No such thing as moderate Islam

If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he is a bad Muslim.

“Hang on” I hear you say: “Did not you tell us that Alawites, the guys in Syria that the State Department is trying to genocide, are moderate?”

Yes, Alawites are moderate. Their religion also has more gods that you can shake a stick at, they drink wine, celebrate Christmas, and eat pork. They celebrate something suspiciously like mass with wine and bread, plus a pile of pagan deities. Since Christianity is dead in the water, maybe we should convert to Alawism, since the likely alternative is that we get converted at swordpoint to Islam, or we males get killed and our women get converted at swordpoint to Islam. But I digress. Back to moderate Islam.

The great majority of Muslims are profoundly disinclined to blow themselves up in a pizza parlor. But they create an environment were the guy who is apt to blow himself up in a pizza parlor is holier than they are, an environment where the guy who is apt to blow himself up in a pizza parlor can fade into the woodwork when the police come looking for him.

There is no moderate Islam in the sense that there is no Islam where the adherent to the faith who engages in violence against non Muslims is viewed as bad, unholy, an outsider, no Islam where Jihad is not as Islamic as motherhood and apple pie are American. There is no Islam that fails to provide a favorable environment for terror. Terror is so fundamental and intrinsic to Islam, that any supposedly Muslim religion that seriously disengages from terror really is not Muslim, and any Muslim monarchy that fails to support terror gets assailed as inauthentically Muslim, as not taking Islam seriously, and it is transparently apparent that any nominally Muslim monarchy that fails to support terror is inauthentically Muslim, does not take Islam seriously.

For thirteen hundred years, no one has managed to coexist with Islam except in a state of war and near war. We will not be the first.

We have to either convert to Islam, convert to some faith capable of holding its own against Islam, or forbid Islam and expel Muslims.

Converting to Islam is the solution we do not want, the solution that will inevitably happen if we do nothing much. Hillary plans to bring in a hundred million or so male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, and even if she fails to do so, the militarized Muslim womb will outbreed us, if nothing is done. In America and Europe large numbers of fertile age white women are converting to Islam, because Muslims are the only men that can get away with being manly, and Muslims are abducting and enslaving large numbers of young fatherless welfare girls.

The Cathedral thinks it can convert Muslims in the same way it has been so successful in converting Christians, persuading them that all religions, rightly understood, are progressivism.

See also Scott Alexanders triumphalist exposition that progressivism is simply western culture, and everyone naturally converts to progressivism western culture because it so much nicer and more humane and wiser and better and truer than any of the alternatives.

In fact progressivism sucks, and men suffer terribly under it, for it is brutally contrary to human nature, and unless you actively crush Islam the way the Cathedral actively and aggressively crushed, and continues to actively aggressively crush, Christianity, it is not going to absorb Muslims. Rather we see the reverse happening. Aggressive Muslims get pussy and the girls are glad of it. The Cathedral defines Christianity as misogyny, hatred, homophobia, and so on and so forth, and crushes it with unrelenting ruthlessness, but is disinclined to do this to Islam, because islam is brown, and browns can never be racist, misogynist, or homophobic. Also because if it went after Islam the way it goes after Christianity, Muslims would start cutting the throats of progressives.

The Cathedral has had some considerable success at converting Muslims to progressivism, as for example Iran. Turkey, however, has definitively put an end to the program in Turkey.

For a long time it looked as if the Cathedral program, educate Muslims into understanding that Islam, rightly understood, was progressivism, seemed to be succeeding. And then we started to see head scarves all over the place.

As the Cathedral became ever more hostile, hateful, and destructive towards males and masculinity, coming to a supposedly right understanding of Islam became ever less popular among Muslims, and we started to see those headscarves multiply.

The Cathedral rationalized away the ever expanding sea of headscarves. For a while it was still possible to believe that the Cathedral program could succeed, the Hillary could bring in a hundred million male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, they would convert to progressivism, they would buy homes in green leafy suburbs with affirmative action mortgages, pay their mortgages, and replace the missing grandchildren to pay off social security.

This delusion was punctured at Benghazi in Libya:
Hillary:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” Clinton told him angrily. “Whether it’s because of a protest or whether a guy out for a walk decided to go kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”

Well it would not make much difference whether because of a protest or whether a guy out for a walk. But it makes a huge difference that it was neither of these. It was a bunch of guys in military uniform, with military weapons, with chain of command, with military insignia of rank, equipped with the apparatus and institutions of a modern western state, that were, and are, applying this apparatus and these institutions to suppress progressivism and enforce Islam, in the way that Clinton and company have long been using this apparatus and these institutions to suppress Islam and enforce progressivism.

What was revealed at Benghazi, and has continued to be revealed ever since, is that the progressive program to convert Muslims to “moderate Islam” (aka progressivism) was entirely dependent on the efficient modern coercive apparatus of the modern state, and that it really is not working any more, even in the rapidly declining number of countries where progressives command the efficient modern coercive apparatus of the modern state. (Libya, and now Turkey, being among those were progressives have been removed from theocratic power.)

200 Responses to “No such thing as moderate Islam”

  1. TheBigH says:

    I’ve been toying with the idea of converting to Islam for a few years now. If Trump loses then getting in on the ground floor of a more masculine system isn’t a bad deal. At least i’d be part of a group willing to fight back.

    • Ansible says:

      Your grandchildren will be browner than you, and your great-grandchildren dumber than you = the product of cousin marriage. Not a good deal.

      • TheBigH says:

        It’s an awful deal. But the alternative seems worse. Whites are putting their heads in the noose and lubing up their asses. The very idea of fighting back gets you excommunicated from white society.

      • Xızır says:

        Convert to Islam -> court white women -> convert them -> make hwite jihadis -> instruct them to do the same. It isn’t hard.

        • Ansible says:

          The history of the Persians and Pashtuns run counter to “easy”. Once white peoples getting browner and dumber with every new generation.

      • Minion says:

        >Your grandchildren will be browner than you
        Even without Islam, America is browning up thanks to the spics. Plus, Bosnians (compared to the browner Serbs), Chechens, and other white Muslim demographs, have no problem maintaining their whiteness despite centuries of being Muslim.

        The browning of the West is thanks to the entropy caused by globalism, not by Islam itself.

        >and your great-grandchildren dumber than you = the product of cousin marriage.
        Spics don’t practice cousin marriages (except in rural areas), yet are just as brown, dumb, and backward as any Arab

        In any case, white skin doesnt mean much when liberalism is shoved down your throat. At least Islam lets you be a patriarchal straight man without guilt. And in any case, would you seriously think a 35yo liberated slut white woman would be a better wife than a submissive brown virginal girl for a white man?

        • peppermint says:

          » would you seriously think a 35yo liberated slut white woman would be a better wife than a submissive brown virginal girl for a white man

          yes. Keep your brown girls, please. One important aspect of how multiculturalism came to be accepted is that White men of minor means would try to take brown women for concubines.

          • Minion says:

            >yes. Keep your brown girls, please.
            lol, you a cuck.

            You magically think white liberal sluts are superior just because they are white? And you wonder why otherwise redpilled men reject white nationalism?

            White girls fuck dogs. Thats what you want

            “One important aspect of how multiculturalism came to be accepted is that White men of minor means would try to take brown women for concubines.”
            Whites used to do that in the antebellum South. Those whites are not pozzed unlike now

            • pdimov says:

              “You magically think white liberal sluts are superior just because they are white?”

              Yes, because genes. This isn’t that hard.

              • Corvinus says:

                “Yes, because genes. This isn’t that hard.”

                So white liberal sluts are genetically superior to brown sluts?

                Comedy gold.

                • pdimov says:

                  If liberal sluttiness is not genetic but is acquired from the environment, it does not get passed on. Whiteness however does get passed on.

                  The comparison, by the way, was not between a white slut and a brown slut, it was between a “liberated slut white woman” and a “submissive brown virginal girl”, the assertion being that the latter is superior.

                • jim says:

                  Well of course the virgin is superior from the point of view of the individual male. Who is going to man up and marry those sluts for the greater good of the white race?

                • pdimov says:

                  The way things are going, ISIS, I suppose.

                  If we had a slave market we could look at the price and see which one would fetch more.

                • jim says:

                  Been done.

                  A heavily used white slave girl fetches a far higher price than a heavily used brown slave girl on the Islamic State slave market.

                  But, problem is, there are no white slave girls that have not been heavily used.

                  If we enforce chastity, white men will overwhelmingly prefer white girls – in fact everyone regardless of race will overwhelmingly prefer white girls. But we are not enforcing chastity, which makes relatively chaste brown girls a substantially better deal. Plus east asian girls make better companions, because they think more like a man, and they do not wear out as fast.

                • pdimov says:

                  “A heavily used white slave girl fetches a far higher price than a heavily used brown slave girl on the Islamic State slave market.”

                  The interesting comparison would have been between a heavily used white girl and a barely used brown one.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t have that data, but it is probably available.

        • Ansible says:

          American whites that miscegnate don’t rejoin the white gene pool, exactly opposite of Muslim whites. See Persia or Pashtun.

          • pdimov says:

            Could however also see the Ottoman empire, where Turks became whiter.

            • Ansible says:

              Yes, at the expense of Anatolian Greeks, who became darker.

              • Minion says:

                Greeks always had brown blood in them. Dont be fooled Greeks are shitskins. So are Serbs, who are browner than Bosnians (Serbian women are very hot tho)

                • Ansible says:

                  Bullshit. Greeks were once far whiter than now. Homer, Herodotus, Plutarch, Pindar, and Adamantius all agree wth me, describing the ancient Greeks as light-haired and light-eyed:
                  http://www.unz.com/article/what-race-were-the-greeks-and-romans/

                  Those statues and mosaics that we have managed to recover their original color, likewise agree with me. And whenever I find articles from scientists “correcting” the hair and eyes to brown, they mysteriously leave out how and why they came to the conclusion that the statue had brown hair and eyes. Always in those statues the hair is red, and the eyes are blue. For examples:
                  https://moco-choco.com/2014/04/18/true-colors-of-ancient-greek-and-roman-statues/

                • jim says:

                  The Spartans were blond, red headed and blue eyed, therefore the Tribe of Dan was blond, red headed and blue eyed.

