Why Islamic State is successful.

According to progressive mythology

insurgents must be like a mist—everywhere and nowhere—never trying to hold ground or wasting lives in battles with regular armies. Chairman Mao insisted that guerrillas should be fish who swam in the sea of the local population. Such views are the logical corollaries of “asymmetric warfare” in which a smaller, apparently weaker group—like ISIS—confronts a powerful adversary such as the US and Iraqi militaries. This is confirmed by US Army studies of more than forty historical insurgencies, which suggest again and again that holding ground, fighting pitched battles, and alienating the cultural and religious sensibilities of the local population are fatal.

This, of course, is a load of horseshit. One needs a base area in which one can conscript and gather funds, where leaders can safely and openly administer and coordinate. Hard to run the war from a secret cave. Often that base area has been the Kremlin – and even more often, it has been the London School of Economics.

In asymmetric wars, one’s base is often beholden to others, and one is therefore handicapped by unwanted ideology and rules. So Islamic State decided it just plain needed to grab its own base area. Islamic law is that you cannot claim the Caliphate unless you have your own base area – because you cannot be Caliph if you are beholden to others. So, needed a base, took a base. So Islamic State chooses to fight symmetrically. In an asymmetric war, the weaker side is a muppet for somebody powerful, usually the London School of Economics, which is itself a muppet of Harvard. Islamic State is nobody’s muppet.

This allows it to be authentically Islamic – to implement its own program and its own ideology.

And, being able to implement its own program and own ideology, gives gays the high jump, reintroduces slavery and the marriage of minors.

Progressives are mystified and uncomprehending.

horrors unimaginable even to the Taliban—among them the reintroduction of forcible rape of minors and slavery—have been legitimized.

Slavery never really went away. Saudi Arabia reluctantly abolished it 1964. The suppression of slavery is not the natural result of the Zeitgeist, but the military programs of British imperialism. Since the imperial tide retreats, slavery returns. As for the “rape” of minors, minor girls are going to have sex, which is to say, be “raped” unless they are married off young or kept under tight control, pretty much locked up except when appropriately supervised, and progressives have never been worried about the statutory rape of minors, nor the actual rape of minors, nor the actual enslavement of minors for sexual purposes, provided that the right people get raped and the right people are doing the raping. The ever rising age of consent was always a pretense and a pretext. Provided that fathers lose control of their daughters and husbands do not gain control of those daughters, progressives are untroubled by pimps gaining control of those daughters.

196 Responses to “Why Islamic State is successful.”

  1. Stephen W says:

    ISIS dont get shy and hide the gory aspects of battle and executions this is good for exciting men’s blood lust which I am sure most journalists will be absolutely shocked to find most men have. Although they wont admit it even liberal journalist have it as shown by their enthusiasm for the films Inglorious Basterds, and Django Unchained, barbarity against acceptable targets.

    The New Caliphate is the only organisation that actually dose follow the Koran without exceptions made for more modern and humane tastes. So when young Muslims see there videos they see true Muslims, and a bunch of bad asses who brook no compromises for western values. And they want to be that themselves.

  2. peppermint says:

    Islamic State is nobody’s muppet.

    Cathedral is known to give them weapons and Israel is known to give them medical support

  3. coyote says:

    so Mao was full of horseshit? his revolution failed? FAIL.
    studies of 4GW are not progressive mythology just because the almighty progressive books/ whatever begins to notice successful 4GW on the part of ISIS: which ‘probably’ started as a muppet of zionist neocons, (a new boogeyman to justify our continued warmongering in the area) – and has (may have) become independent of their original financiers/ controllers. Is it your contention that historians and writers like William Lind are full of shit progressives when they discuss 4GW? I must respectfully disagree.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “Is it your contention that historians and writers like William Lind are full of shit progressives when they discuss 4GW?”

      Yes.

      Or they’re pwned.

    • Red says:

      4GW only works if you enemies are not willing to play by old school rules and slaughter the people who aid the insurgents in group reprisals.

  4. Mark Citadel says:

    It seems to be a popular fundamentalist movement belatedly reacting to Arab Socialism, and we all remember who brought the Arabs socialism right? All problems begin and end with Liberal Enlightenment types.

  5. B says:

    Gibberish.

    Mao had 3 phases. First, development in a safe area. Second, progressive expansion. 3rd, open conventional warfare.

    ISIS went through phase 1 and 2 during OIF, got rolled back, then went through phase 1 and 2 in Syria and launched phase 3 in Iraq. Its safe area was not just geographical, as is the case for traditional guerrilla organizations, but mostly in the human terrain of Iraq’s Sunnis.

    The need for a sponsor to fly top cover is obvious. For ISIS, the sponsor was Turkey (still is-Kurds just whacked a senior IS guy in Istanbul,) the UAE and the rest of the Umma. The financial weakness of the sponsors and inability to deliver the traditional masses of support was compensated by the shitty nature of the Iraqi Army left behind by the Americans. Who needs Soviet tanks when you can just go and take Abrams’?

    The rest of it makes me puke. I get a new email about some Yezidi I knew being killed and having his wife and kids enslaved every week. You Neoreactionary faggots are just like the left-if it’s not your enemies, the Cathedral, then it’s good. You’re ready to praise Boko Haram, IS, Donald Trump, Putin, anybody. I expect that like the stupid American progs who went to the USSR to help them build their industry in the 30s and then got a nasty NKVD surprise, it will be too late by the time you wake up.

    • peppermint says:

      Boko Haram and ISIS humiliating the regime is good for Whites. Boko Haram and ISIS killing coons and sand monkeys is good for Whites. Israelis being annoyed is good for Whites.

    • Mark Citadel says:

      What precisely is wrong with Putin, B? I didn’t think you’d have so much a problem with him. What’s you deal?

      • Corvinus says:

        Yes, Putin, the closet liberal, the social engineer. Follow the Russian model to increase the native population–“free stuff” in the form of housing and education, direct cash payments to women who pop out more chilluns (and even adjusting their work schedules to meet maternal demands!), and programs to dry out the Vodka swilling man-childs running amok.

      • B says:

        Nothing much is wrong with him. Nothing much is right with him.

        He’s doing an alright job running a mediocre country, with some fairly big fuckups (the Ukraine thing, for instance.)

        In general, the main thing Russia needs right now is a generation of leaders of men, and instead it gets these losers like Patriarch Cyril, Dugin, Strelkov, Prohanov and Borodai.

        Every institution that needs to be functioning smoothly and effectively runs at a level of semi-3rd world mediocrity. University diplomas and courses are transparently for sale. There is no real plan to transition the economy from exporting raw materials to advanced manufacturing (some progress has been made in recent years, but it doesn’t seem like things are moving very fast.) The Russian Silicon Valley project became a joke before it got off the ground.

        Compare to China or Singapore or even Vietnam.

        The point is not that Putin is a bad guy. The point is that, like Trump, he’s mediocre. And mediocrity is not enough to get the West out of its hole.

        • jim says:

          Nothing much is wrong with him. Nothing much is right with him.

          There is one big thing right with Putin. He is not Cathedral controlled, and he is systematically resisting Cathedral power.

          • Mr Rodgers the Benovelent Sniper says:

            >he is systematically resisting Cathedral power
            So is North Korea. You need to ask the obvious follow-up – why does he want sovereignty from the Cathedral, and what will he do with it?

          • Corvinus says:

            “Why would anyone want sovereignty from the Cathedral? So as not to be destroyed when it destroys itself.”

            That happens with ANY form of government.

          • B says:

            Russia is, indeed, not a client-state of the West (although it is completely economically dependent on exporting hydrocarbons to the West).

            This isn’t something that it gets right so much as something it avoids getting wrong.

            There is an infinite number of ways to be wrong and a small number of ways to be right.

            Russia has been unable to get any of the things right that I mentioned, and their smartest guys have a mental framework oriented on Western progressivisim, as a class.

        • Mark Citadel says:

          So what is ‘mediocre’ about Dugin. From the interviews I have seen, he’s pretty much dead on in his analysis of the political playing field, that Liberalism is the only ideology today, and to oppose it we need a political theory that is neither 2nd or 3rd, but something that rejects Modernity entirely.

          • B says:

            Dugin is okay if you like pseudomystical gibberish along the lines of Evola.

            When you attempt to use said gibberish to craft a national policy, you get a mess, as evidenced by Russia’s current Vietnam-like morass in the Ukraine.

            Launching an unwinnable war across the world is stupid. But at least it’s across the world.

            Launching an unwinnable war on your border is stupider.

            Launching an unwinnable war on your border with a country which manufactures essential components for most of your advanced missile systems? That’s smoking mescaline levels of stupidity. But when your governing ideology is insane atheistic mysticism, that’s what you get. The Atlanticists must be defeated!

            • jim says:

              The Ukraine war was a war launched by the Cathedral with the ultimate intent of regaining control of Russia. Putin’s response was the minimum necessary to prevent them from making progress to that goal.

          • pdimov says:

            Nonsense. Everything Putin did in Ukraine has been forced. America is attacking and he is defending, fairly well, at that.

          • B says:

            The Ukraine war was launched by Putin as a result of America swaying the Ukraine, which was a Russian client-state, to become its client-state. This is no different than Athens supporting a pro-democracy party in a given Greek city-state before the Peloponnesian War. Russia made the choice to take it from a typical proxy political competition, fought through demonstrations, injections of cash, intelligence support, the occasional assasination, to a shooting war, with the direct involvement of Russian soldiers.

            This is proving to be an incredibly stupid choice. However you feel about conscripts and paramilitaries getting their legs and heads blown off in East Ukraine with no end in sight. Capturing the Crimea, which is an economic dead end, full of dependents and logistically difficult to supply (the Kerch Straights bridge is currently just an idea,) pissing off the people who sit on your gas pipeline to Europe (your main source of income,) cutting yourself off from a vital and necessary part of your military industrial complex’s supply chain (inherited from the USSR)-these are very bad strategic decisions. There is no exit strategy. Russia can’t win-it could conquer the rest of the Ukraine, but not pay the political cost associated with this, nor fight the ensuing endless guerrilla war. Russia can’t retreat to its borders-the population wouldn’t take it.

            The smart choice would have been to do what they did after the Orange Revolution, when their Ukrainian clients lost in 2004: go back to the planning board, do the necessary intelligence and political work, buy the right people, wait for the US to get carried away in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Ferguson, etc.

          • pdimov says:

            Russia cannot afford to have Ukraine in NATO, or to lose its naval base there. It had to take Crimea before NATO (USS Donald Cook – if I’m not mistaken – was en route) took control of it, and it has to maintain tension in Ukraine to prevent it being admitted to NATO. There was, and is, no other reasonable choice. The days of Russia just rolling over are, well, over.

            Syria, incidentally, also hosts a Russian naval base. What a remarkable coincidence. It’s almost as if the nonexistent Atlanticists are buying Dugin’s crazy ideas and trying to cut Russia off from the sea.

          • B says:

            >Russia cannot afford to have Ukraine in NATO

            Or what, the fucking galaxy will explode? Greece is in NATO. Turkey is in NATO. Who cares?

