quote Maimonides directly:

            “War, neither a milchemet hareshut or a milchemet mitzvah, should not be waged against anyone until they are offered the opportunity of peace as Deuteronomy 20:10 states: ‘When you approach a city to wage war against it, you should propose a peaceful settlement.’

            If the enemy accepts the offer of peace and commits itself to the fulfillment of the seven mitzvot that were commanded to Noah’s descendents, none of them should be killed. Rather, they should be subjugated as ibid.:11 states: ‘They shall be your subjects and serve you.’

            If they agree to tribute, but do not accept subjugation or if they accept subjugation, but do not agree to tribute, their offer should not be heeded. They must accept both.

            The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower level, scorned and humble. They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever.

            The tribute they must accept consists of being prepared to support the king’s service with their money and with their persons; for example, the building of walls, strengthening the fortresses, building the king’s palace, and the like as I Kings 9:15-22) relates: “This is the tribute which Solomon raised to build the House of God, his own palace, the Milo, the wall of Jerusalem,… and all the store-cities which Solomon had… All the people that remained from the Amorites… upon them did Solomon lay a tribute of bondservice until this day.”

            In short, I doubt a conquered nation would be allowed to keep its own currency and thus pay tribute, but if it were to somehow sabotage its economy to avoid paying tribute, the tribute could always be taken out in trade. The tribute is not “reparations,” which is a fundamentally crooked concept. The rest of the chapter makes for some interesting reading and remarkably clear reasoning on how to deal with warfare.

          • B says:

            I am not certain, by the way, that if they attack first, you go early 20th century first. This demands more research on my part.

        • jim says:

          The media says Carter and Brzezinski repeatedly assured Shah Pahlavi they backed him “to the hilt”, and even tried to encourage a last-minute military coup to prevent the radicals from taking power.

          Why a last minute coup, when you already have a shah? Story makes no sense.

          Further, there is just no way Carter would not have moved heaven and earth to get rid of the Shah. The left has been gunning for the Shah since day one, and even though he is dead they continue to spit on his grave. They hate the shah with a hatred hotter than ten thousand suns, and if they get vaporized in an Iranian nuclear strike on Washington, everyone in Washington will believe as they start to burn that they deserve it because America at one time backed the Shah.

        • shinz says:

          “put your anti-Semitism aside”

          Oh no! anti-Semitism!

          Faggot.

          • Jake says:

            Red’s first instinct when I said Iran might be a threat was to call me a Jew and claim Israel planned to nuke the whole planet. This is typical of his comments on this blog for some time. Jim is not an anti-Semite; most neo-reactionaries are not anti-Semitic. But, at the very least, the topic makes Red emotional.

            There are good, valid, understandable reasons to both love and hate Jews; we needn’t pretend anti-Semitism is a simple “collective hallucination” (as Christopher Hitchens once put it). It is, however, completely fair to say that anti-Semites should leave their prejudice aside when evaluating Israeli policy.

            • jim says:

              Israel should pursue the interests of Israel and the interests of Jews.

              War should be conducted in a manner sufficiently dreadful that the losers wish for permanent peace and final settlement.

              Sometimes, as when Muslims menace everyone who is insufficiently Muslim, others should ally with Israel. If the major problem is Muslims of more modest ambition, they should ignore Israel and her neighbors.

      • jim says:

        Samson option is appropriate in that the fall of Israel would likely result in the death of every Jew in the middle east.

        • Red says:

          Samson really smacks of Masada. The very fact that your willing to die and take everyone with you makes it more likely that you will be exterminated to the last women and child. All the men of Israel would probably die but the women and some the boys would live on without the Samson option. Loosing in life sucks, but better some of your genetic code be passed on rather than none of it.

    • jim says:

      Some of my commentators do. Me, I think that the Middle East needs threatening.

      • Jake says:

        Red’s claim is apparently based on Noam Chomsky’s “Fateful Triangle”, which says Israeli missiles are designed to “put US planners on notice” that pursuit of peace efforts “may lead to a violent reaction…with a high probability of global nuclear war.” Such strategies are part of Israel’s “Samson complex,” the product of an “Israeli Sparta” which has become the world’s “fourth greatest military power,” creating the danger of “a final solution from which few will escape” (pp. 467-9).

        Seymour Hersh’s “Sampson Option” says nothing of the kind, and is so riddled with inaccuracies that Hersh even gets the Biblical account wrong.

        • Red says:

          I’ve never read Noam Chomsky’s “Fateful Triangle”. I’d heard about the Samson option from right wingers who rather like Israel. I thought it was a good idea at the time. I’ve never indicated that Israel was planing to destroy the world. A nuclear deterrent is a good idea. A plan to nuke everyone around them if everything goes sideways is much less so.