                  In which case the Israelites at the time of Moses were generally red headed and blue eyed, or else Moses would not have been able to get away with claiming common descent for all the tribes of Israel.

                  Therefore Israel the man, the common ancestor in the male line of all the Tribes of Israel, was probably red headed and blue eyed. We also have evidence that the Pharaoh that knew Joseph, or at least most Pharaohs from around that time, was red headed and blue eyed.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      When you do it, make sure to post progress reports here. The many secularists who apparently prevail here are sure to enjoy endless masterbatory discussions about religion, since they have no loyalty to any religion and discussing it makes them feel oh so smart and quick-witted.

    • jay says:

      Stay faithful to the one who rose from the dead. Whose kingdom endures forever.

    • Randy says:

      You can start hating dogs, beer, and ultimately ever cultural artifact of our tradition, including pictorial representation because idolatry. Have fun. I prefer unrelenting, undying hatred.

  2. lalit says:

    Would you convert to Islam if it meant that you could watch Hillary and her Ilk get brutally Gangraped by the likes of ISIS?

    • peppermint says:

      No, they will be machinegunned by Nazis. Religion is stupid.

      • Minion says:

        Thinking pozzed whites will suddenly convert to Nazism is even stupider than religion. Being a white nationalist is just plain stupid, considering the very people you are championing hate your guts.

      • Anglican says:

        >Implying Nazism isn’t a religion.

        • peppermint says:

          okay, revelation-based and spiritual world views are stupid

        • jim says:

          Nazism is what state lutheranism became, just as progressivism is what state puritanism became.

          • peppermint says:

            Hitler said in his Table Talks that he wanted to eliminate cuckstainty, but of course didn’t get around to it. Also he was a cucktholic.

            But, sure, Southerners who were probably raised Baptist or Methodist are happy to denounce Christianity while denouncing or claiming ((Jesus)) and adopt state puritanism.

            Naziism of course needed Germans, and Germans all more or less believed in ((Yahweh)). But along with Germany becoming mostly judenfrei after the war, Germany is also mostly free of spiritualist superstition, to the point where a German talking to David Duke had to argue with Duke regarding Duke’s claimed spiritualist points against the Jews. When anti-Semitism returns to Germany, it will be strictly grounded in biology.

  3. peppermint says:

    aggressively crush Christianity? Christianity, rightly understood, is the Cathedral. You may be confusing authentic Jesus-Christianity with the half-pagan Church of the Dark Ages.

    • Robert says:

      You are mistaken, Christianity wrongly understood in the cathedral. Jesus’s kingdom is not of this world, this earth and Jesus’s kingdom are two different things. Example: a Christian can kill a criminal who is attacking his children without going against the “turn the other cheek” thing, because in his heart he is loving and forgiving the criminal “turning the other cheek” even as he is killing him.

      Matthew 10:28 refers to this distinction: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

      • peppermint says:

        that’s not the mainline view. Even the great reactionary Pope John Paul II recognized the criminal’s right to life is more important than anything other consideration. Don’t you know that all souls are equal and secure deathbed conversions are vastly preferable to life in this vale of tears?

      • Stephen W says:

        The early Christians of the Roman Empire where a bunch of SJWs. All the good aspects of traditional Christianity came from the Germanic Barbarians who conquered them. During the Medieval period most SJW element got confined to monks in monasteries but with the translation of the bible to common languages during the reformation, Jesus the SJW was unleashed. Most of the leftist movements of the enlightenment such as Quakers, puritans, abolitionists were all very christian, it was only at the end of the 19th century that some started believing they were holier than Jesus.

    • Minion says:

      If Christianity is the Cathedral, then why has the Christian West resisted liberalism for the first 1800 years of its existence? Why is it with the decline of Christianity did we see liberalism rise?

      • peppermint says:

        it took a while after the release of the Bible into everyone’s hands for Christianity to achieve its final form

        • Minion says:

          Then why is Christianity in its final form exactly the opposite of its previous form?

          • Stephen W says:

            The same reason the communist party in China says you should not envy those richer than you in one of the most unequal countries in the world. After revolution and the Leftist singularity the Leftist in power eventually start trying to consolidate and stabilize their wealth and power and become a conservative force, just lumbered with an inconvenient leftist ideology in their origin story. All that was good about traditional medieval Christianity came from the Germanic barbarians who conquered the original Christians who were a bunch of whiny SJWs in a decadent and decaying empire.

            • Robert says:

              All is a big word. Christianity is a powerful thing, which can be used for good or twisted to be used for bad. Why not use it for good? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nearly all of our greatest heroes were Christian, were they all wrong? Were they not really Christian?

              • peppermint says:

                — Were they not really Christian?

                Yes. Blessed are the meek.

                Also the Crusaders wanted to conquer, but didn’t colonize, because they weren’t racist. Christians are never racist enough.

                • Alan J. Perrick says:

                  A.J.P attempts to post, but cannot be heard because Peppermint’s typing is so loud.

                • peppermint says:

                  we’re talking about White heroes and Christianity.

                  At least, I’m assuming we’re talking about White heroes and Christianity, which is a Nazi thing to talk about anyway, since a Christian should talk about Christian heroes, and in discussions with Nazis bring up Christian heroes of mud races who fought against wicked colonizing and nationalistic Whites.

                  The Frankish king who kept the muzzies out of France was a hero, and a Christian, followed by other Frankish kings who fought Christian holy wars against Whites. Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire did a great job conquering France, but was such a Christian that he gave it back, and didn’t even execute Luther for formenting revolootion. Richard the Lionhearted was a Christian hero, and, being Christian, him and other Crusader heroes fought glorious but pointless battles and didn’t win the war through colonization. Both sides of the English revolootion were Christian, though one side was more serious about worshiping Jews.

                • Alan J. Perrick says:

                  L.O.L., nope. If you want to cherry-pick or nit-pick philosophy, then I’ll surely be free to find the fault-lines in your rhetorical approach with a license to the same myopia. I’ll feel great about doing it as well, not even with the exertion of meanness, but with a liberal sensibility… Of course, “Peppermint Papist”, rebuking an unwelcome heretick is virtuous in itself, though of a different flavour…

                • peppermint says:

                  » I’ll surely be free to find the fault-lines in your rhetorical approach with a license to the same myopia

                  do it faggot

                • Alan J. Perrick says:

                  “Mama mia”, said the papist.

                  Mah-mah mee-uh.

                  A.J.P.

                • peppermint says:

                  you know, the real Jews compose better rebuttals than that, Jew-worshiper. Why don’t you ask one of them for help?

              • peppermint says:

                Up through the very recently in the US, before multiculturalism got so bad that while TV anchors still pretend that ideology matters everyone knows that we’re moving towards a kind of first past the post version of Lebanese politics where the ethnic groups form alliances to get past the post, and certainly in Europe where muds aren’t really doing much voting, there has been a cuckstain party and a commie party.

                Cuckstain parties agree with nationalists about traditionalism while commie parties agree with nationalists about helping the middle class, so that Obummer was signaling against NAFTA in 2008. However, while cuckstains and commies agree that race is unimportant, commies have always positioned themselves as the champions of the mud “working” class because of their more radical economic theory of gibsmedat, while the cuckstains would prefer jobs to cash handouts.

                As a result, usually nationalists try to take over or support cuckstain parties instead of commie parties. One could easily imagine a world where the commie party in the US was eaten by a nationalism much more radical than that or Michael Moore, while the cuckstain party continued to be the party of Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, but, of course, that would require certain antecedents in the ’60s and ’80s.

                • peppermint says:

                  …if the US didn’t have first past the POS voting, we would have a libertarian party, representing the sort of post-cuckstain economic thinking that combined with a radical assertions of cuckstain values to become commieism, and is perhaps the most clearly defined opposite of nationalism, which is ironic because it is the most obvious target for nationalists to eat and wear its flesh.

                  This would call itself a liberal party, while the commies would then be forced to call themselves socialist or labor, but the cuckstains would still call themselves conservative or cuckold republican or whatever.

                • peppermint says:

                  *I mean post-Aquinas and post-feudal economic theory. Where the feudal aristocracy still thought they should control the economy to benefit the nation, the liberals wanted to reject mercantilism on the grounds that free trade is better for everyone, which is a utilitarian, i.e. cuckstain, moral argument.

                  The radical reassertion of cuckstain values into this was of course to point out that trade would leave some poor, who the rich should give their stuff to or go to Hell.

                • peppermint says:

                  …while it is true that cuckstainty, glibertarianism, and socialism are inherently anti-nationalist, the transition from Whites in White nations disagreeing about what direction the nation should go in to benefit the nation to trying to destroy the nation happened after WWII and the cuckstains were cleary winning the cold war, after which they started the Great Society, handing the world to the Jews they worship.

                  Of course, on the cuckstain side of the world, building the Great Society was mostly done by commie parties, but all parties, at least in the party apparatus, in the cuckstain world worshiped and supported the Jews in every way possible.

                • jim says:

                  Not true. The cucks were undermining the military in the Crimean war. That is when they went to work trying to destroy the nation.

                • Alan J. Perrick says:

                  The one good thing about P.P. and “Jim”‘s combined, vicious back-biting is that it inoculates me against such virulence elsewhere, to include the employment of a word-filtration web-browsing application.

                  Of course, this changes my role to that of one throwing wrenches in the machinery instead of explicit support, but that’s also fun.

                  A.J.P.

                • peppermint says:

                  okay, but they had to pretend in public to have the interests of the nation in mind

  4. Learner says:

    Islam is evil. A civil war is brewing in Europe. The US is on time to stop this insanity in its own land. Trump’s zero-Muslim-immigration proposal means a vote for Trump is well-deserved, even if he is an idiot, even if he is Hitler, and even if he were a refrigerator.

  5. pdimov says:

    No Islam is moderate, but some if it is merely not moderate and some is very not moderate.