            >or to lose its naval base there.

            Not that it was in the cards, but let’s imagine for a second that it did. Again, so fucking what? The Crimea gives Russia access to…the Black Sea. Very useful if you want to go to war against Bulgaria. If you want to get out into the Med by running the Dardanelles, er, good luck. And obvious Krasnodar just doesn’t give the same kind of access to the Black Sea.

            >It had to take Crimea before NATO (USS Donald Cook – if I’m not mistaken – was en route) took control of it

            Yes, that seems reasonable.

            The USS Donald Cook, a guided missile destroyer with a crew of 300 sailors, was on the way to take over…Crimea.

            You know, FDR’s fantasies about the Wehrmacht’s plans to land in Brazil and march to Texas were about as reasonable. As I said, smoking mescaline.

            >The days of Russia just rolling over are, well, over.

            Much better to have a Vietnam next door. Who wants to run low-cost intel and diplomatic ops when you can have an ongoing disaster to be proud of?

            >Syria, incidentally, also hosts a Russian naval base. What a remarkable coincidence. It’s almost as if the nonexistent Atlanticists are buying Dugin’s crazy ideas and trying to cut Russia off from the sea.

            Doubling down on the mescaline. Russia has naval bases on the Baltic, Arctic and Pacific. What difference does Tartus make? To get to Tartus, Russia has to either go through the Dardanelles (suicidal and insane) or Skagerrak (insane and suicidal) and/or Gibraltar (beyond insane and suicidal.)

          • pdimov says:

            “Again, so fucking what? The Crimea gives Russia access to…the Black Sea. Very useful if you want to go to war against Bulgaria.”

            Very useful if you don’t want to go to war with anybody, but want to defend against others. Unsinkable aircraft carriers are not for offense.

            “The USS Donald Cook, a guided missile destroyer with a crew of 300 sailors, was on the way to take over…Crimea.”

            On the way to support Ukrainians taking over Crimea.

            Of course I don’t have access to the actual data so I can’t tell if she really was on the way to Crimea and did a very, very quick 180, as Putin says. Maybe she wasn’t. Maybe Putin is lying.

            “Doubling down on the mescaline. Russia has naval bases on the Baltic, Arctic and Pacific. What difference does Tartus make?”

            A remarkable coincidence, as I said. Destabilizing both Ukraine and Syria at approximately the same time even though the Russian naval bases there make absolutely no difference at all. This after trying to admit Georgia into NATO, which would also have made no difference at all. Even reusing Saakashvili in Ukraine, for those extra slow on the uptake.

          • B says:

            >Very useful if you don’t want to go to war with anybody, but want to defend against others.

            The Crimea is necessary in order to provide aircraft cover against a NATO amphibious invasion of Southern Russia? Or a conventional bombing campaign?

            >On the way to support Ukrainians taking over Crimea.

            I mean, come on. Really?

            The Ukrainian Navy I saw either deserting shamefacedly to the Russians or slinking away did not appear to have been ramped up and ready to overrun Russian naval bases. Judging by the performance of the Ukrainian military at that stage of the war, they were not capable of overrunning their own ass with both hands and a flashlight. Which strongly suggests to me that nobody had been preparing them to do so.

            I doubt that the US was planning to barrage Russian naval bases with guided missiles, either.

            And I suspect that if the US WERE planning to barrage Russian naval bases with guided missiles, they would sure as shit bring a lot more to the fight than a guided missile cruiser. I mean, compare to the campaigns against Serbia, or Iraq.

            >Maybe she wasn’t. Maybe Putin is lying.

            Putin would never lie. He’s a cool dude.

            >Destabilizing both Ukraine and Syria at approximately the same time even though the Russian naval bases there make absolutely no difference at all.

            They also destabilized Libya, Tunisia and Egypt at the same time, even though there were no Russian naval bases. And did not destabilize Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam and Nicaragua, which just closed deals with Russia to open naval bases. Atlanticist wiliness knows no bounds-they have a pattern of doing things which make it look as though there were no pattern, to fool those seeking to find patterns!

            • jim says:

              The Crimea is necessary in order to provide aircraft cover against a NATO amphibious invasion of Southern Russia? Or a conventional bombing campaign?

              Moldbug observed that European anti Americanism is more accurately described as ultra Americanism. The US state department is apt to install Europeans in power over other Europeans without regard for local power bases or interest groups, so everyone competes to be more enthusiastically in favor of state department politics than the other one. A successful putsch in the Ukraine would have unleashed, and was intended to unleash, similar competition in Russia. One putsch succeeding, facilitates the next putsch succeeding.

              The putsch in the Ukraine would have been followed by a similar putsch in Russia. If Russian resistance ensued, NATO would indeed intervene “to support democracy in Russia”, or merely by hinting at such intervention (a no fly zone perhaps) encourage the Russian military to refrain from supporting “anti democratic elements”.

          • pdimov says:

            “I mean, come on. Really?”

            Well.

            So you’re saying that Putin is stupid because he took Crimea. There was no reason to do so as it was never under any threat. The US puppet government in Ukraine would have left it alone.

            You’re also saying that Ukraine and Crimea are not of strategic value to Russia. Let them go, who cares. Better for all concerned.

            Why does this not sound terribly convincing to me? Would you really have respected Putin more had he let go without putting up any kind of a fight?

          • pdimov says:

            “I doubt that the US was planning to barrage Russian naval bases with guided missiles, either.”

            I doubt it too. They probably expected Putin to do nothing, as per your advice. He, being stupid, took them (and the Ukrainians) by surprise.

            “They also destabilized Libya, Tunisia and Egypt at the same time, even though there were no Russian naval bases. And did not destabilize Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam and Nicaragua, which just closed deals with Russia to open naval bases.”

            I can tell you that one other pattern is that McCain was heavily involved in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, and you will probably give me a list of all the other places where McCain was heavily involved.

            Fair enough. It does appear that Putin sees the same patterns as I do, though. We’re probably both stupid in the same way.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            The Ukraine debacle was an act of AMERICAN IMPERIALISM on the part of the idiotic state department desperate to push economic dominance, faggotry and the like into Eastern Europe. Dugin was correct to push for the crushing of Ukraine, and Putin unfortunately has employed a half-measure which has only given Russia Crimea and two small provinces when they could have had the whole thing. Dugin is certainly correct that Putin isn’t right wing enough.

            And it’s pretty rich an observant Jew mocking mystical elements included in a political ideology. I’d expect it from Dawkins or some other retard perhaps.

    • spandrell says:

      And what exactly are you (or your country) doing for those poor little Yezidis so dear to you?

      As I take it, ‘all politics are local’ is one of the supreme commandments. Nobody cares about Yezidis. Nobody. Loud protests about their plight are empty signaling, of the kind I certainly abhor.

      Somehow that makes me a leftist faggot. Well, no.

      • Hidden Author says:

        What about those dudes and dudettes, small compared to the general population but still numbering in the hundreds who leave their homes in America, Europe and Israel to fight alongside the Kurds without pay to defend the innocent? Do they not care either?

        • jim says:

          I bet most of them, probably all of them, are in fact Kurds

        • B says:

          The Kurds are shitheads as well. Not anywhere near as bad as the Arabs, but back after the invasion of Iraq, one of the first things they did was to start going after their Yezidi neighbors, who had done nothing to anybody.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Americans enter the fight: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/us-veteran-jordan-matson-says-40-50-americans-are-fighting-with-kurds-against-isis-video/

            An Israeli woman sparred with Da’esh: http://unitedwithisrael.org/israeli-canadian-woman-returns-from-fighting-isis/

            B, as for your comment: You condemn the NRx as fags for their evil-minded attitudes but these stem from racism and other bigotries. (You want proof, Jim, that racism is a real concept rather hate speech? I define racism as neither more or less than treating people differently especially in a negative matter based not on actual, individual actions but solely or at least decisively based on their racial background–so yes, the word has a real definition.) Yet you B seem to have the same approach–blacks are thugs and Arabs are monkeys. (Without any proof, you assume that the only exceptions to these rules are Jewish Arabs and Jewish blacks.) The reason racism has a bad connotation is that not all people conform to stereotypes. In the case of the Kurds, the PKK seems to depart from type in actually defending the little guy from genocidal maniacs even though Mideastern (para)militaries and Communists usually ARE the genocidal maniacs. The peshmerga shamefully abandoned the Yezidi but the PKK rescued them. That kind of virtue attracted the sort of knights errant referred to in the hyperlinks above. It’s not a fight I would fight but that doesn’t mean the fight is not a good fight or that the freedom fighters involved are not admirable.

            • jim says:

              I define racism as neither more or less than treating people differently especially in a negative matter based not on actual, individual actions but solely or at least decisively based on their racial background–so yes, the word has a real definition.)

              Really? Is that your definition?

              Do you call scholarships reserved for blacks “racism”? Do you call black university quotas “racism”.

              When blacks beat up whites on the basis of their skin, I never hear the word “racism”.

              When we heard from Martin Trayvon’s idiot girlfriend that Martin Trayvon turned back from his father’s house, telling his idiot girlfriend over the phone that he was going to attack the “creepy cracker” I never heard the word “racism”.

              When Muslims enslaved white girls all over Britain, I never heard the word “racism”.

              So when you say that is your definition, you are just plain lying.

              As with everything else you say.

              The word “racism” is just a bestial scream of mindless hate uttered as a battle cry when you go after the last white guy.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Why are my comments in moderation?

            • jim says:

              Your comments are in moderation because I have a life. When I come back to the computer, I approve your comments. I approve everything except spam (Not out of any affection for freedom of speech but because I think that idiots should be allowed to expose themselves. I simply have never in the entire time I have operated this blog encountered a comment I wanted to censor except for spam)

          • Just sayin' says:

            Your comments are also in moderation because they had links in them, which often triggers the spam protection in comment software, requiring manual approval.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “You want proof, Jim, that racism is a real concept rather hate speech? I define racism as neither more or less than treating people differently especially in a negative matter based not on actual, individual actions but solely or at least decisively based on their racial background–so yes, the word has a real definition.”

            So the medical profession is racist when they recommend some drugs for some racial groups and not for others?

            OBGYNs are racist when they treat black women as having shorter gestation periods without knowing specifically about that woman’s own personal choices as to how long she will gestate a fetus?

            Try again.

          • Hidden Author says:

            There is racism and there is racism. Trayvon Martin looking to beat up a cracker is a serious racist problem as many conservatives and libertarians similarly to myself would agree. Affirmative action is likewise a serious racist problem. Although scholarships for blacks is relatively mild…after all, there are scholarships for people of Portuguese (like myself) or Irish descent or given the merger of black ethnic groups during slavery, a scholarship for blacks in general amounts to the same thing, to cultural freedom of association more or less…though even then, it should be a matter for private not government philanthropy like scholarships for Americans of Irish or Portuguese descent.

            P. S. What makes Jordan Matson un-American?

            • jim says:

              There is racism and there is racism. Trayvon Martin looking to beat up a cracker is a serious racist problem as many conservatives and libertarians similarly to myself would agree.

              So who are these libertarians and conservatives that called Trayvon Martin racist? When and where did they call him that?