          You’ve mistaken me for a Jewish conspiracy theorist rather than someone holds a grudge against the Jews for their roll in the destruction of US cities via the civil rights movement and to a lesser extend the destruction of South Africa.

          Secular Jews are a very effective middle man minority that run the progressives propaganda organs, fiscal organs, and who ruthless impoverishes the lower classes through usury and exploitation. They do the dirty work while the elites keep their hands clean. While the propaganda role is new all the rest is the same pattern that Jews have run over and over again. The Jews are not unique in this roll. Foreign Chinese do similar things in the east and even Mormons in some areas.

          With all that said they’re still the enemy of my tribe, but a lesser one that progressive elites or the blacks who destroyed the town I grew up in. I’m not going to boost a nation that hates christens and the west. I’m not going to be happy when I watch Jews verbally attack christens for nothing more than being Christan nor fool people into supporting a group that feels largely nothing but contempt for them.

          • Sam says:

            I second Reds position. The only thing I would add is their biological weapons program is much more dangerous than their nuclear program.

            12 monkeys

  3. Hidden Author says:

    Also Zhang Xianzhong is not necessarily a leftist aberration from traditional Chinese government insofar as many dynasties start out as populist rebels only for their leaders to become an aristocrat’s aristocrat once they take the imperial throne.

    • Red says:

      Yes, but he went full leftist retard. You never go full leftist retard.

    • jim says:

      Takes several generations from populist to aristocrat. What dynasties do you have in mind?

      • Hidden Author says:

        The Han and Ming dynasties rose to power promising land to the peasants with a peasant to be made emperor. But both ruled through the scholar gentry from the beginning.

        • jim says:

          Xiang Yu was a prince of the house of Chu. Liu Bang justified his war against Xiang Yu on the grounds that Xiang Yu murdered the Qin emperor, a classically reactionary argument. Liu Bang was a peasant, but as soon as he had legitimate claim to a title, insisted on being called that title, first “Duke of Pei”, then “King of Han”, and finally “emperor Gao” I cannot find any reference that he promised land to the peasants.

  4. Red says:

    Thinking it over, in the long run Israel is in a fine mess with Iran getting nukes as long as the cathedral is around. They can’t strike first without risking being dismantled by the cathedral , they don’t have the power to change Iran’s form of government or invade the country.

    The best solution might be Israel and the Jews going to war against the cathedral. Propaganda production and money is would be useful weapons in such a struggle.

    Jake are you up for that?

    • Thales says:

      Why wouldn’t they strike Iran first, ask for Cathedral forgiveness later? Attacking the Cathedral directly would be suicide while it retains control of everything south of the Mason-Dixon line. You only do that if you’re not already one of their client states, but want to be.

      • Jake says:

        I don’t expect Israel to strike Iran, and I think it’s increasingly clear Iran will get nuclear weapons. Israel might well survive; Iran could be construed as a rational aggressor, rather than a crazed kamikaze regime, playing the Israel card to try and dominate the Middle East despite widespread Sunni Arab opposition.

        • jim says:

          Because progressivism is Christian descended, holier than thou means more peaceable than thou. When they wished to destroy their enemies, they always got their enemies to agress first.

          Iran’s official belief system is Islam descended, thus holier than thou means more warlike than thou. Iran cleared Iraqi minefields by marching their children through them.

        • Thales says:

          Operation Opera. My guess is that Iran learned from Iraq and made a repeat unfeasible, knowing that Israel would never make an obvious first-strike. Iran can work through clients, finds no serious resistance to its growing power, thus sticks with the winning strategy.

          • jim says:

            That Israel will not commit a first strike is a Christian rule, not a Jewish rule, indicating that progressives dominate Jews, rather than Jews dominating progressives.

            When Iran demonstrates nuclear capability, Israel should proceed with a first strike directed against that capability.

  5. fnn says:

    Israel doesn’t seem to have much trouble from Palestinians (aside from a few rocket attacks from Gaza) since they built the wall and started replacing Pal labor with Asians and Europeans. American whites suffer a lot more from
    low-level street terrorism by blacks.

  6. […] But when the nearest thing to democracy in the Middle East reaches for nuclear weapons, looks like t… […]

  7. […] Anti-anti-reactionary FAQ: war and democide. […]

  8. […] The anti-anti reactionary FAQ: war and democide « Jim’s Blog […]

  9. […] Jim Donald, “The Anti-Anti Reactionary FAQ” (Series, Part 1, 2, 3, 4, Sluts, War and Democide, […]

  10. […] James Donald: war and democide […]

Leave a Reply