    You can tell whether a Muslim is merely not moderate if the very not moderate Muslims want to kill him as an apostate.

    Very not moderate Islam also happens to be the state religion of a certain kingdom since before said kingdom’s inception.

    This kingdom also builds mosques all over the world, and exports its state religion through them, turning local not moderate Muslims into very not moderate ones.

    It also happens to be best friend of America, despite being responsible for the worst terror act in American history.

    • Minion says:

      Saudi Arabia is simply normal Islam (eg just not moderate). It supports sharia (as all Muslims are required to do, or else they are not Muslims), but it does not support terrorism, which has no basis in Islam.

      Very not moderate Islam is ISIS, but not-moderate Muslims hate them and call them kharijis (basically heretics).

      Lets stop with the (Shia produced) myth that Saudi and ISIS are in bed. ISIS hates Saudi and wants to overthrow them.

  6. Alf says:

    Islam is hot stuff in Netherlands. Major Schelling point, pretty much cathedral controlled. Poor poor refugees and what is up with all these haters who have no respect for foreign religions.

  7. Jack says:

    The anti-Jihad movement was right all along about this one, while the neocons with their “we shall export democracy to the moderate Muslim majority in the Mideast” were dead-wrong. Robert Spencer and (((Daniel Greenfield))) know their shit and if you feel a burning desire to cuck for Israel, then at least cuck for them.

    That said, “no enemies to the right” applies here, in that you can and should attack Islam vehemently, but do so for rightist rather than leftist reasons. Attacking Islam for its misogyny, its antisemitism, its racism, its homoaversion, its stance on slavery, and its general intolerance is a breach of the NETTR maxim.

    The 1/4 Jewish NRx blogger Antidem repeatedly claims that he has no problem with Islam in its “native lands”. But what are these? The only place where Islam is actually native is Arabia. Everywhere else, Islam was forced upon the native population by swords and horses. This is not to argue that the dumb and aggressive shitskins of the ME and NA would be splendid folks without Islam “corrupting” them, but the point is, Islam spreads by sheer unadulterated terror and if it has any place in the world at all (it doesn’t), that place would be Arabia solely, not Iran, Palestine, or Morocco… or Europe.

    Ann Coulter (who recently asked on Twitter if Hillary Clinton “gassed” the Bernie supporters, lel) said something about converting the shitskins to Christianity but no one listened. That’s not necessarily the best idea and the West should probably just disengage from the ME completely and then seal it hermetically, not letting weaponry/money into it and not letting the shitskins out of it, but let’s not pretend Islam is just “fantastic” for the shitskins because look how inbred, dysfunctional, and nigger-like it has made them. Islam exacerbated all their inherent faults instead of mitigating them like a decent religion should do. It’s a shit religion for shit people, befitting sandnigger who found no superstition or folly they didn’t like.

    Also, the Jews are factually correct: Judaism in essence is closer to Islam than to Christianity, and one could argue that Islam is but an extreme, fatalistic, globalist, Arabian manifestation of the “original” Judean faith, or Judaism plus metaphorical steroids minus high verbal IQ. It’s two sides of the same coin as (exilic, rabbinic) Judaism is a feminine, submissive version of the masculine, dominant Islam – but the Judeans pre-exile were aggressive like a mothafucka and inspired Islam not with theology per se (Islam is pretty thin on theology, being a plagiarized, twisted, and outright retarded cocktail of Talmudic folklore/aggadot and Christian heresy-hearsay, with a few local traditional Arabian tales thrown in the mix) but exactly by spreading Judaic revolutionary notions among the Arabs, in a way “Judaizing” them, with the result as per usual blowing up in their faces (and in their buses) as the Mohammedans made it about themselves being God’s elected community, doing tikkun olam one beheading at a time.

    Of course, there are many contenders for the inspiration behind Islam, or at least for sharing parallel features with it. Hilaire Belloc wrote about Islam being a Christian heresy, while Japanese nationalist Kakuzo Okakura wrote that “Islam itself may be described as Confucianism on horseback, sword in hand.” But I suspect they underestimate the Judaic core animating the Arabian creed. At any rate, Islam accurately reflects the Arab psyche and serves as a proxy as well as a catalyst in the Race War between sandniggers and the rest of Earth’s hominid inhabitants.

    To convert to Islam is to subjugate oneself to the Arabs just as surely as conversion to Judaism is subjugation to the Jews. Some religions have more ethnic-tribal components than others (to say the least!), aren’t universal despite spreading universally, thus if you don’t belong to the ethnicity/tribe yet join the religion, you’re in a sense a cuck. The only viable religions for Whites can be Christianity or “Pagan-fascism” of some sort, not ever Islam.

    • jim says:

      To convert to Islam is to subjugate oneself to the Arabs just as surely as conversion to Judaism is subjugation to the Jews. Some religions have more ethnic-tribal components than others (to say the least!), aren’t universal despite spreading universally, thus if you don’t belong to the ethnicity/tribe yet join the religion, you’re in a sense a cuck. The only viable religions for Whites can be Christianity or “Pagan-fascism” of some sort, not ever Islam.

      That is why I say “Islam is the solution we do not want”

      It may well be that Christianity is no longer viable now that we have translated the bible, and there is no live pagan fascism.

      • Koanic says:

        Translated != understood. It was actually written by God. Feel free to point out the unworkable parts – I’ll stand to defend its reactionary functionality at all points.

        • Alf says:

          You think the revival of christianity is viable? I can see it working in small Amish-like communities, but it seems to me they are to small to achieve sovereignty.

          • Koanic says:

            The Bible, properly understood, is beyond reactionary.

            Jim has figured out major pieces, but not everything is immediately obvious. For example he misses the cultural implications of “climbing onto one’s father’s couch.”

            I suspect his primary problem lies in New Testament interpretation.

            It’s true that a full red-pill exegesis hasn’t been assembled in one place yet. Obviously I view that as an important project, albeit one that will require a lot of help. Mostly it’s just assembling disparate pieces of the truth. Like human history, it’s a deceptively complex document.

            • Koanic says:

              Re father’s couch: Because everyone then knew real men fight over hot women, whoever got dad’s nubile hottie harem was clearly the one actually in charge, regardless of verbiage to the contrary. Herders understand the ram concept.

              • peppermint says:

                White men do not have harems. The Bible is written for sand niggers, not White men. Christcucks worship kikes.

                Either christcuckoldry is what we have now, or christcuckoldry wasn’t redpill enough to prevent what we have now from taking over. Biology is obviously redpill, christcuckoldry is only arguably redpill according to minority factions who regularly say things like mudslimes are better than atheists or that they would be happy to see their daughters marry niggers who drink the blood of ((Rabbi Yeshua)) in a voodoo ritual.

                • Koanic says:

                  I suppose that is one way to spin your inability to get laid.

                  Show me on the doll where the churchian touched you.

                • peppermint says:

                  that’s a funny insult coming from a religion that imposes chastity on its clergy and modesty on ranking men (remember what Atticus Finch said: marksmanship is a gift from God, it is not for gentlemen to brag about) so that women don’t know who to look up to and end up fucking niggers

                • Koanic says:

                  Don’t let me stop you from criticizing Catholics and Progs.

                  Clearly marksmanship is not your gift from God.

                • peppermint says:

                  » thinking atticus finch was a catholic

                  is the ((bible)) the only book you read?

                • Koanic says:

                  I think chastity for Catholics is Catholic, you dishonest idiot.

                  Thanks Peppermint Patsy for strengthening my case. To return to the point:

                  The New Testament is to the naive reader forever and always a religion of minority, in much the same way that modern Judaism is forever and always a religion of exile.

                  These two readings are retarded and Satanic, respectively.

                • Koanic says:

                  *chastity for clergy is Catholic

                • Koanic says:

                  Since the Gospel has been preached to all nations, Christianity should feel free to metaphorically “come home” to its Old Testament nationalist roots.

                  The era of international evangelism is over.

                • peppermint says:

                  That’s an interesting interpretation.

                  Now if only we could do something about the non-White sexual practices endorsed in the ((Old Testament)), and the non-White values exemplified by the heroes of the ((Old Testament))…

                • peppermint says:

                  Oh, and you’re not going to take back the whole deathbed conversion go to Heaven, do good works but die in a state of sin go to Hell no personal responsibility but signaling allegiance to ((Rabbi Yeshua)) thing. Unless you say that the priests take over from the rabbis and nothing rabbis said is worth anything.

                  And you’re still worshipping Jews.

                • Koanic says:

                  Jesus was special because he was one of the few Jews left who wasn’t miscegenated.

                  Faith saves because out of the overflow of his heart, a man believes. Insincere faith availeth not. The righteousness of the patriarchs was credited to them as faith. Doubting Thomas was not hating Thomas. Paul was.

                • Koanicisacuck says:

                  Yeah, koanic, instead of the virgin priests catholiicism, let’s have the Women, Gay, Lesbian, and Trans pastors that you find in other forms of Christianiry! Good idea.

                • jim says:

                  Priests should marry, set a patriarchal example, and be succeeded by their sons.

                • peppermint says:

                  » Jesus was special because he was one of the few Jews left who wasn’t miscegenated.

                  jew-worshipping cuckold faggot. ((Jesus)) wasn’t even the descendant of ((David)). ((Joseph)) was, and ((Jesus)) was the son of ((Mary)) presumably by some guy who called himself ((Yahweh))’s ghost.

                • Brit says:

                  Mary was also descended from David if you believe in the infallibility of scripture. The only way the completely-different genealogy in Luke makes sense is if it is tracing lineage through Mary, with Heli being her father (the Greeks had no word for “father in law”, and commonly simply used the word “father”).

                  This also solves the problem of Jaconiah, who God cursed that none of his descendants will sit on the throne of David. Jaconiah is an ancestor of Joseph.

                  Jesus is a son of David legally, through Joseph, and biologically through Mary.