              When a gang of black thugs go polar bear hunting, that is not racism, that is anti racism.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Steve, discrimination in medical treatments is different because all blacks by definition are affected by black bodily characteristics while it is possible for a black person to overcome stereotypical characteristics of laziness, stupidity and criminality.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Also accusations of racism are leveled against common citizens or against people who Heil Hitler all the time. When white prison gangs or biker gangs attack criminals of different races, it receives attention but is not treated as nearly as much a scandal. Because even if some criminal dickhead tattoos a swastika onto himself, everyone that the race angle is just politics and that he is ultimately just a criminal and therefore not representative of society as a whole. So if you want to know why racism by black street criminals isn’t in the news, just ask why racism by white street criminals usually isn’t in the news. Instead the real scandals over racism would be more fairly directed to the black and brown equivalents of the KKK or of the segregationists half a century ago…

            • jim says:

              So if you want to know why racism by black street criminals isn’t in the news, just ask why racism by white street criminals usually isn’t in the news

              It is not news because there is almost no racism by white street criminals. Whenever it happens, it makes huge news – and time and time again the huge news then turns out to be the result of fraud by race hustlers, or, as with Martin Trayvon, a black thug attacking someone less black than himself, and losing.

              Recently there was big search for incidents where a white criminal killed a black who was not engaged in a felony offense at the time of the killing. They turned up about one such incident per year, none of them at all suggestive of racism, while the converse happens all the time.

              When you see statistics such as “a white man is x% as likely to murder a black man as a black man to murder a white man”, that statistic leaves out the fact that nearly every murder of a white man by a black man is an innocent man brutalized out of racial hate, while almost every murder of a black man by a white man is the result of a dispute between criminals – the criminals taking out their own trash.

            • jim says:

              just ask why racism by white street criminals usually isn’t in the news.

              Some years ago, the feds launched a gigantic investigation of Aryan Nations, a white criminal gang that does stuff like tattooing themselves with swastikas, and a whole bunch of similar white nationalist groups. They sniffed around looking for race hate crimes, came up with nothing.

              They infiltrated them with agents provocateur, tried to con them into committing race hate crimes, came up with nothing.

              So they charged them with a pile of technical violations of gun laws and tax laws, stuff where a smart person with a lawyer finds it difficult to know what is legal.

              So, since the feds came up empty, I conclude that these gangs simply do not do race hate crimes. At all. Ever. In all of America. Even once.

              Whereas there are parts of Silicon Valley where you can look out your window and see blacks committing race hate crimes morning and afternoon.

          • Hidden Author says:

            So you don’t think that the Aryan Brotherhood fights brown and black gangs in prison? If the news doesn’t cover it, why would it cover the Brotherhood’s brown and black equivalents? Now if the KKK had a necktie party or its brown and black equivalents did, that would be different, would be the point I’m going at…

            • jim says:

              Aryan nation defends whites from attacks by blacks. If it had ever done any unreasonable violence to any black anywhere ever, Feds would have gotten something. Feds came up empty. They investigated the hell out of them, infiltrated the hell out of them, and wound up busting them on mere technicalities.

              A black man is safer in a prison cell full of Aryan Nation members, than a white Harvard student talking to a black Harvard professor.

          • B says:

            >B seem to have the same approach–blacks are thugs and Arabs are monkeys. (Without any proof, you assume that the only exceptions to these rules are Jewish Arabs and Jewish blacks.)

            B grew up with blacks, served with blacks in the military and spent a lot of time training, leading and fighting against Arabs, so thinks he has the right to a general opinion. I don’t really care about individual exceptions, because they are exceptions.

            By the way, I never said all blacks are thugs. I’ve said several times here that I’ve met black men who were decent human beings and whom I trusted. But overall, American blacks are trash, and worse than that, they are glorified trash. African immigrants to America concur, in my experience.

            The Kurds, post-2003, mistreated the Yezidis for no good reason at all.

          • Corvinus says:

            “A black man is safer in a prison cell full of Aryan Nation members, than a white Harvard student talking to a black Harvard professor.”

            Define “safer” in this context.

            “But overall, American blacks are trash, and worse than that, they are glorified trash.”

            You’re not qualified to even make that statement.

            • jim says:

              “A black man is safer in a prison cell full of Aryan Nation members, than a white Harvard student talking to a black Harvard professor.”

              Define “safer” in this context.

              There have been a few cases where a black professor has made an unprovoked or unreasonable assault on a student, but if there had been cases where Aryan nation made made an unprovoked or unreasonable assault on a fellow prisoner, the feds would have been all over them like a rash.

          • Corvinus says:

            “There have been a few cases where a black professor has made an unprovoked or unreasonable assault on a student”

            A FEW cases. Citations?

            “but if there had been cases where Aryan nation made made an unprovoked or unreasonable assault on a fellow prisoner, the feds would have been all over them like a rash.”

            Assuming that the assault was “unprovoked” or “unreasonable”.

      • B says:

        My country, as in Israel? Nothing, we’ve got our hands full.

        My country, as in America (in whose service I met the Yezidis)? American has fucked the Yezidis and left them holding the bag, just as it did the Montagnards during Vietnam.

        Me personally? I can’t do very much. I write recommendation letters for the ones I know-“please let X into the US so he and his family don’t get their heads cut off.” I am filled with shame at having been a part of this fiasco.

        • peppermint says:

          So, the most you’ll do is use someone else’s resources. Sounds about right.

          • B says:

            I am, indeed, a racist. My loyalty is concentric.

            I am loyal to my family, friends, neighbors, fellow Jews and people who served with me more than I am to my country. And I am more loyal to my country than I am to my former country. With which I have more than settled accounts-anything I owed America, I’ve paid, and every time America helps my Arab neighbors who wish to kill me and my family, the balance moves more in my favor.

            If America decided to go into Iraq and represent to Yezidis that it was there to make things right and that they should join in, and then decided to bail on them, start a civil war in Syria, support friendly Islamist neighbors there and stand by while the Yezidis got gangraped to death by feral apes, I think America is morally obligated to take in the survivors, as it was obligated to take in the Montagnards whom it similarly fucked in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

            I understand that individual Americans may be less than wild about having surviving Yezidi refugees living next door. To which I say, 1) I don’t give a fuck about theoretical individual Americans compared to very real Yezidis I know, since I have concentric loyalties, 2) tough shit, should have thought about that before cheering on OIF and the Arab Spring (it is obvious that every war America has gotten involved in over the last 60 years has created a refugee diaspora in America-ask your local Vietnamese, Koreans and Somalis,) 3) cheer up, fellas, they’re much better than Somalis or Section 8 yoofs.

            Any Yezidi kid in a position to be adopted by me is not in any danger, and has his own extended family to take care of him

        • peppermint says:

          Adopt a Yezidi child or be a racist heartless racist. Your call.

        • vxxc2014 says:

          On this B we’re in the same boat, keeping faith with some Iraqis.

          In my case terps.

          Now there’s this lawyer in AK. I don’t know yet, first case. My unit got a lot of terps in 2008 forward but now it’s in limbo. She’s also LTC [RET] so knows the system. Because it’s in limbo =lawyer. Not free. But best recommended and so far so good.

          http://www.cascadialawalaska.com/Military-Immigration-Issues/Special-Immigrant-Visas-For-Iraqi-And-Afghan-Allies.shtml

          No I don’t get anything out of this except perhaps some keeping faith points.

          Just might want to look into it B.

    • Erik says:

      I am upset about the approaching disappearance of Christianity from the Near East and I would happily join a crusade to restore it from Anatolia to the Nasrani, but that doesn’t mean I have to pretend the Islamic State is incompetent.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        Ultimately, it is partly down to us. Without Christendom backing them up, these outposts were sure to be killed off, especially with the wave of Fundamentalist Islam caused by the very Liberals who destroyed Christendom in the first place. I cannot put my outrage at Liberalism into powerful enough words. They have so much more blood on their hands than just the guillotines of France and the millions of aborted.

        • Corvinus says:

          Yeah, outrage, that’s the ticket. How about putting your plan into practice? You know, actual boots on the ground. Why don’t you take the lead at the front of the line rather than coaxing your brethren into taking point?

          • Mark Citadel says:

            You’re a two issue troll, Corvinus

            1) They must ADMIT they are aristocrats!

            2) They must shoot someone!

            It’s pretty bad form.

          • Corvinus says:

            When it comes down to it, you’re all talk and no action. Impotent is the word.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            “Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.” – Sun Tzu

          • peppermint says:

            the annoying part is that he baldly asserts that all currently existing groups of hominids have the same basic psychological makeup, contrary to all descriptions of the lifestyles of savage tribes (savage tribes being the ones that couldn’t adopt civilization by the end of the 19th century) on the grounds that his holy book said so. We can contradict his interpretation of parts of it, but ultimately, Mark, you also believe that Scripture is inerrant, and Scripture says that men were created in the image of God and doesn’t say anything about race.

            • jim says:

              And Scripture says that men were created in the image of God and doesn’t say anything about race.

              It says something about the Arab race.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Peppermint, I feel a theological discussion would be kind of wasted here, but just because race is not discussed does not mean that the Biblical argument is that all races are the same. Indeed, this doesn’t really make sense. The Christian view is that all men will be judged before God in an equal fashion (harshly), which essentially is God saying “you all suck, and in comparison to Me, white, black, yellow, red, you all fail and deserve hell”. That is an aspect we all share regardless of race. The other is the moral obligations that apply to human beings in general (thou shalt not steal) rather than specifically (thou shalt honor THY mother and father).
            But this doesn’t really say anything about the spiritual makeup of the races, which is notably different, and the Bible does implicitly acknowledge this, for instance describing the lineage of Ishmael as ‘wild ass among men’ (AKA – an inherently violent people, some speculate these are the Arabs). The races all have different developmental histories which have informed their metaphysical characteristics.

            You might not like that Scripture doesn’t read like Mein Kampf when it comes to encouraging love of one’s kin, but I ask why would it? It doesn’t mention gay marriage either, nor plentiful other modern distortions. What it does say is that as people turn away from spirituality, they will be corrupted by darkness and life will become hard for the Faithful. Modern ideas surrounding race are part of this corruption, even if not specified. Even the Vedas which detail Modernity in its intricacies do not devote pages to the discussion of race. It doesn’t mean they deny that its an issue on which man currently has a very warped view of.

            I haven’t really heard Corvinus’ racial views to be honest. I doubt they are very insightful.

            • jim says:

              for instance describing the lineage of Ishmael as ‘wild ass among men’ (AKA – an inherently violent people, some speculate these are the Arabs).

              It is not “some speculate”. It is everyone knows, except those too clever to believe old stories. Obviously Mohammed believed that the Arabs of Mecca and Medina were the lineage of Ishmael.

          • peppermint says:

            so what, that’s all Jew shit anyway, read the letters of the Apostle Paul to see what Christians are supposed to think about sex and race (sex only with wife and egalitarianism).

            Christcucks were the first cucks to choose ideology over family and race.