                • Koanic says:

                  Peppermint does not understand the racial difference between conquistador and south american. See christian identity for evidence of Israelite whiteness. And shroud of Turin. The real question is whether Ashkenazis are at all Israelite. Their European population bottleneck suggests they are largely de novo.

                  Christianity with women preachers is churchianity.

                  The Biblical penalty for adultery and homosexuality is death, and homos are reprobates.

                  Peppermint Patsy theologizes like a woman. I can see why Jim called it her.

                • peppermint says:

                  » The real question is whether Ashkenazis are at all Israelite. Their European population bottleneck suggests they are largely de novo.

                  https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/

                  https://archive.org/details/TheJewishStrategy

                  idiot

                  » Peppermint Patsy theologizes like a woman. I can see why Jim called it her.

                  As a degenerate millennial, I used to amuse myself by tricking people into thinking I’m a woman, especially online. Doing a good job at it means understanding at some level what makes women tick, which is also why despite being a total shitlib I was able to get puxxy. I didn’t stop during the days that I was researching returning to cuckstainty, but I stopped all degenerate behavior upon receiving our lord and savior Adolf Hitler into my heart.

                  » christian identity for evidence of Israelite whiteness.

                  ahahahahahahahaha jew-worshipping faggot

                • jim says:

                  To be precise, Jews are one third Jewish, two thirds European.

                • Eli says:

                  If you know how to read Cochran, Ashkenazi Jews being descended from Israelites is not the question. He has at some point even theorized about the Bar Kokhba POW origin for them and has explicitly rejected theories that used to be advanced by various antisemitic wackjobs in the past several years. The question(s) that interest him appear to be:
                  1) The exact breakdown of the ancestry (so far, it is at least a third, if not 40% Middleeastern, according to https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/even-more-on-ashkenazi-ancestry/)
                  2) The actual evolution of Ashkenazi traits — i.e. genetic level explanations.

                • Koanic says:

                  Here is my present understanding, which may or may not be correct:

                  ** The Paracas skulls show that ancient history has a long way to go:

                  “Now a second round of DNA testing has been completed and the results are just as controversial – the skulls tested, which date back as far as 2,000 years, were shown to have European and Middle Eastern Origin. These surprising results change the known history about how the Americas were populated.”

                  ** Meaning of “Israelite”

                  “Israelite” is a moving genetic target, going back to Jacob. It means “descended from Jacob/Israel,” not “descended from the Middle East. ” Ancient Israelite whiteness is supported by Egyptian murals and textual evidence.

                  We cannot know whether Israelites started out non-predatory with Abraham and picked up hook noses etc later from the surrounding Middle East. It is certainly a story of gradual miscegenation, but the starting point is buried.

                  It may be that God selected a people He knew would eventually crucify Jesus. If the Jews had crowned him, that could’ve presented unknowable salvific difficulties. Incarnate again?

                  ** Meaning of “Jew”

                  “Jewish” dates back to the division of the already-miscegenated Kingdom of Israel. Today the racial cohesion of Jewry is distinguished by the patrilineal line tracing back to the Middle East.

                  I don’t know whether and to what degree Ashkenazis and modern Jews in general are patrilineally descended from Israel. Their distinguishing Ashkenazi trait of high IQ appears to be de novo.

                  Clearly the original Israelites were nowhere near as nasty as the Jews are now. They are now Satan’s chosen race, the leftovers, the Christkillers. Read Revelations for God’s brutal solution to the Jewish Question.

                  ** Race of Jesus

                  Jesus did not have a Jewish Y-chromosome. Given that Noah was “perfect in his generations”, we may assume Jesus was also. Reconstructions of the Shroud of Turin support his white physiognomy and clinical wound patterns, beyond the knowledge of medieval forgers.

                  I assume the lengthy intertestamentary silence represents God’s disgust with and withdrawal from the Jewish racial character, and His patient waiting for the correct timing to deploy Jesus from one of the few remaining pure bloodlines. Jesus’ greeting to Nathaniel indicates little honesty was left in the population. For reference, Germans are the most honest and therefore whitest extant race. John the Baptist was likewise clearly pure.

                  “May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

                  The prophecy of Noah, the proto-Aryan, is fulfilled: Europeans rule the Middle East when they care to, and live in the tent of Christianity when strong.

                  Outcome table:
                  Japheth: Christ kinger
                  Shem: Christ killer
                  Canaan: Christ fucker
                  Ham: illiterate

                  It is understandable that a homosexual would prefer Mein Kampf over the Bible. At least in a concentration camp you can eventually die.

                • jim says:

                  “Israelite” is a moving genetic target, going back to Jacob. It means “descended from Jacob/Israel,” not “descended from the Middle East. ” Ancient Israelite whiteness is supported by Egyptian murals and textual evidence.

                  Yes, I am pretty sure the original Israelites, the man Israel and his immediate descendents, were red headed Aryans. But they have been knocking around the middle east for a long time since then, and the Jews of the time of Jesus were muds.

                • Koanic says:

                  I’m sure Jehovah picked the best mother available. But any maternal line that Jesus incarnated into would obviously be a huge step down for someone who was with God from the beginning. It’s even a big step down relative to the elongated Paracas skulls.

                  Jesus appears to have left Earthly family behind with his charge of Mary to John. After his death, the disciples did not recognize him unless he permitted it, he stepped into rooms without using 3d space, and his second coming is described in distinctly angelic adjectives.

                  He is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, to whom the Abrahamic bloodline pays tribute. To worship him is to worship Jehovah, not Mary, whom the Bible deems irrelevant, nor David, who addresses him as Lord.

                • Eli says:

                  This whole “mud” thing is pushing the category to far beyond its original meaning and intent.

                  People in Egypt would be considered “mud”, except that they had highly advanced, for the time, civ.

                  Also, the original Israelites, (both northern Israel and southern Jacob tribal groups) consisted of Amorites. The first group can be referred to as either House of Joseph or House of Israel — this is what later formed the kernel of Hyksos and the northern tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. They arrived in 22nd BC — a century or so earlier than what Abraham/Jacob’s tribal group, who ended settling around Jerusalem (see story about Jebusites). There is archeological evidence that north of Canaan and Ebla (both of Western Semitic origins) went through painful transitions, likely due to the activities of the pastoralist Amorites (who also were of Western Semitic origin), around 22nd century BC.

                  What later became House of Jacob came a bit later, but this tribal group was also Amorite. Abraham was from that tribal group.

                  Anyway: long story short, the original Israelites were certainly no Aryans. However, it is plausible that their Hyksos descendants had, among them, some maryannu warriors, as can be ascertained by indirect evidence, like chariots and presence of light hair colors. But in this case they were highly Semitized, something that parallels what happened vis a vis Hurrians and Mycenean civ. Culturally, again, those Aryans adopted the ways and language of their new group.

                  This, by the way, has parallels in modern times. My father personally knew a Bedouin who descended from an intermarriage between his Arabian/Yemeni Bedouin ancestors with a Turkoman clan, as the former were moving their flocks via (what today is) Iraq.

                  Basically, Aryans and Amorites, being both pastoralist, could very well make familial alliances.

                  Either way, the majority of Aryanized elite of Hyksos was likely mercilessly routed out in Sharuhen, after expulsion of Hyksos. This demarcates the time when House of Jacob (Abraham’s descendants) stayed in Egypt, while what remained of Hyksos/House of Joseph/House of Israel became Apiru/Habiru and went further north, roaming their former land as opportunistic attackers, like the shasu (think Midianites) in the south.

                  After Bronze Age collapse, a couple of centuries later, the House of Jacob escaped Egypt and made a pact, via Moses and Yehushua Ben Nun, with the Apiru/House of Joseph (Manasseh and Ephraim), and they conquered Canaan with mutual assistance.

                  There were, of course, some Indo-Euros among Canaanites, via Hurrian presence (and the Israelite tribe of Dan was most likely Achaean Greek in origin and Dan absolutely hated their arch enemies, Philistines, who also likely were from the Aegian). But that would make this story hugely long.

                  I can give more book references , but that’s pretty much it.

                  The whole “mud” thing I reserve to mixtures between Arabs and Cushitic or sub-Saharan Africans. Anyone who considers Anatolians/Semites/the original inhabitants of Zagros mountains as “muds” doesn’t have much of a clue. The same thing applies to the time Jesus lived. It only changed around the time of Islam.

                  I can agree, however , w the arg that Galileans from where Jesus was, were more likely to have had influences from more settled, agro-oriented Canaanites (who also tended to be more Hellenized) though it’s unlikely any cults remained active after Hasmoneans.

                  The whole “Abraham predation” thing is kindergarten shit. Men go to war and capture women and land. That’s the way things were and still are, even though land isn’t as important individually and even though some men are gay or have low testosterone etc.

                • Koanic says:

                  “long story short, the original Israelites were certainly no Aryans.”

                  That’s the one thing every modern Jewish son of Satan can agree on. Plus the occasional homosexual neo-Nazi.

                  Strange bedfellows.

                • Eli says:

                  >son of Satan

                  As B once remarked: stealing is wrong. Go back to your Odin.

                • jim says:

                  I think I will make a post on the reason that we don’t have any manly warrior Odin worship any more, just the usual wiccan fags.

      • Xızır says:

        Islam can be the solution we want if we tweak it. If it’s Cathedral immune and we don’t have any other route than LARPing in our dead god’s basement… well…

        “All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly.”

        • Robert says:

          Nothing is cathedral immune. Anything can be perverted, anything can be rationalized to a point where it is the opposite of what it was originally intended to be.

      • Jack says:

        Islam is no solution at all; it’s what defenders of the West are trying to avoid. There are 3 baneful tumors threatening to send the West into its grave:

        1) internal weakness aka cuckiness aka progressive liberalism in its various manifestations.

        Death from within.

        2) international Jewry. On the “ascending the tower” podcast they even admitted that the Cathedral has two main branches, Puritan and Jewish, and these Chomsky, Alinsky, and Lenin fellas are as much Puritans as they are extraterrestrials descendent from the flying saucer that hovers above my roof fortnightly.

        Death from (((within))).