            • jim says:

              As I read the new testament, having only one wife was a strongly encouraged ideal that the clergy should exemplify, but the ordinary Christians were not necessarily expected to follow. Old Testament arguably takes a similar position. Multiple wives not forbidden, but implied to be apt to have bad consequences.

          • Erik says:

            If you assert the Scripture doesn’t say anything about race, you may be leaning heavily on a technicality about choice of translation. What’s your favored translation of genos and ethnos, if neither is race? Folk and people, perhaps?

            Examples of use:
            Acts 13, Paul appeals to the men, brothers, and children of the genos of Abraham present.
            Acts 17, Paul says to the Athenians that he will tell them of the Unknown God they worship, who made all the ethnos of men to dwell upon the face of the Earth.

          • peppermint says:

            Acts 17, you say?

            21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

            22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

            23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

            24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

            25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

            26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

            27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

            28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

            29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

            30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

            31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

            Men of Athens obviously means exactly what it says, residents, as indicated in the beginning, “Athenians and strangers”. Men of Athens today would include the niggers in Athens on their way to seek gibs in the frozen north, who, after all, were made of the one blood from which all nations were made.

          • Corvinus says:

            Congratulations, you located a quote by Sun Tzu. Get yourself a fortune cookie.

            “contrary to all descriptions of the lifestyles of savage tribes (savage tribes being the ones that couldn’t adopt civilization by the end of the 19th century”

            
Depends on what are the metrics involved for “savagery”. It appears those tribes you refer to as “savage” are merely based on a western civilization, as opposed to an anthropological, perspective. And what is considered “savage” by some people (e.g. the slaughter of cows, along with the sale, consumption or even possession of beef in the state of Maharashtra, where Mumbai is located, is prohibited) is considered an essential part of their culture (e.g. Americans grilling steak on a warm summer evening).

            “But this doesn’t really say anything about the spiritual makeup of the races, which is notably different, and the Bible does implicitly acknowledge this…”

            You’re going to have to offer more of an explanation here.

            “for instance describing the lineage of Ishmael as ‘wild ass among men’”



            Only implies that as a group of men from the same family are hostile.

            “What it does say is that as people turn away from spirituality, they will be corrupted by darkness and life will become hard for the Faithful”

            LIke Roissy?

          • Corvinus says:

            “I haven’t really heard Corvinus’ racial views to be honest. I doubt they are very insightful.”

            John 4:1-42

            Jesus broke with societal and religious customs to honor the dignity of the Samaritan woman. He associated with a woman of mixed origins, a moral and social outsider, in public and asked her for a drink of water. He demonstrated dignity of the most highest degree-every person is precious.

            God has commanded his disciples to love all of humanity. When God communicates Himself, when He fills us with Himself, He fills us with His Divine Life, with His infinite Love, for He is Love. He confirms that we must share in this Divine nature for God to attract us to Himself because sharing His Grace is His nature.

            All men are equal in their natural dignity; human beings are NOT superior or inferior in this regard. Moreover, God created us in His likeness. As the children of God, we are redeemed by Christ, and bear witness to His divine calling and destiny, regardless of one’s group identity and locality on this Earth. To deny these truths is to deny the authority of God. God has identified His people as those who adhere to His ways, the brotherhood of humankind. God unifies humanity under His banner.

            From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

          • peppermint says:

            I don’t see how anyone can deny that christfaggotry = cuckfaggotry after seeing every mainstream denomination follow Corvinus’ logic.

            There’s more to it. Bob Whitaker’s group calls it “wordism”: what is obviously false and hurtful must be good and holy, and anyone who disagrees isn’t wise enough to see it. Of course, this is also implied by the cuck slur, the cuck can convince himself and might even convince others he’s somehow winning when he loses.

            Christfaggotry cucked the majority of our race, and the reason it’s taken this long for race to be taken seriously is that it’s taken this long for christfaggotry to lose its grip.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Christfaggotry cucked the majority of our race…”

            Is this the essence of your rebuttal? Oh, brother.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim

            >As I read the new testament, having only one wife was a strongly encouraged ideal that the clergy should exemplify
            Rome was monogamous, and so did not permit multiple wives. All of the letters in the New Testament would have been written to people under the Roman legal system. Only exception would have been the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Matthew, which were written to Jews living in Palestine. But even Jews rarely practiced polygyny in that time period.

            Paul doesn’t address polygamy because it didn’t exist much in his time period. The New Testament also doesn’t mention abortion, which was also illegal in the Roman Empire.

            Some people try to infer the sinfulness of polygamy from Jesus’ ideas on divorce. But that is somewhat speculative. Most early Christian groups were highly ascetic, and barely tolerated monogamous marriage itself.

            >Old Testament arguably takes a similar position. Multiple wives not forbidden, but implied to be apt to have bad consequences.
            It also declares that multiple wives, and wealth in general, is a blessing from God. And a second marriage faces more legal restrictions that the first.

            • jim says:

              >As I read the new testament, having only one wife was a strongly encouraged ideal that the clergy should exemplify

              Rome was monogamous, and so did not permit multiple wives. All of the letters in the New Testament would have been written to people under the Roman legal system

              Romans were supposed to be monogamous (but could have as many slave girls and concubines as they wanted) However Roman law did not forcefully impose their marriage system on others, though Roman culture did.

            • jim says:

              Some people try to infer the sinfulness of polygamy from Jesus’ ideas on divorce. But that is somewhat speculative.

              Seems to me that Jesus’ position on divorce takes polygamy completely for granted. He totally prohibits polygyny, and only polygyny.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Corvinus

            >God has commanded his disciples to love all of humanity.
            Also commanded some of his worshipers to kill off certain Canaanite tribes for displeasing him. Including the children, who were presumably not responsible for their parent’s religious affiliations.

            Since you’re not a Marcionite, how can you reconcile your universalism with the Old Testament God’s clear non-universalism.

            1) God makes a covenant with a certain ethnic group, because he liked their ancestor (Abraham).
            2) The Law given to the Jews requires that they treat non-Jews worse than Jews (i.e. no charging interest on loans to Jews, but loan sharking Gentiles is fine).
            3) Jesus and his first Apostles are only sent out to convert Jews. Universalism wasn’t practiced until Paul. (you know, the “Apostle to the Gentiles”)

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim

            >Seems to me that Jesus’ position on divorce takes polygamy completely for granted.
            He says that men who divorce their wives, and marry other women, are committing adultery. Presumably, if you skipped the divorce, and married another woman, you would be committing adultery.

            Of course, this may or may not be valid, depending on your interpretive assumptions. A lot of what Jesus says is hyperbole, and metaphorical.

            >However Roman law did not forcefully impose their marriage system on others
            Greeks were monogamous, like Romans, and from my limited knowledge, their marriage laws were derived Roman marriage laws. All the New Testament was written to ethnic Greeks, except for the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistle of James. The Epistle of James was written to diaspora Jews. And in that period, Polygamy was rarely practiced, even in Palestine.

            The New Testament makes several references to people with multiple husbands/wives. Off the top of my head, I remember Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman, giving money to widows, and the requirements for Bishop/Elder. In the first two instances, It’s a reference to divorce and remarriage. Probably is in the last one, too.

            >Romans were supposed to be monogamous (but could have as many slave girls and concubines as they wanted)
            And what is the New Testament approach to sex with slave girls and concubines? That’s not unambiguous either, but it’s almost certainly considered a form of “pornia”, or “sexual immorality”.

            • jim says:

              >Seems to me that Jesus’ position on divorce takes polygamy completely for granted.

              He says that men who divorce their wives, and marry other women, are committing adultery.

              Untrue. Not what Jesus said. That is what progressives wish he had said, and lie that he did say.

              Jesus said:

              But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

              So if you marry another wife without divorcing your first wife, no problem.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            Jesus doesn’t explicitly say polygamy is adultery. But his principle on divorce would imply that polygamy is adultery. Although that depends on some interpretive assumptions.

            According to Jesus, divorce and remarriage is adultery. Why? Because it’s splitting the “one flesh”, that God joined. Why is remarriage mentioned? Because Jesus considers this part of the splitting of the “one flesh”.

            So we conclude that remarriage alone is a violation of Jesus’ interpretation of the “one flesh” doctrine. Of course, none of this is consistent with the Jewish “one flesh” doctrine, which permits both divorce and polygamy.

            You seem to be interpreting Jesus as if he were withing the Jewish Tradition. He was a member of the Essene sect, who were poor monastics, and spent their time dreaming about the soon-to-come apocalypse. Jesus (or, the four gospels record of Jesus) regarded wealth, marriage, and status as insufficiently holy.

            • jim says:

              According to Jesus, divorce and remarriage is adultery.

              Untrue. Not what he said. Divorce of one’s wife will force one’s wife into adultery, and if someone marries a divorced wife that is adultery.

              He does not say that if you remarry after divorcing your first wife, that is adultery, still less does he say that if you remarry without divorcing your first wife, that is adultery.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Untrue. Not what he said.
            Matthew 19:8-12 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

            There are three versions of Jesus’ statement in the three synoptic gospels. You’re selecting the one that permits your interpretation, and then ignoring the other two. This, by the way, is the interpretation of all major Christian sects, from the Patristic era to modernity. Of course, they were all progressives, right?

            • jim says:

              Mathew 5:32 is a slightly different rendition of the same incident, and the 5:32 version assumes polygamy is legitimate, but polygyny illegitimate.

              To reconcile the two versions, we can interpret the 19:12 version as that the man is misbehaving, in that he is forbidden to diminish the support or sexual gratification of his existing wives as a result of marrying a new wife.

          • B says:

            >It also declares that multiple wives, and wealth in general, is a blessing from God.

            Sorry, where does it say that?

            The king is expressly told not to multiply his wives and wealth.

            >the Old Testament God’s clear non-universalism.

            Partially true. There is a People that belongs to G-d. On the other hand, anyone (with some exceptions that are no longer active) can join that People and will be treated the same. The line of kings comes from several converts.

            >God makes a covenant with a certain ethnic group, because he liked their ancestor (Abraham).

            Not so-He made a covenant with Abraham first, and not because he “liked him” (whatever that means) but because of Abraham’s commitment to G-d. He says so clearly.

            >The Law given to the Jews requires that they treat non-Jews worse than Jews (i.e. no charging interest on loans to Jews, but loan sharking Gentiles is fine).

            This is not quite accurate. The Law given to Jews requires that they treat Jews better than non-Jews. You wouldn’t charge your brother interest on a loan, though this has some cost to you. But you wouldn’t give a loan to a stranger for nothing (or at least the vast majority of people wouldn’t.) The Law requires Jews to treat each other like brothers.

            >Of course, none of this is consistent with the Jewish “one flesh” doctrine, which permits both divorce and polygamy.

            If you look at what Rashi’s explanation of “one flesh” is, it’s that the man and the woman will have a child together. Which is pretty much the most straightforward explanation.

            Polygamy is permitted, but every story I can think of involving polygamy is one of unhappiness and strife.

            Anyway, of course the Christian additions are incompatible with the Torah, and the Christians have spent 2KY doing backflips and trying to make them compatible. These efforts have led to what you have today. Don’t you think it might be time to stop digging and reevaluate the premise? If a bunch of Russian peasants from Ilinka could figure it out…

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Sorry, where does it say that?
            King of Israel is commanded not to multiply wives. This is not a requirement that he be monogamous.