        3) rising tide of third world diarrhea, or: Afro-Islamic onslaught against the West. Peak danger coincides with peak presence in Western lands; given Western military superiority, the niggers and sandniggers — the former btw destined to metastasize into 4 billion malignant cells sometime in the foreseeable future — shouldn’t pose much of a threat if all of them are banished forever from the West.

        Death from without.

        Defenders of the West wish to do away with all 3 tumors, to be liberated from the domination, influence, and presence of cucks, kikes, and muds.

        A digression about motives. This isn’t about stealing Jew stuff. Jealousy/covetousness is exactly the heritage of Jews, who use international communism and international capitalism to steal stuff from everyone else. Another jealous/covetous nation is the Chinese, known as “the Jews of Asia”, who are both communist and capitalist at once.

        Both Jews and Chinese are covetous in real life, and as national collectives too. Kakuzo remarked ever so astutely: “The tiniest incidents of daily routine are as much a commentary of racial ideals as the highest flight of philosophy or poetry.” This is literally the truest sentence I’ve ever heard since I was a 5.5 month old fetus and my active brain connected to my ears. And what sort of “incidents” does one experience at the hands of everyday ordinary Jews? Kikery.

        It is kikery first and foremost which leads to antisemitism. Most people don’t know who KMac is and did not read his website; it’s the behavior of Jews on the street, in the store, in the office, and at parties that compels the Goyim to fantasize about firing up the ovens.

        Anyway, defeating progressivism by converting to Islam is like an AIDS faggot drinking cyanide with his Truvada. Let’s say internal weakness opened the inlet for the (((parasite))) to enter, and the parasite brought with it a deadly disease. Well in that case, though the deadly disease is “a symptom of a symptom”, dying of it is hardly an improvement over the state of slow expiration from weakness, isn’t it?

        It’s not merely an “undesirable but ineluctable” solution, but constitutes *the* undesirable outcome everyone sane would want to prevent. It is therefore imperative to figure out which force can heal the morbidity, disempower the parasite, and cleanse off the assorted accumulated sicknesses. These can be Christianity, or the alt-right religion of neo-Nazism.

        If you gave up on Christianity, make a religion out of National Socialism. You may scoff and rejoin that Hitler’s dead and defeated. But as ridiculous as the notion of “Nazism as a literal religion” may sound to you, when the alternatives are poz, kikery, and oogah-boogah-boogah, is it really that bad?

        Obviously, wouldn’t need to idolize Hitler if old-school Christianity showed signs of unwavering vitality, tenacity of survival and triumph in the face of determined adversity. Since in Western Europe it doesn’t show any such signs, the solution is 88. If you can’t have the cross, may as well take the swastika; but worship not the crescent.

        In the US there are Mormons, Amish, and some Evangelicals who don’t need the swastika because the cross is still firmly in their midst. Ditto for Orthodoxy Christianity in Russia. But what are the French, Germans, British, and Scandinavians to do? What are White Americans who don’t belong to the 3 groups I mentioned above to do? If it’s not the cross, it must be the swastika.

        Can Nazism become a religion? If the alt-right is serious, that should be its chief concern: proving that it can. As always with alt-right memes, it should begin as an edgy tongue-in-cheek trollish jest, bit by bit drilling the idea into people’s subconscious, attracting a critical mass of internet-popular proponents, and from that juncture onwards it may just evolve into the real deal if pushed by the right propagandists (meme magicians). If Christianity works not any longer, go full 1488. Religiously.

        It’s not even a particularly arbitrary religion because the alt-right isn’t arbitrary, everything falls into its designated place here. Thought experiment or the glittering future? We shall see.

        • Minion says:

          Hate to break it to you, but the West is already dead. Liberalism is its dead state, hence the presence of maggots ever ready to feast on its corpse

    • jim says:

      That said, “no enemies to the right” applies here, in that you can and should attack Islam vehemently, but do so for rightist rather than leftist reasons. Attacking Islam for its misogyny, its antisemitism, its racism, its homoaversion, its stance on slavery, and its general intolerance is a breach of the NETTR maxim.

      I of course totally support Islam’s stance on homoaversion, racism, and slavery.

      Islam makes divorce and polygyny too easy for men. Polygyny should be discouraged to avoid internal conflict – but serial monogamy should be discouraged to a considerably greater extent. If, due to human frailty, the state needs to make a choice between polygyny and serial monogamy in a particular marriage and particular family, should choose polygyny.

      Islam is in fact far more hostile to pagans than Jews. Worrying about, or even noticing, Islam’s position on Jews, is thinking far too much about Jews. Islam’s position on Jews should only be mentioned in the context of the role of Jews in inviting twenty million young male military age Muslims into Europe, and the Jewish habit of demonizing Christianity and the Crusades. When Jews focus on Islam, they obsess about a few decades of comparatively tolerant Muslim rule in Spain, where Jews still got far worse treatment than not being invited into the country club, and forget about the rest of the world and the other thousand years of Muslim murder and Christian tolerance. Islam’s position on Jews in only worth mentioning in the context of Jewish love of Islam and hatred of Christianity.

      • Jack says:

        Not accusing you of attacking Islam from the left, Jim, but that’s what all too many alt-righters and counter-Jihadists do. Then you have taqiya Muslims and those who shill for Islam come around and argue that if you oppose Islam, well obviously you support sodomites and want to defend muh feminist liberties. So, as you’ve done here, the alt-right should criticize Islam from the right;

        1) Islam doesn’t have a decent class/caste system, thus you fuck your negress sex-slave and raise her children as your own, thus you become brown and dumb. Which means that Islam isn’t hierarchical enough vis-a-vis concubines.

        2) Being radically iconoclastic, Islam is necessarily anti-particularist (cosmopolitan), because all particularism is destroyed with blazing fire and forced to conform to consensus, the consensus of the ummah, and refusal amounts to heresy, and heretics must burn. As such, local traditions/cultures always dissolve before the uncompromising Islamic imposition upon them. End up with globalization, or at least nationalization, in accordance with Arab characteristics – at the expense of genuine rootedness and historical continuity. Judaism too has this same issue, but in a less extreme form. Both religions produce rootless cosmopolitans who abhor authenticity and particularism.

        3) Prone to horrible holiness spirals. Nuff said.

        4) Due to loathing of Paganism and anything resembling it, that is, loathing of Nature herself, Islam the totally abstracted religion is inherently scholastic — “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” — resulting in mass stupidity and gullibility, because reality itself isn’t ever a factor in one’s worldview, and if you imagine it then it could as well be real, nay, it *is* real by virtue of you imagining it, and so lying Arabs come to believe their own biased lies. Consequently, nonstop conspiracy theories, half-baked historical falsifications, etc. Semites fail to realize that “real in my mind” is not legit.

        5) Honor/shame culture fostered by Islam leads to the reality of extreme hypocrisy common to Muslims, wherein outside “nothing is allowed” but privately “everything is allowed”, hence, trust levels close to zero. It’s okay to lie, not okay to get caught. It doesn’t matter what you actually do, but what you appear to be doing. See also: bisexual drunken Jihadists.

        Relevant to (4) and (5): Aesop’s fable –

        “Hermes filled a cart with lies and dishonesty and all sorts of wicked tricks, and he journeyed in this cart throughout the land, going hither and thither from one tribe to another, dispensing to each nation a small portion of his wares. When he reached the land of the Arabs, so the story goes, his cart suddenly broke down along the way and was stuck there. The Arabs seized the contents of the cart as if it were a merchant’s valuable cargo, stripping the cart bare and preventing Hermes from continuing on his journey, although there were still some people he had not yet visited. As a result, Arabs are liars and charlatans, as I myself have learned from experience. There is not a word of truth that springs from their lips.”

        6) Fatalism – everything is directly from Allah, so I’m jus’ gonna lay back, smoke the hookah, be merry, and build no civilization whatsoever.

        Relevant to (6): (((Daniel Greenfield)))’s article of cuckery for Israel, where he writes, among other things, how the Arab is not the son of the desert, but its father –

        “As C.S. Jarvis, the British governor of the Sinai, wrote, “The Arab is sometimes called the Son of the Desert, but as Palmer said, this is a misnomer as in most cases he is the Father of the Desert, having created it himself and the arid waste in which he lives and on which practically nothing will grow is the direct result of his appalling indolence, combined with his simian trait of destroying everything he does not understand.”

        “A great part of the country in which he now ekes out his haphazard existence was at one time fairly productive and prosperous and, by failing to repair damage done by wear and tear of weather and by wantonly wreaking conduits and cisterns he was too lazy to use, he has succeeded in creating a sun-scorched treeless desert which will remain wilderness as long as he encumbers the land,” he added.

        Jarvis wrote that the Bedouin likes rocks, but that the “sight of a tree appears to incense him and he is not happy until he has destroyed it utterly by snapping off its branches and burning its trunk through to the core.” The same thing is happening today with Bedouins and Jewish trees in the anti-tree Jihad.

        Or as the poet Joseph Brodsky wrote, “The East is a catastrophe of dust. Green is found only on the banners of the prophet. Nothing grows here, except mustaches… all these turbans and beards, uniforms for heads possessed by only one idea… massacre… ‘I massacre, therefore I exist.’””

        * * *

        You get the point. There are so many despicable traits in Islam that it’s weird that just now the “dissident right” internalizes the conclusions drawn by the anti-Jihad movement 8 years ago.

        • jay says:

          Lastly they are also very clannish marrying their 1st cousins hence lowering IQ,social competence, multiplying disease and defects and fostering low trust society.

          As a clannish society fostering the reproduction of its incompetent members because of their membership in the clan.

          • Minion says:

            >Lastly they are also very clannish marrying their 1st cousins hence lowering IQ,social competence, multiplying disease and defects and fostering low trust society.
            Spics have the very same problem, despite not practicing cousin marriages. Race matters, and getting rid of cousin marriages wont make it go away.

            • jay says:

              ”Spics have the very same problem, despite not practicing cousin marriages. Race matters, and getting rid of cousin marriages wont make it go away.”