            Google didn’t find me a verse specifically referring to multiple wives, but

            2 Samuel 12:7-8 (ESV) Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.

            >Not so-He made a covenant with Abraham first
            I thought there were several covenants, including the one with Abraham and the one with Moses/Israel.

            >and not because he “liked him” (whatever that means) but because of Abraham’s commitment to G-d
            That’s why he liked him. I was being brief.

            >This is not quite accurate. The Law given to Jews requires that they treat Jews better than non-Jews.
            Then it’s pretty much accurate. You’re just putting a positive spin on it.

            >If you look at what Rashi’s explanation of “one flesh” is, it’s that the man and the woman will have a child together. Which is pretty much the most straightforward explanation.
            And it’s the only sense in which the “one flesh” explanation can be taken literally. Any other interpretation is a spiritual interpretation. Which makes it very murky and can lead down bad directions (i.e. Roman Catholic views of sexuality).

            >Polygamy is permitted, but every story I can think of involving polygamy is one of unhappiness and strife.
            Firstly, nearly every person in the Old Testament has periods of unhappiness and strife. Secondly, polygamy is obviously going to cause unhappiness and strife. To misquote some rapper “mo’ women, mo’ problems”.

            >Don’t you think it might be time to stop digging and reevaluate the premise? If a bunch of Russian peasants from Ilinka could figure it out…
            Firstly, Jesus’ statement on self-emasculation is ambiguous. Probably metaphorical, because we have records that certain Jewish sectarians (with theology similar to Jesus) in the period were celibates. But we don’t have record of any Jewish self-emasculation, or any Greco-Roman pagan self-emasculation with a theological connection to early Christianity.

            Of course, saying that self-emasculation is PROBABLY metaphorical is pretty fucked up. You’d be disturbed if your brother told you that he PROBABLY wasn’t going to cut off your balls. Also, the metaphor is unpleasant because it’s teaching a unpleasant ascetic concept.

            Lots of what Jesus says is cryptic, vague, and metaphorical. He’s like a mirror. Everybody sees their own beliefs in him. You’ll note that Jim is defending the idea that Jesus was pro-polygamy.And a bunch of modern Americans think he was pro-gay.

            Secondly, like most modern Christians, I don’t take the New Testament that seriously. Christianity has a bunch of different sects, many of whom disregard the New Testament, or marginalize it in their theology. For example, Mormonism and Islam.

            The New Testament was almost entirely written by Pauline Christians. But Paul’s teachings were probably not aligned with Jesus’, Peter’s and James’ teachings. And the four gospels you’ll find in a typical Bible are probably Jesus’ teachings merged with Paul’s teachings. Which often creates quirky contradictions, like Jesus’ support of the Sanhedrin’s authority and the Pharisee’s teachings. Then he rejects basic principles of Jewish legal interpretation later (i.e. John 8).

            Matthew 23:1-3 (ESV)
            Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >To reconcile the two versions, we can interpret the 19:12 version as that the man is misbehaving, in that he is forbidden to diminish the support or sexual gratification of his existing wives as a result of marrying a new wife.
            Before you try to reconcile two contradictory passages, first ask do they contradict each other?

            1) A man who divorces his wife, causes her to commit adultery
            2) A man who divorces his wife, commits adultery
            3) A man who divorces his wife and remarries, commits adultery

            None of these are contradictory. All these actions are a form of adultery.

            As I said before, nearly every branch of Christianity considers male infidelity in marriage to be adultery. Only exception I’m aware of is a couple of the early Greek Fathers. Christianity has typically been very ascetic, so this is not surprising.

            Some branches of early Christianity even considered remarriage after the death of a spouse to be adultery.

            • jim says:

              Josephus attests to widespread polygamy amongst the Jews of the Time of Jesus. Herod the great had ten wives, and polygamy was common among the Sadducees. The Damascus scroll also complains about polygamy by Pharisees.

              If Jesus was saying “No polygamy”, he would have said “no polygamy”, rather than talking about marriage after divorce.

              There is also the frequent references to “husband of one wife”, which implies that husband of several wives was hardly unusual, discouraged, rather than strictly forbidden.

              (Old testament also takes the position permitting, but discouraging, polygamy.)

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Re: no polygamy for Christians

            L.O.L….This is why I say that Mormonism is Mahommedanism for white people. No alcohol but multiple wives allowed.

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            what we’re doing here, RNG, is watching a bunch of cucks lying to each other about the meaning of some shit books written by kikes 2000 years ago.

            We could have had real conservatism 50 years ago, but as Revilo Oliver said at the time, the White middle class was too busy trying to be cucktian to conserve itself. Did the Jews teach us cucktianity 2000 years ago deliberately intending for us to cuck ourselves? They did what they could to disrupt our culture, and still do, but, the story of White nations choosing that bibble and then reading those Jew stories and then choosing to be cucked as men and as nations is long and can’t really be described as simple Jewish malfeasance.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Mormonism is Mahommedanism for white people
            The Koran’s two primary themes are strict Monotheism and War. Mormons are pretty much the opposite of Monotheistic, and aren’t really militaristic.

            @Peppermint

            >Did the Jews teach us cucktianity 2000 years ago deliberately intending for us to cuck ourselves?
            You might enjoy reading “the Epistle of Barnabas”.

            But I doubt the Jews had any intention for Christianity. The Talmud is very nasty to Jesus. And no matter how politically incorrect it is, the Jews did kill Jesus. Or, they convinced the Roman Governor to kill him.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim

            >Josephus attests to widespread polygamy amongst the Jews of the Time of Jesus
            Citation? I have never encountered a source saying that polygamy was “widespread”.

            >If Jesus was saying “No polygamy”, he would have said “no polygamy”
            Jesus said lots of things. Not all are included in the gospels.

            We don’t know anything Jesus explicitly said about polygamy. We also don’t know anything Jesus explicitly said about having sex with prepubescent girls. Both have ambiguous status in Jewish teaching.

            >There is also the frequent references to “husband of one wife”, which implies that husband of several wives was hardly unusual, discouraged, rather than strictly forbidden.
            Frequent? I am only aware of three uses of that phrase, all in the Pastoral epistles.

            You will also find numerous mentions of “polygamy” in the church fathers. All of which are references to remarriage after divorce or the death of a spouse. Using the language of “multiple marriages” to refer to remarriage after divorce/death was very common in the antenicene era.

            Also, I am aware of one NT references to the phrase “wife of one husband”, and one NT reference to a woman having five husbands. But we do not use that to conclude that polyandry was practiced among the early Christians.

            • jim says:

              “for it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time.” (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter 1, Section 2, p. 1058)

              Bottom line is that the old testament and common practice at the time of Jesus clearly says that polygyny is OK, but discouraged, while polyandry is absolutely forbidden, and nothing in the New Testament contradicts that position.

        • OldStudent says:

          Cuckservatives are outraged by abortion.
          Cuckservatives and christfags.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes use the terminology of the evil NRx to support atrocities against babies; that’ll show your superior morality, you bitch boy punk!

          • Mr Rodgers the Benovelent Sniper says:

            >Cuckservatives are outraged by abortion
            Compare the number of abortion doctors killed, to the number of people killed in road rage incidents.

            Conservatives do not seem to be very outraged by abortion.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Cuckservatives introduce legislation to be voted down to end abortion

            Actual right wing people support Scott Roeder and the Army of God. Executing abortion doctor jackals the way it should be done.

      • jim says:

        Christendom is dead, devoured by its heretical spawn.

        The old gods walk again in Mexico.

        • vxxc2014 says:

          Yet Francis would march them North.

          Oh Yes. He’s got his eye fixed north.

        • Mr Rodgers the Benovelent Sniper says:

          Catholicism still exists in parts of Mexico. The Aztec gods (or, their modern translations), primarily reside in Washington DC, London and Stockholm.

      • B says:

        But they ARE incompetent.

        I mean, they suck worse than AIDS. Though not as bad as the Iraqi Army.

        Did you not notice how AFTER they got their hands on several divisions’ worth of high-end kit-those plate carriers they’re rocking are brand new-they still couldn’t do anything in Kobane? The Kurds had a few hundred guys on the ground, the hostile Turks at their back, and they stopped IS cold.

        It is difficult to explain to someone who hasn’t seen it just how bad the Arabs are.

        • Just sayin' says:

          They can’t help being Arabs, that’s just how they evolved. Arabs gonna Arab.

          The question is, are they more competent than other Arabs?

          The answer is a qualified “of course”, assuming you define “Arab” correctly to take into account varying degrees of Arab-ness.

          • B says:

            They are more competent than other Arabs, in large part because many of them are Chechens, Uzbeks, Tajiks (the former head of the Tajik police special forces defected to them recently, along with a squad of his best and brightest) and all kinds of other non-Arab Muslims. Not exclusively. And even that didn’t help them in Kobane.

            Look at pictures of their “special forces.” They can’t even hold a rifle properly.

    • jim says:

      Mao had two phases: Kremlin as a base area. Conquered parts of China as a base area. The stuff about swimming through the people like a fish in the sea was just denial about the role of Soviet backing.

      Its safe area was not just geographical, as is the case for traditional guerrilla organizations, but mostly in the human terrain of Iraq’s Sunnis.

      Because of ancient warfare, and very recent terror tolerated and committed by the elected Iraqi government, Iraq’s Sunnis are a geographical safe area.

      You’re ready to praise Boko Haram, IS, Donald Trump, Putin,

      Donald Trump speaks the unspeakable truth. Putin defends Russia against Cathedral soft power. Boko Haram engages in military resistance against the “Demographic Transition”.

      Like Peppermint, I agree that the Cathedral is sane to attempt to impose a “demographic transition” on blacks, who otherwise will shortly become the world’s dominant population, but before the Cathedral imposed it on blacks, it imposed it on whites, and Boko Haram’s armed resistance reveals the hostile, unpopular, and coercive nature of the “Demographic Transition”. The Demographic Transition is what McArthur did to a defeated Japan.

      My main criticism of Islamic State is that their Islam is so pure that they are already getting holier than Mohammed, as the Puritans became holier than Jesus. And the end state of that is to become profoundly similar to the progressives.

      • B says:

        >Mao had two phases: Kremlin as a base area.

        Look at the supply lines. Draw a line from the nearest Soviet-controlled area to Jiangxi, where Mao started the Long March, and Yan’an where he ended it. Now take a topographic map and look at the terrain between them. Now try to understand the political situation of the time.

        How the fuck are you going to push a reasonable amount of supplies and kit through that mess?

        >The stuff about swimming through the people like a fish in the sea was just denial about the role of Soviet backing.

        Uh-huh. They hired KBR to run convoys from Soviet-controlled Xinjiang. Tell me another stupid fairy tale.

        Or just, you know, get a refurbished Soviet truck from the 1930s and try to drive it across the Rockies. No using paved roads or mechanics on the way, and you have to stick to dirt roads. Haul your own fuel, oil and lubricants. Nobody’s shooting at you, though.