              Just shows that Islam isn’t eugenic either. Eugenics come as a result of the stupid and defective not reproducing and the best having an abundance of offspring.

              Likewise it doesn’t disprove how cousin marriage unravelled Islamic civilization over time because of inbreeding depression.

              Europe had alot of stupid poor people dying off. And smart rich folks reproducing.

              • Minion says:

                How do you explain spic disgenics in the absence of Islam or cousin marriage? Spics are a product of Western culture and civilization.

                There must be other reasons for white IQ other than not fucking their cousins

              • peppermint says:

                Eugenics is not as simple as that, it does not act on those kinds of short time scales, which is why the post-Communist countries are not permanently destroyed.

                If Islam could act for long enough, the muzzies would end up behaving like the Chinks do: the men would be total beta faggots and kneel and cry in front of their girlfriends while the women would be totally submissive towards their alpha and utterly remorseless in rejecting anyone else. But Arabs are a mixed breed, with various amounts of White and nigger. Which is why sometimes they can act pretty White and sometimes they act pretty gangster.

                It would take many generations, several hundreds of years at least, of forced monogamy where powerful men have more children and women who can’t find a man don’t reproduce to turn muzzies into cooperative people with beautiful women, but not tens of thousands of years, because they already have some White DNA, so those strands that help in monogamous situations just need to be driven towards fixation. They don’t even need fixation – the White world has plenty of cads and sluts as it is, who are supposed to be held in check by the social order.

                • peppermint says:

                  …left out the most characteristic feature of Asian women. They stay beautiful forever because they need to keep their husband’s attention to direct his resources to their children.

                • jim says:

                  That they do, and very nice it is.

                  You refer of course to East Asian women, not what the British call Asian. British use Asian as a euphemism for Muslims, and do not call Chinese Asians.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “If Islam could act for long enough, the muzzies would end up behaving like the Chinks do: the men would be total beta faggots and kneel and cry in front of their girlfriends while the women would be totally submissive towards their alpha and utterly remorseless in rejecting anyone else.”

                  Not saying you’re wrong but why is this adaptive under polygyny? What does the loser male get out of acting this way? Surely men in a polygynous system should fight brutally, first because it’s winner-take-all, and second because everyone is descended from winners.

                • peppermint says:

                  some are alphas with multiple wives. How should the betas behave? Do they brag and fight, when their vainglorious boasts won’t impress any woman’s father and they’re likely to get killed? Or do they try to find an ugly chick and offer to give her stuff?

                  I know a lot of young White men in my area who, knowing that the alpha strategy is forbidden, have followed that strategy of find an ugly chick and offer to give her stuff, and it works on Asian chicks; I know women who have had White boyfriends who have tried crying to get some physical affection.

                  I also know a few very intelligent White men who have Eliot Rodger’s in the crib. This, to me, is more worrying than the White women who have niglets.

                  I think all sexual strategies should exist in our DNA, since over the 600 million years of animals we have probably been doing things in a number of different ways, and which ones are mostly expressed in a population should evolve relatively rapidly.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Why does offering an ugly girl money work in polygyny? My impression of chinese polygyny is that it is rich men buying hot wives, which should imply ruthless and amoral acquisitiveness among the men. Which is indeed a Chinese trait.

                  Elliot Rodger was autistic. Is it more common among Chinese?

                • peppermint says:

                  okay, so why are chinamen such betas that they cry in public to beg women to pay attention to them?

                • jim says:

                  Chinese were too civilized for too long. I don’t think it was sexual selection. Rather, the nail that stands up gets hammered down.

                  Chinese are the least sexually dimorphic of all the races. Thus their women are more logical and rational, and their men less aggressive. Emancipation damages Chinese women less that other races, because they often have some capacity to make choices in their rational self interest, have substantially more agency than women of other races.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I don’t know, I never claimed to know, I just don’t understand why the answer would be polygyny.

                  My guess would be that they have been settled for so long, without threatening neighbouring states to require the cultivation of a military class, that they have endured a lot more genetic pacification. If you stood up in China in the past few millennia, chances are you’d get killed. If no one in China could stand up, it didn’t really matter until the Manchu came along. Just a guess though.

                • peppermint says:

                  Obviously it’s better to be an alpha, but some men can’t be alphas. They need a different strategy.

                  Salmon males that don’t feel strong enough to wear male colors and fight with other males over egg piles try to wear female colors and sneak in on egg piles while the other men are fighting.

                  We’re not the only species with beta faggots.

                  Polygynous societies are going to have a pareto distribution of wife counts. There are going to be a lot of people with one wife and there going to have a nontrivial fraction of the babbies. Being faggy doesn’t necessarily turn women off, or it wouldn’t be done.

                • peppermint says:

                  I expect polygynous societies to be bifurcated with fierce competition to be alpha and lots of faggotry.

                  The Muslim world is filled with faggotry. Wikipedo says that faggotry wasn’t illegal in China until the White man came, which, for once, wouldn’t surprise me, but I know better than to trust The Jewish Encyclopedia.

                • jim says:

                  They are lying.

                  In societies where homosexuals are generally killed on sight, it is permissible to men to express their affection for each other physically. Indeed this is why we need to kill homosexuals, to make male bonding workable.

                  Supposedly various Chinese emperors had homosexual favorites, these favorites being diplomats, senior bureaucrats, generals, and leading politicians – but each of these emperors had a huge harem of girls, and innumerable offspring through the harem. If gay, would have had ten thousand little boys in their harem, rather than getting affectionate with senior generals and leading politicians.

                  Maybe there were gay emperors, who only had ten thousand girls and several hundred children for the sake of appearances while furtively diddling little boys – but if there were they were mighty quiet about it, which suggests that had the fact became generally known, they would have swiftly wound up a head shorter.

                  There was one emperor who was definitely gay, stocked a pleasure garden with handsome young men, and he wound up a head shorter. His gayness undoubtedly contributed to his demise, though it is not clear to what extent.

                • peppermint says:

                  In White societies, everyone who’s anyone is expected to be married, fags get bogged so the other men don’t need to do as much mate guarding, and, men think unmarried men of means are queer and don’t want them around their wives and children.

                  There’s this famous picture from one of the butt licking males riots, I’ll post it when I get home, but everyone knows that African-Americans are more prone to all kinds of sex fetishism not because they are marked with dark skin due to their voodoo practices but because of the corrosive effects of slavery and racism or maybe now that it’s cool just because they’re better people.

                  Currently, White women feel threatened by niggers and a natural coping strategy when a woman feels threatened is to offer sex. 50 years ago, White women didn’t feel threatened by niggers because the White men would protect them, but instead felt threatened by those White men, but particularly perverted and Jew-influenced White and Jewish women would go to niggers for all the bizarre fetish stuff. If you’ve ever seen a White woman and a niggers texting, you’d see all the offers of fetish sex like multiple men and other cuck stuff that White men would consider faggy and never do.

                  I really missed a lot of chances at hanging out with chinks and observing how they really behave, so all I have to go on is conjecture.

                • peppermint says:

                  Being an alpha male means seeking exclusivity from one or more women, while being a beta male means seeking access, or, for cucks, not even access but looking good for a chance at access later.

                  Harems are degrading to women because they deny the woman from her proper role as the other half of a man.

                  Gangbangs are, in addition, degrading to men because they deny the man exclusivity.

                  The bukkake phenomenon was named by Asians.

            • jay says:

              The 2nd factor that made european IQ is the ice age. Long winters incentivized long-term planning and selected for IQ.

        • Minion says:

          Islam does not have a racial hierarchy, but it does have a religious hierarchy, with Muslims at top, and non-Muslims (dhimmis) at bottom. Race is irrelevant for Muslims, which made sense with the per-industrial age, where white genius was not of crucial importance in building civilization, sense the technological inventory was limited and simple enough for non-whites to master.

          “Due to loathing of Paganism and anything resembling it, that is, loathing of Nature herself”
          Pagan societies all over have converted to monotheism (even in China, there is a large growth of Christianity). This should tell you something about how actual pagans viewed their paganism. And its not like you are a pagan yourself- like most Western “pagans”, you are just a secular LARPer.

          “Honor/shame culture”
          The guilt culture is a uniquely Christian feature. Even your beloved pagan cultures were shame cultures. Not really a point against Islam. Islam believes all sins done in private are forgivable, its only sinning proudly and openly that are serious, not exactly a bad thing

          Also, Aesop wrote about Arabs before Islam, not after. Arabs back then were pagans, which you idolize

          “everything is directly from Allah, so I’m jus’ gonna lay back, smoke the hookah, be merry, and build no civilization whatsoever.”
          That is literally the mindset of all healthy aristocracies. Slaves and serfs exist to do the hard work for the nobility. Aristocratic men prefer danger and play, not work and safety.

          “There are so many despicable traits in Islam”
          You have failed to prove anything beyond regurgitating stereotypes about Arabs and attributing their failings to Islam.

          If you think a white Muslim Sweden will look like Somalia, then you are not as racially awake as you think you are

    • peppermint says:

      Islam truly is misogynist because it treats women differently from the traditional White way of treating women, and its antisemitism is spiritual in nature instead of grounded in biological realities and Islam somehow always ends up siding with the Jews against Whites.

      • Jack says:

        >Islam truly is misogynist because it treats women differently from the traditional White way of treating women

        Your Nazism is too hardcore. Asian treatment of women, traditional Asian treatment of women before Americans cucked it (which happened during the 1920s, before Jews), before Progressivism cucked it as thoroughly as it cucked the West[1], was superior to traditional White treatment of women. Norms of patriarchy vary from race to race, and the Western conception of patriarchy is very mild relative to all other races, and indeed culminates in vagina privilege.

        If your system was so great, you wouldn’t have first wave Feminism. Your system became, at least in theory, diametrically opposed to any sane definition of “great” decades before the mass Jewing, and not due to “Cuckstianity” either, because non-White Christians did not suffer such a fate until quite recently. Ergo problem is with White attitude, not with Christian attitude.

        Absent an open violent exterminationist global race war against the White race, there’s no explaining why Whites — who control basically every continent, and have colonized/inhabited the American continent, the European continent, and the Australian continent with utmost efficiency — are only 10% of world population, and will decline yet further if trends don’t reverse. Well there is an explanation actually, which is cucked attitude toward women. Thus, instead of solid patriarchy and 8 or at least 5 kids on average, you nut inside sterile condoms or pill-induced sterile gfs, and also you are forever subservient to bossy manjawed butch dykes dressed in suits who saunter hither and thither with inflated chests supervising if not dictating every policy in your organization. Which is first wave feminism in a (pardon the pun) nut-shell.

        Please, let me hear you whine about how “the niggers have too many children” as if Whites couldn’t have even more children than niggers do if only Whites weren’t so endemically cucked about the female problem. All while there are a billion chinks and a billion bindis and all they had to do was not fall into vagina privilege. Of course the chinks and bindis today fail to reproduce because of the Cathedral/Progressivism and also NOWAG is involved, but my point is that Oriental treatment of women is superior to the Occidental one, hence patriarchy was destroyed in the West before it was destroyed everywhere else, and it’s not the Jews who declared women equal (superior!) to men back in the day, nor is it really the “christcucks”.

        You said that infanticide is patriarchal in essence. Bullshit. Infanticide is a sign that patriarchy failed miserably, that patriarchy is weak, that patriarchy is not working as it should. Had it not been weak and failing, had it been working as it should, the situations which call for infanticide wouldn’t occur in the first. Infanticide is a sign women are not under control. Had women been under control, you wouldn’t find a legitimate reason to engage in mass infanticide. From here it logically follows that the Occident did not have enough patriarchy, that patriarchy in the West was relatively mild and weak throughout history, thus it eventually broke and the White race broke with it.

        One can argue that policy-wise Hitler did nothing wrong (“how do you do, fellow Nazis?”) but on a personal level he failed to impregnate Eva, and at the end of the day, passing one’s genes in good condition is what’s life’s all about. Genghis Khan, in contrast, won life’s lottery. So what I’m saying is that cucky attitude toward women makes one a genetic dead-end, and on the civilization level, leads to a racial dead-end, or “autogenocide”. You exhibit the cucky attitude which lead to the White race’s original downfall. Meanwhile mideasterners outbreed whites, and isn’t that a shame?

        If your treatment of women is essentially cucky, and you can’t bypass your inner cuckiness, then you deserve being reduced to a minority in your own country. Which happens to Whites both with and without scholarly advice from a (((panel of experts))) as regards the fight against white male privilege, a fight which proceeds apace even as vagina privilege intensifies irl. There probably wouldn’t even be much of a mud/kike problem had the female problem been properly dealt with.

        If you don’t see infanticide as a dire symptom of collapsing patriarchy, it’s because you don’t want to see it. Infanticide has been going and prevalent for a very long time, therefore, patriarchy has been too weak and too soft for a very long time; effective patriarchy equals eradication of infanticide, because infanticide is not just entirely unnecessary under patriarchy, but also very counterproductive to male/family/clan interests, therefore, occidental patriarchy was ineffective, not nearly harsh enough, resulting in mass infanticide and relatively low birthrates, with infanticide and plummeting birthrates both exponentially increasing in severity the more modernity allows you to bask in your cucky treatment of women.

        [1]In his book about Bushido, Inazo Nitobe wrote in chapter 14: “Hence, until the influence of its [Bushido’s] precepts is entirely done away with, our society will not realise the view rashly expressed by an American exponent of woman’s rights, who exclaimed, “May all the daughters of Japan rise in revolt against ancient customs!” Can such a revolt succeed? Will it improve the female status? Will the rights they gain by such a summary process repay the loss of that sweetness of disposition, that gentleness of manner, which are their present heritage? Was not the loss of domesticity on the part of Roman matrons followed by moral corruption too gross to mention? Can the American reformer assure us that a revolt of our daughters is the true course for their historical development to take? These are grave questions.” – this was written in the year 1900, and look how prophetic.

        • peppermint says:

          The reason Whites are White is that we have White marriage. The reason muds are incapable of accomplishing anything is that they have various other systems. This is basic evolution, Steve Sailer mused that if competent men marry beautiful women the entire people should become competent and look like White women, and, of course, for that to happen, we need the kind of marriage Steve Sailer recognizes.

          Infanticide is a legitimate tool of the patriarchy to control women’s reproduction, but must not be the women’s choice, her father or husband needs to decide when she reproduces. Women already consult their father or husband or boyfriend; when patriarchy is restored there will be little need to officially require that consultation, since women by nature do what they are told, but sure, we can cross that t.

    • Minion says:

      Arabs did not play any significant role in the Islamic world after the Ummayads.

      Islam, as it exists today, is a Persian artifice. Even the Arabic we know today, that is taught in madrassahs all over the world, was formulated by Persians. It was Persians who decoded Arabic grammar, as well as giving it a real alphabet (before the Persians, Arabic alphabet was highly deficient, (such as q and f being the same letter, or t, b, th, and y being the same letter, until the Persians had the sense to add dots to those letters to differentiate them). Likewise, fiqh (the jurisprudence and formulation of the Sharia) was largely done by Persians, as well as the documentation of ahadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad).

      Also, the Muslims populations outside of Arabia are still Muslim. Goodluck liberating them with Crusade. They are even more fanatical than Arabs about their faith

      Arabs are backward even by Muslim standards, so being a Muslim does not mean accepting Arab domination in the least.

      • Hidden Author says:

        You say Muslims are naturally not moderate but a lot of the not moderate nature of modern Muslim is due to Saudis funding most mosques in America and similar levels of funding throughout the world. But, of course, the Muslim world doesn’t follow the Arab lead!

        • peppermint says:

          Oh hey, you’re right on time to whitesplain why brown people do things. How about you shut up and listen and keep your microaggressions to yourself.

          The Vatican has formal control over a large number of universities, and we know that the pope has an irrational hatred of the transgendered, but we don’t see Catholics doing much.

          • pdimov says:

            A comment of mine here probably went to spam because of the link. 🙂

          • Minion says:

            lol, the biggest non-moderate Muslim voices in the West are white, such as Mark Hanson (Hamza Yusuf), Timothy Winter, and the like.

            White skin without solid morals dont mean shit. It wont save you.

            Most whites hate white nationalists anyway.

            • pdimov says:

              “Most whites hate white nationalists anyway.”

              I wouldn’t bet my life on that if I were you.

              • Corvinus says:

                “I wouldn’t bet my life on that if I were you.”

                I would. Trump is not a white nationalist. He doesn’t even speak white nationalist. He speaks about American society. Big difference.

                • peppermint says:

                  He’s White and a nationalist. The weltanschauung difference between White nationalism and civic nationalism are subtle and the normalfags probably don’t care.

                  Civic nationalism at this point isn’t being surreptitiously substituted for White nationalism, quite the reverse, and every day Trump isn’t losing emboldens the normalfags to consider the idea that they might not be born to lose but it might just be possible to be free.

                  Also, you are a spiritualist, and your arguments carry no weight with the younger generation.

        • jim says:

          The Saudis are riding the tiger.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes the Saudis are riding the tiger internally but abroad they shifted Muslim politics from secular socialism to theocratic conservatism through their well-funded missionary apparatus (though the construction of said apparatus was motivated by the fact that within their kingdom, they were faced with a theocratic conservative singularity).

            • Minion says:

              >but abroad they shifted Muslim politics from secular socialism to theocratic conservatism
              How is this a bad thing?

              • Hidden Author says:

                Yes it’s odd how even very conservative individuals don’t like it when Muslim fanatics attack them with terrorist jihads!

                • peppermint says:

                  stop whitesplaining why brown people think they do things to brown people you FUCKING WHITE MALE

                • Minion says:

                  If you support secularism, women being whores, etc, you a liberal

                  Has nothing to do with jihadist terrorism, which was not even a thing before the 90’s (whereas Islam has always been theocratic conservative)

                • jim says:

                  nothing to do with jihadist terrorism, which was not even a thing before the 90’s

                  Islam has engaged in terrorism since Mohammed started raiding Mecca’s caravans and massacring merchants. There was a substantial decline in terrorism when the French started settling Algeria and displacing the Algerians in 1830, but when the French government forced the French out of Algeria in 1962, terrorism immediately return to normal levels.

                  People are noticing terrorism more because they are bringing in large numbers of Muslims, but any place with this level of Muslims has always had this level of terrorism from the very first days of Islam.. Muslim terrorism only declines when Muslims face a real threat of being physically removed, as in French Algeria.

                  When you say “Jihad was not a thing” – there is some truth in that, in that from the French retreat from Algeria to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the terrorists made pretext of nationalism and socialism, to take advantage of the conflict between the Soviet Union and the USA. But in retrospect this was a pretext, just as “moderate” islam is a pretext. Once the Soviet Union fell, they wore their true colors.

                  As the greenies are green on the outside, red underneath, the seventies terrorists were red on the outside, green underneath.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  And yet Muslim pirates at sand and sea have done to the infidel what ISIS is doing to Iraq and Syria since the lifetime of Muhammad. For some reason, infidels don’t like being at the receiving end of such treatment!

        • Minion says:

          Saudis have little influence outside of certain mosques. Not-moderate Islam is much much bigger than Saudi backed Salafism. Islam by default is not-moderate, whether by Arab influence or not.

  8. Alan J. Perrick says:

    If you want to convert to a religion, “Jim”, buy some books and start learning about it. Anything is better than laconic atheism, the death-spiral of personal character development.

    A.J.P.

    • Learner says:

      I hope he doesn’t take your advice seriously. The world doesn’t need another Muslim.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        L.,

        Firstly, it wasn’t my idea, only my advice, I’m only supplementing the ideas he wrote in this one. Second: it still would be better than atheist, however, since atheists are literally insane. Mahometans are merely in error.

        Best regards,

        A.J.P.