        In the 1980s, the vastly more advanced Soviet Army had immense difficulty supplying its more remote garrisons in Afghanistan, which were much closer and better-connected than Mao’s safe areas 50 years earlier.

        >Iraq’s Sunnis are a geographical safe area.

        That’s what I said.

        >Donald Trump speaks the unspeakable truth.

        The guy is a bozo. I mean, he’s got a toupee on his head. I think if Andrew Dice Clay ran for president, you dummies would be cheering.

        • jim says:

          >Mao had two phases: Kremlin as a base area.

          Look at the supply lines. Draw a line from the nearest Soviet-controlled area to Jiangxi, where Mao started the Long March, and Yan’an where he ended it. Now take a topographic map and look at the terrain between them.

          There is nothing remarkable in the terrain between Soviet controlled Mongolia and Jiangxi.

          The long March from Jiangxi to Yan’an was a retreat towards the Soviet Union along their supply lines.

          Yes, Jiangxi is a long way from Soviet controlled Mongolia, but Yan’an is directly adjacent to it. And, given that the borders are ill defined, their base in Yan’an was in practice probably inside Soviet controlled territory. Chances are that when Mao claimed to be in Yan’an, he was in fact raiding Yan’an from Soviet controlled Mongolia, much as the Greek “civil” war consisted of attacks on Greece from Bulgaria by people nominally of Greek nationality.

          Where a goat can go a man can go. Where a man can go he can drag a thirty pounder. Japanese fought Australians back and forth over the spine of New Guinea, which is far worse than anything in the terrain to which you refer.

          When you look at the map, it is obvious that the long march was a retreat towards Mao’s base, and Mao’s base was the Soviet Union.

          If Japanese could attack Australians when the spine of New Guinea lay between them, Soviets could certainly attack Chinese when the deserts of Mongolia lay between them.

          • B says:

            Good points. How do we even know there IS a Yan’an? Have you ever been there? Ever read about Yan’an from a non-Cathedral/non-Chicom source?

            • jim says:

              Obviously we know there is a Yan’an, and we have indepedent sources for its existence. We have no independent source that Mao was in Yan’an, rather than conducting the war from the other side of the border under the protection of Russian soldiers stationed right on the border.

              Which is standard behavior of communist “revolutionaries”. And while we don’t know what happened in Yan’an, in every case where we do know what happened where a “revolt” happened adjacent to a communist border, the “revolt” consisted of raids across the border.

          • B says:

            I don’t have independent sources for Yan’an’s existence. Google? Are you kidding me? Do you know who they work for?

            You bring up the Greek Civil War. The war was kicked off when Greek Communists overran a police station in Litochoro. Litochoro is a hell of a long trip from Bulgaria. There was a lot of fighting in the Peloponnese.

            • jim says:

              The war was kicked off when Greek Communists overran a police station in Litochoro. Litochoro is a hell of a long trip from Bulgaria.

              And were squished not long thereafter, and proceeded to do their own long march to Bulgaria, resembling Mao’s long march to Mongolia. Not withstanding the rhetoric, Stalin clearly viewed this war as a Soviet war on Greece, not a civil war within Greece, purging Greeks within the Soviet Union as potential traitors.

              And the location that Mao marched to shows that the Chinese communist revolution was, in the initial phase of the war, a Soviet war on China.

          • B says:

            Obviously, it is better if your safe area is somewhere that borders on a patron-state. Which does not invalidate Mao’s theory.

            • jim says:

              If essential that when you are weak, when you are fighting “asymmetrically”, your safe area borders on a patron state, it does invalidate Mao’s theory. Che Guevara shows what happens if you actually fight asymmetrically.

          • B says:

            It’s not essential. It’s helpful.

            Mao spent a long time fighting in a place that was far from Yan’an, and even in Yan’an, it was quite a long way across shitty terrain to the nearest Soviet large base.

            Obviously, you can always lose even when following best practices. The enemy also has a voice. If the enemy is proactive and has good advisers, troops and supplies (the Bolivian Rangers who killed Che were not acting in isolation, but were the sharp end of the American government, with CIA/SF advisers, weapons, training, etc.) then you can lose even if your safe haven backs up to your state sponsor. That’s why they call it “war.”

            • jim says:

              Mao spent a long time fighting in a place that was far from Yan’an

              And, like Che, was rather thoroughly defeated.

              And even in Yan’an, it was quite a long way across shitty terrain to the nearest Soviet large base.

              Really? How do you know? Every border between a communist and non communist country has large numbers of bases right on the border, or at artillery shot distance from the border. Every border between a communist and non communist country was very heavily militarized.

          • B says:

            >And, like Che, was rather thoroughly defeated.

            After years of conventional (not guerrilla warfare.)

            >Really? How do you know?

            How do I know Ireland exists? To supply large bases which are thousands of kilometers away from your industrial centers, you need either a railway net or a highway system with trucks, fuel stations, mechanics and depots, etc.

            Mongolia didn’t have a railway until 1947. In 2007 it had 2600 km of paved roads.

            The USSR didn’t have very much of a truck production capacity until Ford built two plants in 1929 and 1930. Even then, their output was not enough and a large part of Lend-Lease was composed of trucks.

            Reading about the Soviet-backed war in Xinjiang after WW2, it becomes obvious that most fighting was done by proxy forces, with Soviet advisers and air support: http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1947v07/reference/frus.frus1947v07.i0008.pdf

            Xinjiang was full of uranium and much closer to the USSR’s industrial centers in Central Asia than Yan’an was, and the USSR was much more industrialized and militarized in 1947 than it had been in 1934.

            In general, when you look at what the USSR was doing in neighboring countries in Central Asia in the 1930s, it involved a small group of diplomats, intelligence agents and advisers based out of an embassy and running things by proxy. You can look at Sheng Shicai, the semi-autonomous ruler of Xinjiang, who’d been acting exactly like Choibalsan in Mongolia. When things went poorly for the USSR in 1942, he just kicked the Soviets out. He would not have been able to do this had Xinjiang been full of Soviet bases.

            During those occasions when the Soviets did interfere in neighboring countries in Central Asia en force, their troops would go in, do whatever it was they were supposed to do and get out. Examples: intervention in Xinjiang in 1934 and 1937, the invasion of Northern Afghanistan in 1930.

            Further, if Mao was in fact based in Southern Mongolia and periodically raiding into Yan’an across the Gobi Desert, we could expect to see some complaints about this from the KMT. Do you have any records of such complaints?

        • pdimov says:

          >>Donald Trump speaks the unspeakable truth.

          >The guy is a bozo. I mean, he’s got a toupee on his head.

          He speaks the unspeakable truth, and it is the unspeakable truth we dummies are cheering, not the toupee. This is not rocket science. Someone of your intelligence can’t not get it unless there’s something blocking the view.

          • B says:

            Trump’s unspeakable truth is that illegal Mexican immigrants commit a lot of crimes.

            He has not spoken any unspeakable truths about blacks, homosexuals, the proper role of government in the economy, etc. I suspect that, if elected, he would do something like any other Republican president-reverse progress by a few decades on a couple of key issues, get hammered for it nonstop (see the recent “rape” allegations) and allow and encourage progress on every other front.

            Standard-we are all supposed to know that the president can’t really do anything against progress, any more than the red Power Ranger could defeat Haim Saban.

            But you guys hear a dude that says a hatefact publically, and all of a sudden, all of that is out the window, you’re like a 13 year old nerd hyperventilating over a hot girl who asked to borrow a pencil.

            • jim says:

              we are all supposed to know that the president can’t really do anything against progress, any more than the red Power Ranger could defeat Haim Saban.

              If one candidate speaks one unspeakable truth, that is mighty entertaining as compared to the normal situation where no candidates speak any unspeakable truths.

              I do not expect Trump to save america. I expect, however, that he will horrify and outrage those that are destroying it.

          • pdimov says:

            Saying hatefacts is a valuable public service. It moves the Overton window to the right, however slightly.

          • B says:

            Ann Coulter has been saying hatefacts for a long time, publicly. And? What has changed?

          • pdimov says:

            Good question. Perhaps the difference is that Trump is running for president and Ann Coulter isn’t. Or that Trump has 3.36M followers on Twitter and Ann Coulter merely 626K.

          • B says:

            Trick question-there is no difference. They could elect Coulter President with the same exact result.

            • jim says:

              While President Coulter would be unable to have much effect on actual government policy, we would have the satisfaction of seeing our enemies’ heads explode. Indeed candidate Trump is causing heart attacks all over the place.

          • pdimov says:

            True, but so what? One has to take the little pleasures wherever one finds them. Today their provider happens to be Trump.

    • vxxc2014 says:

      Yes, most of NRx is full of self loathing.

      Then again they began as Progs or Libertarians.

      Don’t underestimate the projection around here.

    • Mr Rodgers the Benevolent Sniper says:

      Based on the last few posts, Jim admires the IS because he is on too much testosterone medication. I doubt Moldbug admires the IS.

      Also, Donald Trump is like an arrogant, reality-TV version of Pat Buchanan. He’s cool.

      • jim says:

        I don’t admire Islamic State – they are the same stuff as the puritans are made of. But Django reveals that progressive criticism of Islamic State bloodlust is hypocritical, as does the progressive war against Tutsis in the Congo, which was vastly more horrific than anything Islamic State has done, and Rotherham reveals that progressive criticism of slavery, sex slavery, and minor marriage is hypocritical.

        They are fine with doing horrifying things to their enemies. Provided the right people are doing the brutalizing, and the right people are brutalized, progressives love it.

      • B says:

        I don’t really consider Moldbug part of NRx. NRx is sort of the Eternal September of what Moldbug was trying to build. I suspect that this is the reason he has stopped posting and is focusing on Urbit.

        There is nothing cool about Donald Trump. What next, NRx candidate Bill Cosby?

        • jim says:

          Trump speaks the unspeakable truth. NRx speaks the unspeakable truth.

        • Ion says:

          Donald Trump is not NRx. NRx couldn’t even run a laundromat, much less a political campaign. Donald Trump is a celebrity, who is using politics to gain name recognition, fame, and thus money.

          He is (unintentionally) exposing our political/governmental system as insane and clownish. By being the biggest rhetorical clown of them all.

    • Nomni says:

      JIDF pls go.

  6. peppermint says:

    The Jew York Times:

    (1) Turks to allow US aircrafts to bomb sand niggers engaging in revolt against Basher Al-Assad or whatever

    (2) weird-looking monkeys called Rohingya cry themselves to sleep because no one likes them. Photo: zombies in a misty forest

    (3) sheboon that died in the custody of police determined to have killed itself. This underscores the need for police to do more to save the North American pavement apes.

    (4) survey shows public considers race relations worse since Obama was elected. How’d that happen?

  7. vxxc2014 says:

    “This, of course, is a load of horseshit.”

    Yes. Mao did have a guerrilla phase in the North and did keep up irregular warfare but he always had a sponsor in the Kremlin. Also his victories were conventional and with surrendered Japanese War booty as well as captured KMT conventional weapons. He won with Armies.

    The Fish in the Sea have always been Western Leftists swimming in our sea of misplaced tolerance. Projection.