      • lalit says:

        Agreed, Can’t Lose A Badass like Jim to Islam. Need Jim to lead a bad as nut-crushing army against Islam. If Jim becomes Muslim, I’ll behead A.J.P.

  9. jaimeastorga2000 says:

    “Since Christianity is dead in the water, maybe we should convert to Alawism, since the likely alternative is that we get converted at swordpoint to Islam, or we males get killed and our women get converted at swordpoint to Islam.”

    What about Mormonism? Mormons seem to be doing fine.

    • Minion says:

      Mormons suffer from very high apostasy rates to atheism, like every other white religions.

    • TheBigH says:

      >What about Mormonism? Mormons seem to be doing fine.

      Mormons are trying to become Christian jews while embracing progressivism. Without drastic change Mormons will have a short bout of power and then be destroyed by people more willing to do their own killing.

  10. peppermint says:

    The idea that it is possible for us to convert between religions is fundamentally revelationist.

    In the rich religious diversity of the Middle East, people don’t convert, because religion is tied to ethnicity. Whites have always had a great deal of tolerance for other people’s beliefs, going back to ancient Rome – too much tolerance, because if the Greeks or Romans had had excluded the Jews, we wouldn’t have had Christcuckoldry forced on us.

    The Crusades, and a bunch of intra-European wars that really were religious wars, had no lasting effect. If the Crusaders, having conquered some land, had brought White women and had White families, they would have been able to keep the land.

    Political correctness is mainline Protestantism and the other Christian sects are heretical. Being ruled by PC and Jews in the 20th century is the end result of forcing ourselves to worship Jews a thousand years earlier, and forcing ourselves to worship Arabs is not a solution.

    The very fact that we are discussing these things in terms of what is good for the White race instead of revelations and spiritual arguments proof that we are already nazis. Naziism makes ethnic sense in the way that Islam and Judaism make sense to sand monkeys and merchants, and while it isn’t going to gain converts from mud people, and why would we even want that, thoughtful patriotic Whites are always going to be nazis in the way that niggers always deep down inside believe in voodoo.

  11. Glen Filthie says:

    I’ll hold off with the conversion and the crusade for now.

    A true caliphate isn’t possible. That would take brains and cooperation – and the moslems dispensed with both ages ago. Witness the endless bush war between Iran and Iraq. Consider the utter rejection of the Palestinkians – who are now considered second class citizens whose only redeeming value is as cannon fodder against the joos. If whites are conquered it won’t be those monkeys doing it.

    • jon dough says:

      Living at the outer edge of the agar in the petri dish does imply that the endless bush war between Iran and Iraq maintains itself without brains and cooperation. Until it doesn’t.

    • jim says:

      If whites are conquered it won’t be those monkeys doing it.

      They are massively outrbreeding us in America and Europe, which makes their victory inevitable in the long run.

      The British are ahead of the Americans in turning their army into girly men, and the Muslims have repeatedly and effortlessly defeated the British army in entirely humiliating and ridiculously one sided ways.

      Just as the march up country revealed that classic Greeks could easily conquer Persia in conventional war, recent events have revealed that, assuming America stays out of it, Middle easterners could easily conquer Europe in conventional war tomorrow.

      In recent wars, it has been revealed that a military whose highest priority is women’s rights and gay rights just cannot fight worth a dam.

      European defeat in the former Yugolslavia, and British defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, reveals that any major middle eastern power could easily conquer western Europe.

      • Minion says:

        >”European defeat in the former Yugolslavia, and British defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, reveals that any major middle eastern power could easily conquer western Europe.”
        You highly overestimate Arab military competence. Remember the Gulf War? The feminist American military utterly crushed the Iraqi military without a single loss on their own side. They also got their butts handed to them by tiny Israel. Turkey, on the other hand, is a serious military threat, but the West has nukes, unlike Turkey.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          You guys really lucked out when the Turks signed on. Everything was falling apart – Mongols, crusades, unending civil war and dissension, and then out of nowhere came one of the greatest warrior peoples of all time to take the reins and make Islam great again. It almost makes me wonder if your ridiculous moon god is real.

          • spandrell says:

            The Mongol descendants converted to Islam soon after the conquest; and the Turks were already strong (and Muslim) before the Mongols.

            That the Ottomans grew so strong was indeed quite unexpected, but still, it’s not like the Crusades had amounted to much anyway. Christian power was never anywhere close to removing Islam from the Middle East.

            • Contaminated NEET says:

              You’re right and I was wrong about the timeframe – the Turks had indeed mostly converted by the time of the crusades and the Mongols. I still maintain that they saved Islam’s halal turkey bacon.

              There’s no way to know, but I doubt the Mongols would have converted if not for the Turks’ influence. As for the crusades, well, things worked out pretty well for the crusaders in Iberia. Without the Turks in the Levant and Anatolia, who knows what would have happened. A strong Byzantium supported by the Latins might well have driven back the Dar al-Islam. True, the Byzantines were pretty decadent, but there was more than a whiff of decay coming off the Muslims at the time, too.

      • jay says:

        Be assured that given european man’s military competence and the divisive nature of his enemies its going to be akin to the reconquesta of spain.

      • Corvinus says:

        “Middle easterners could easily conquer Europe in conventional war tomorrow.”

        You’re drunk. Conventional warfare requires technology. Besides, you are implying that Europeans, as whites, are thus inferior to Middle Easterners, as browns, in aggressive combat. Cuck.

        “In recent wars, it has been revealed that a military whose highest priority is women’s rights and gay rights just cannot fight worth a dam.”

        What has been revealed is that when politicians do not give the military complete authority to do their job in a war, the military is hamstrung.

        Today’s military brass would rather just 1) use tactical nukes and/or 2) raze entire cities through carpet-bombing, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and government officials in the process.

        Game over.

        • jim says:

          “Middle easterners could easily conquer Europe in conventional war tomorrow.”

          You’re drunk. Conventional warfare requires technology.

          Islamic state has been fighting conventional war from its beginning. Benghazi was us losing in conventional warfare.

          Plus, there is less to our technology than meets the eye. Our nukes are beyond their planned lifetime without being tested or rebuilt. We cannot do plutonium batteries any more. Our fighter planes don’t fly as far or as fast or as high as they used to and we do not have as many of them as we used to have. The latest hi tech gadgets, for example your key finder and your LED lightbulb all come from China. We cannot build high buildings any more, and our airports look mighty drab compared to Chinese airports.

          And even if our technology is still good, it does not matter when we make our marines wear high heeled shoes. See: Pussycats: Why the Rest Keeps Beating the West: Manly men will always beat unmanly men. Technology matters, but men matter more.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            I’m not sure how serious you are about the fighter planes. Flying fast and high was a strategy to avoid being detected and engaged, a strategy that no longer works very well. Modern planes have far superior sensors and weapons, which make

            • jim says:

              A missile cannot fly all that much faster than a fast fighter. So dogfighting still matters. If you are faster than the other guy, you can bring overwhelming force to him, and avoid his overwhelming force. If you are faster and more maneuverable, you get to choose when and how to fight, and what the numbers are on each side.

              The most advanced missile around is arguably the meteor, which is just a drone that rams a fighter. It is not that much faster or maneuverable than a fighter. Hell, it is a small unmanned fighter launched from a fighter. The game now is to have low value unmanned fighters ram high value manned fighters. So it is dogfighting all the way down.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                You cannot fly fast without flying high, which increases the distance at which you can be detected. Flying fast also increases your detectability by more or less any sensor at any given distance.

                Flying high and fast was a good strategy when it was possible to be detected and still not engaged. This strategy is still used by ICBMs, which fly faster and higher than any fighter jet would or could, and a lot of people are working on engaging ICBMs.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            their ability to destroy targets considerably greater.

            Then they are given rules of engagement that make them useless. Raqqa is not yet an uninhabitable moonscape, yet US and UK planes return without havibg dropped their bombs. Ordered to lose.

            • jim says:

              It looks like the Russian capability to destroy cities is dramatically superior to the western capability to destroy cities.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Russian willingness is considerably greater.

                • jim says:

                  I am pretty sure it is not just willingness. The west piously pats itself on the back for its incapacity. Progressives have never hesitated to use the most horrifying means. If they are not crucifying women and children by the truckload, it is because they lack the capability.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The Russians used old planes to drop dumb bombs.

                  We would not do that because it would kill bystanders

                  If we wanted we could use our new planes and precision bombs to e.g. destroy the water supply, causing mass deathsvand rendering the area uninhabitable, at least at urban densities.

                  Instead we impose RoE that require target identification standards on par with the Ferguson PD, and the planes cone back with the bombs still attached.

                • pdimov says:

                  For the latest run, Russians say they used smart bombs.

                  “Tu-22M3M: Tu-22M3 for RuAF with upgraded avionics and the ability to use precision air-to-surface weapons. Prior to 2020 it is planned to upgrade 30 Tu-22M3 with new hardware components and adapted for the extended range weapons.[52] 5 modernized aircraft entered service in 2015.[53][54][55]”

                  Six Tu-22M3 were used, which fits. Visibility was low, but this was supposedly not a problem.

                  Or they could be lying, of course.

                • jim says:

                  This is not equivalent to saying they used smart bombs. They say they have precision system for launching dumb bombs that can land a dumb bomb with a precision of a couple of meters. If you want to destroy a city, that is the way to go.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The Russians do have smart bombs, but Jim is right tgat their general level of technology is lower. They have fewer smart bombs, and worse sensors targeting them.

                  But the fact that they have them at a only strengthens my point.

  12. Zach says:

    I understand the belief of the good of Christianity. I can not comprehend for the life of me, how anybody can buy those ridiculous tales, literally.

    (a general comment on observed comments)

  13. spandrell says:

    It seems like I’ve read all of this somewhere else. Hmmm….

  14. […] and the current crisis. Why we can’t talk about Islam (like this). Peace propaganda. Catholics against ethno-nationalism (or not, plus). Citadel at the […]

  15. […] A. Donald: No such thing as moderate Islam. Tho’ there are many moderate Muslims, the Islamic system always give status to those who are […]

Leave a Reply