    ISIS has sponsors all over the region and received training in Jordan as Pro-Democracy Anti-Assad rebels from good old USA in 2013.

    Actual fish in the sea guerrillas end up bandits hunted down like Che.

    • B says:

      >but he always had a sponsor in the Kremlin.

      Of course. And they pushed him some kit, advisors and the rest of it. But the main use of the sponsor was not logistical support. Rather, it was moral support, convincing the Americans to help out with more moral support, culminating in Dixie Mission and IPR (it is as usual unclear whether the Americans were being used to attack Japan by the Russians who were being used by Mao, or using Mao through the Russians to provide a convenient alternative to the KMT or what-I suspect, as usual, a mass of symbiotic and incestuous relationships.)

      >Also his victories were conventional and with surrendered Japanese War booty as well as captured KMT conventional weapon

      Well, yes-this is the third phase. To get there, he had to go through the first two phases, with very few spectacular victories but a steady consolidation of administrative power and a lot of small operations making life difficult for the enemy, capturing weapons, etc.

      Fish in the Sea is for real. IS had sponsors in its days as AQIZ, but they weren’t rolling in a stream of money. They enjoyed a population that gave them safe haven, fought alongside them and rented its retards out as IED emplacers and the rest of it for a moderate fee. In 2006-2007, the Americans got pretty good at sorting the fish from the sea, plus the locals got a bit tired of AQIZ arrogance and their tactics resulting in massive collateral damage from the US response, and decided to sell them down the river (mixing metaphors here.) But once the US pulled out and the awesome Iraqi Shi’a military and police started doing their good works, all of a sudden the sea got a lot more welcoming. Plus, of course, Syrian chaos provided a lot of juicy safe areas. And then the American aid showed up.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        I’m not going to deny fish in the sea works if you have permissive fishermen environment. If the fishermen are dropping depth charges it’s all over.

        I won’t say there’s nothing to it but on it’s own it doesn’t get to victory. It needs help to do that.

        I was around there as well B and we basically were on hands off as much as possible. They didn’t even try and hide because they didn’t have to…

        I get that Arabs usually suck.

        Meanwhile check that link if you’re actually interested in helping abandoned saps of faithless US policy get representation. No I’m not getting anything but some shards of honor out of it.

        http://www.cascadialawalaska.com/Military-Immigration-Issues/Special-Immigrant-Visas-For-Iraqi-And-Afghan-Allies.shtml

        We actually got a bunch of terps out before they slammed the door shut.

        Congress fickle it may open again.

        • B says:

          We got pretty good about getting the fish in 2006-2008. JAM guys and AQ guys were having a very bad time, and hiding was difficult. But we were a very small part of the military presence there. Back of the napkin estimate-for every American brigade and supporting elements, there was less than a platoon’s worth of guys hitting (counting the SOTFs, the Colors of the Rainbow, the big military and the contractors.)

          You don’t need depth charges to get the fish, but of course depth charges do the job too. You need at least a military that is competent, motivated and empowered to do what is needed. And the US doesn’t have one of those, has not had one for a long time, and will not have one for the foreseeable future.

          I pinged that lawyer, thanks for the link, one of our Afghans has his SIV package stuck in bureaucrahell in Kabul right now.

  8. Mr Rodgers the Benevolent Sniper says:

    Nietzsche would tell you that the Islamic State is successful because Islam has master morality, and Christianity has slave morality.

    Islam tells it’s members to conquer all governments not under Sharia law, starting with the government you live under. It legitimizes and encourages men who want to violently resist Progressiviem. So the Cathedral must spend an enormous amount of time and money establishing and running a nanny state to control the population. And if that control slips, then IS or Taliban-type insurgencies emerge, with the approval of the Islamic masses.

    The reason Progressivism is beating Christianity is because it is simply forcing Christians into following their (horrifying) beliefs in pacifism, egalitarianism, poverty, a-sexuality, et cetera. Most Christians in previous years were too sensible to be that life-denying.

    You’ll note that the average white male Progressive lives remarkably like a Catholic monk. No sex. No money. No violence. Constantly lowering his social status (in Christian terms, humility). Complete dedication to the “other world” of the Kingdom of Heaven (Christianity), the classless society (Marxism), the post-racist or feminist society (Progressivism).

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      So, Christians didn’t know how to be Christian until non-Christians showed them how? Mr Rogers, you are full of gas.

      A.J.P.

      • jim says:

        Rather, this is an ailment to which Christianity is prone. Charles the Hammer fixed it up, but there are regular relapses.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          He’s simply a troll, there’s nobody in Neo-Reaction with legitimate differences of opinion on Christianity past, present or future. However, there are plenty who like to see what kind of reaction their anti-Christian screeds get.

          There’s Christianity and then there’s nothing. Nobody seriously argues for secularism because that is easily identified and condemned for what it is: Communism.

          A.J.P.

          • Ion says:

            For modern Christians, the most obvious solution is to destroy all gnostic, Catholic, Puritian, et cetera, influences. Turn back to the Old Testament. Lots of variants of Christianity have done this, and been quite successful. Many eastern variants of Christianity derive most of their theology from the Old Testament, and don’t take the New Testament very seriously. The Protestant Reformation can be seen as shift toward more OT-type thinking, too.

            If you’re an Anglican, you probably don’t believe in vows of poverty, celibacy, or pacifism. That’s half the battle.

            >Nobody seriously argues for secularism
            Secularism doesn’t really exist. Which might be a good thing.

            You’d have difficulty naming a secular political philosopher prior to the Enlightenment. You’d also have difficulty naming a “secular” political philosopher after the Enlightenment who denied the (theological) doctrine of “the consent of the governed”.

            Traditional Protestantism argues for the “Divine right of Kings”. Modern “secularists” argue for the “Divine right of the People”, also known as the “consent of the governed”. Take a look at it’s early history.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed

            Note that it was
            1) Advocated by religious groups (specifically, dissenters from the Anglican church)
            2) Contrasted with theological doctrines (especially the “Divine right of Kings”)

            >There’s Christianity and then there’s nothing.
            Christianity is the second most mainstream Western belief system. Progressivism is the first. But Islam is still alive, and the Nazis came close to reviving paganism.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            let’s not kid anyone. The Nazis never came close to reviving Paganism. Even Julius Evola pretty much laughed them off in the end, and Hitler certainly wanted nothing to do with what Himmler was digging up. When the situation permitted it, Himmler would have found himself in the same place Roehm did. Like the Commies, Hitler wanted a future based on the ‘science’ of the master race rather than “superstitious riffraff”. The Paganism angle was Himmler’s alone

          • Mr Rodgers the Benevolent Sniper says:

            Hitler wanted a pagan-progressive hybrid. And was fairly successful. When I said “reviving paganism”, I didn’t mean that Germany was rebuilding old temples of various Germanic gods. I meant that their worldview was pagan. Note the broad arc of their mythology. Man rises from a beast to a man, to a superman. There was no fall, no original sin.

            Contrast this with Marxism, or Enlightenment philosophy, which share the Christian mythic arc. Perfect man -> Fall -> State of Sin -> Redemption to become a perfect man again

            It is possible to have paganism without the gods, just like it’s possible to have Christianity without belief in a divine Jesus.

    • Stephen W says:

      Sums it up nicely.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Ironically, anti-Christian is pro-Cathedral.

        A.J.P.

        • Ion says:

          In general, yes. Because people who identify themselves as “Christian” are usually the ones who take the Cathedral least seriously. So the Cathedral is typically mildly opposed to people who identify themselves as “Christian”.

          Of course, being anti-Islam is very, very pro-Cathedral. Far more so than being anti-Christian.

          • jim says:

            Of course, being anti-Islam is very, very pro-Cathedral. Far more so than being anti-Christian.

            Nonsense: Observe, for example, Rotherham and all the other cases.

            Observe that feminists cannot bring themselves to object to child sex slavery provided the children are white and the slavers are Muslim.

            The Cathedral believes that all religions, rightly understood, are progressivism. Having already persuaded Christians of this, and well on the way to persuading Jews of this, is piously working on Muslims, hence ultra nice to Muslims.

          • Mr Rodgers the Benovelent Sniper says:

            Opposition to Islam, and opposition to Pakis, are two different things. Opposition to Islam, means rewarding Muslims who deny their faith, and punishing them for faithfully practicing their faith. Opposition to Pakis, means doing unpleasant things to Pakis.

            Progressives are opposed to Islam demanding women dress a certain way. But they regard Pakis as their holy priesthood. Much as American liberals regard Blacks as their holy priesthood. So you get contradictions like Rotherham, where Pakis are allowed to do whatever they want, but Progressives spend a lot of time convincing White males to be celibate.

            >Observe that feminists cannot bring themselves to object to child sex slavery provided the children are white and the slavers are Muslim.
            Islam is opposed to sex slavery. Or, at least the type of sex slavery practiced in Rotherham. Islam permits masters to have sex with the female slaves they own, but only the master may have sex with the slave. His son cannot, and his friend cannot. A man cannot even have sex with his wife’s slave. This is to establish paternity, which is a priority in Islamic Law. Of course, Rotherham is not under Sharia law.

    • vxxc2014 says:

      Nietzsche never conquered shit. He was a raving syphilitic shut-in.

      ISIS is winning with our weapons the Iraqi Sunni Army defected with or the Iraqi Shia dropped, UAE and Kuwait, Saudi money and backing and American training.

      Not only did someone show them how to drive, maintain and operate M1 tanks but someone taught them mission type orders and using social networking for swarm tactics.

      The Fish in the Sea are western academics thinking wars are won by and for their words. They’re swimming in our misplaced tolerance and funded tenures.

      Irregular Forces without backing end up bandits being hunted down or quitting. The last Japanese soldier to surrender in the Philippines was indeed a badass but he did not affect the war.

      • Hidden Author says:

        OTOH, no outside forces ever subjugated the wild tribes of Scotland until Cromwell forcibly united England, Scotland and Ireland into a Commonwealth. Even then, it wasn’t until the 18th Century that the Highlander clans were broken for good.

      • B says:

        >Not only did someone show them how to drive, maintain and operate M1 tanks

        I haven’t seen much evidence of them being able to operate that captured equipment with any tactical proficiency. See: Kobane.

        As far as basic operations, you’ll notice that Iraq is right next to various Muslim countries which America has armed and trained over the last 30 years. It is difficult to imagine that it’s hard for IS to recruit Saudi or Egyptian trained M1A1 drivers and gunners. When it comes to the next level, being able to maneuver and communicate (including setting up effective commo nets with frequency management and crypto), do serious maintenance, organize logistics on the battlefield, I doubt they can do it. The US tried to teach their neighbors and ended up saying “fuck it” and paying KBR and Northrop Grumman to do it.

        >but someone taught them mission type orders and using social networking for swarm tactics.

        America has been teaching Arab officers mission orders for the last 40 years or more in exchange programs. Social networks are just another comms channel. Swarm tactics don’t seem to work very well when you have an enemy that is cohesive and disciplined, as seen by their failure to overrun American COPs and the Kurds in Kobane, despite having unhindered maneuver space to get set up and reconsolidate.

        • jim says:

          As far as basic operations, you’ll notice that Iraq is right next to various Muslim countries which America has armed and trained over the last 30 years. It is difficult to imagine that it’s hard for IS to recruit Saudi or Egyptian trained M1A1 drivers and gunners.

          Notice that the geography that you say makes it easy for neighbors to quietly support Islamic State is pretty much the same geography that you say made it impossible for the Soviet Union to support Mao.

          • B says:

            It’s 1200 kilometers from Ulanbator to Yan’an. The infrastructure links in the 1930s? Yeah, good luck with that.

            I did not say that it was impossible for the USSR to support Mao. I said that it was impossible for me to imagine Mao being completely dependent on USSR. For sure there were advisers and arms deliveries.

        • vxxc2014 says:

          I’m not certain I’m right that we’re sold out by our own. Not certain.

          Just pretty sure. That’s my point B.

          Shit I can’t maintain an Abrams, can you?

          Listen when ISIS breaks out in 2014 there was an American SOF officer there sarcastically hinting to the newspapers their tactics suspiciously american SOF.

          Also there’s this…look I don’t want to argue this one. I don’t think either one of us can prove it without going. I’ve been twice. I give a fuck if I go again but not in a hurry. As you know it’s quite useless.

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/10/us-syria-crisis-rebels-usa-idUSBRE9290FI20130310

          • B says:

            I can’t maintain an Abrams, but I bet that given some resources (money, spare parts, trained mechanics), I could organize the necessary logistics to keep a bunch of them running for quite some time.

            Oh, I’m sure the Moderate Islamist Rebel guys whom USSOF and the Other Government Agency trained and armed in Jordan in 2011-2013 went on to have promising careers with IS. As did guys from every Arab country’s SOF, which were set up/trained/equipped by the US. As did at least one French intelligence paramilitary guy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2781803/French-intelligence-officer-defected-Al-Qaeda-target-US-air-strikes-Iraq.html

            How much this was the result of conscious planning and encouragement vs. passive encouragement vs. bureaucratic inertia is unknowable. You know, the US has been training and arming rebel movements that “unpredictably” go out of control for a very long time.

            All of which has not translated to IS being able to shoot straight, take Kobane or have a special forces unit that can hold an SVD properly on a photo op.

      • Ion says:

        After WW2, The US invaded Western Europe and restructured their governments to be liberal democracies. After 1990, they did the same to Eastern Europe. The US has gradually been doing the same thing to Latin America, Asia and Africa.

        Yet where is the Christian State? Where are the French crusaders, trying to establish a Catholic government? Where are the Buddhists?

        The Cathedral seems to primarily meet resistance in Islamic areas.

        >Nietzsche never conquered shit. He was a raving syphilitic shut-in.
        Yeah. But I thought the master/slave morality bit was coherent and useful.

  9. jay says:

    Looks like America’s marxist darlings are winning against the islamic state (or not)
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-marxist-allies-against-isis-1437747949

  10. OldStudent says:

    Hidden Author,
    Just repeating what I have learned at the knee of the Master.

  11. Crow T. Robot says:

    Also accusations of racism are leveled against common citizens or against people who Heil Hitler all the time. When white prison gangs or biker gangs attack criminals of different races, it receives attention but is not treated as nearly as much a scandal. Because even if some criminal dickhead tattoos a swastika onto himself, everyone that the race angle is just politics and that he is ultimately just a criminal and therefore not representative of society as a whole. So if you want to know why racism by black street criminals isn’t in the news, just ask why racism by white street criminals usually isn’t in the news. Instead the real scandals over racism would be more fairly directed to the black and brown equivalents of the KKK or of the segregationists half a century ago.

    You base your history on lousy 60s movies.

    • Hidden Author says:

      In school, we learned that you should start with a topic sentence. You did that but then forgot the rest of what you were gonna say…

      • jim says:

        What he said is clear enough. Your history is not history, it is bad sixties movies. You live in a world of fantasy.

        The specific fantasy being a world where white racist criminals are a danger to blacks. As I said, the feds investigated the hell out of Aryan Nation, infiltrated the hell out of Aryan nation, got nothing, and wound up busting them on obscure technicalities.

        This proves that a black is a lot safer in a prison cell full of Aryan Nation members, than a white Harvard student talking to a black Harvard professor.

        Black prisoners engage in systematic organized very large scale race hate attacks on white prisoners. White prisoners organize to defend themselves. Feds investigate the hell out of these self defense organizations, come up with nothing, so charge them with obscure and incomprehensible legalistic technicalities.

        • Crow T. Robot says:

          It stinks!

        • B says:

          The Aryan Brotherhood (whom I think you’ve got confused, understandably, with the Aryan Nation), hilariously, is led by a couple of Jewish guys, Barry Mills and Tyler Bingham. It also had a bunch of Native American and Pacific Islander members at one point (according to Wikipedia.)

          I would certainly prefer to share a cell with Mills or Bingham than with the typical black gang member.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Would you like to be their catamite?

          • B says:

            Sodomy is against Torah.

            Deranged rapists don’t typically rise to the top of guerrilla hierarchies. The Aryan Brotherhood is a guerrilla hierarchy existing in a hostile environment.

            I suspect that Mills and Bingham are not deranged rapists, and that they have lots of interesting stuff to say.

            Overall, from talking to ex-cons, I get the impression that the amount of homosexual activity that happens in prisons and the amount of it that is rape is wildly exaggerated for titillation. Once you take out the interracial rape and slavery, there’s not very much left.

          • Hidden Author says:

            So if it wasn’t for the Torah, you’d like an inflamed spearhead up your kazoo? Wow! What a repressed little homo!

          • B says:

            Are you 12 years old?

            Judging from the standards of behavior in civilizations with no Abrahamic religion, had the Torah not been given, we’d all be taking/giving it up the kazoo, sacrificing kids, etc.

            • jim says:

              Buddhists seem to be doing OK. Higher moral standards in Burma (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) than in the west. Chinese have no religion, or far too many religions, do fine.

              Some Chinese farmers used to sacrifice pigs to a stone idol. They cut the throats of the pigs, then ate the pig. (Idol did not get any edible parts of the pig) Maoists come and replace the idol with a huge statue of Mao. Farmers sacrifice pigs to Mao.

          • B says:

            >Buddhists seem to be doing OK.

            What are their birth rates?

            >Higher moral standards in Burma (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) than in the west.

            This is not a high benchmark.

            >Chinese have no religion, or far too many religions, do fine.

            Sure, if you consider TFR below replacement, 13 million abortions per year, 85% support for gay marriage and killing prisoners for organs doing fine, China is doing great.

          • pdimov says:

            “Sure, if you consider TFR below replacement, 13 million abortions per year…”

            This may have something to do with the one child policy.

          • B says:

            The one child policy and its implementation may have something to do with the values held by Chinese people and their society.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Actually, Buddhism is doing the worst of all the religions. It is the only religion expected not to increase by raw adherent numbers in the next few decades.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            I think Jim should try to come up with a few metrics for independence from the Cathedral. Then look at some world maps, and try to figure out where that resistance exists.

            I did something similar, and got the distinct impression that Islam is the only world religion that is genuinely resisting the Cathedral. Of course, this approach makes it difficult to tell much about Zoroastrians or Druze.

            The Non-Abrahamic area of the world (east of Pakistan) didn’t show substantially more resistance. So I doubt it’s just a weakness in Christianity.

  12. Marapoem says:

    Theologically, I think the issue with Islam is that, unlike Judaism, it hasn’t suffered any “all is lost” catastrophe. Jews are full of self-doubt, naturally for a people who’ve been exiled and had their Temples destroyed several times. On the other hand, Muslim Arabs haven’t seen Mecca eliminated and have not endured an exile from Arabia. They’ve suffered defeats, to be sure, but not wholesale destruction of their religious centers. Both Jews and Christians have solid persecution narratives grounded in historical events. Muslims haven’t faced extinction, or the threat of extinction, since Muhammad gained followers-warriors (assuming the account is truthful, which it isn’t, anyway). Muslims are winning because they are full of pride and conviction, and seeing the whole Western world catering to their whims, feel justified, vindicated in their arrogance. To humiliate them, don’t just nuke Iran or ISIS. Nuke Mecca. Teach them what it means to lose everything. Destabilize their civilization and they’ll quickly succumb to the West; never take Arab bravado at face value, for it’s fake. Give them the catastrophe-narrative they deserve.

    • peppermint says:

      » whaargarbl about Muslims never being humiliated

      » nuke mecca

      okay, I support your candidacy for President of the United States

      • Marapoem says:

        Scoring points against “Christfags” and Jooz is by far more important and productive than addressing those who rape your daughters and murder your sons in the actual real world that exists.

        • Just sayin' says:

          In the actual real world that exists Mexicans and blacks are a much bigger problem for Americans than Muslims are.

          • Just sayin' says:

            Nuke Detroit and the Southwest.

          • Marapoem says:

            For now. Islamic nukes targeted at American cities may change your perspective. Also, America =/= the whole of Western civilization. Europe faces the Islamic invasion in all its glory, and it ain’t pretty. Of course I’m just a sinister “neo-conservative”, so what do I know. (incidentally, the crusaders were also a bunch of NECON SHILLS, because everyone who’s concerned about Islam is one)

          • Marapoem says:

            When the crusaders launched their anti-Islamic offensive, they were just doing Israel’s bid. WN historiography couldn’t be more accurate. It’s well known, after all, that when the Muslims attempted to destroy Christendom, they did it because of American support for Israel. (that neither existed at the time is just an irrelevant datum)

          • Just sayin' says:

            “Destabilize their civilization and they’ll quickly succumb to the West; ”

            But why would we want another civilization to fall under the sway of the Cathedral (aka the Great Satan)?

            I’m on record as endorsing the obvious scientific fact that Muslims are, on average, 85 IQ subhumans. And for that reason, among others, it goes without saying that Kebab should be removed from European lands.

            But I have to give them some credit for partially resisting the Satanic sickness that has wholly and entirely consumed Western Civilization.

            Muslims may be animals, but Westerners are, in some ways, lower than animals at this point.

          • pdimov says:

            “Europe faces the Islamic invasion in all its glory, and it ain’t pretty. Of course I’m just a sinister “neo-conservative”, so what do I know.”

            Europe will take care of herself, if you let her. Next time try for example not bombing Serbia.

        • peppermint says:

          You don’t think living in a world where there are multiple superior races (humans and chinks) isn’t humiliation enough for the mudslime arabs, pakis, and indonesians?

          How about knowing that the West pushed them around in the past, bombs their shit countries for fun now, and can start pushing them around whenever it wants to?

          The only thing that makes it less humiliating is seeing White women having sex with niggers.

        • jim says:

          It would be easy to deal with rape and murder by mestizos, blacks, and gays, were it not for those who complain that this would be racism and homophobia.

  13. […] Why the Islamic State is successful. […]

  14. […] Speaking of Jim, he gives us the complete (more or less I guess) taxonomy of Traps, ladyboys, Corporal Klingers, and trannies. Also: Why Islamic State is successful. […]

Leave a Reply