Jim's Blog

Christianity, or perhaps Churchianity, tends to endorse suicidal collective behaviors. Progressives and Christians eagerly strive to outdo each other in how thoroughly they get cuckolded. Note how Christians and progressives both demonstrate superior holiness by adopting subsaharan blacks – who tend to grow into adult subsaharan blacks, with consequences as disturbing as adopting a baby chimpanzee.

I have not yet noticed Christians imitating the progressives by adopting male children and then sexually mutilating them to save them from toxic masculinity, but it is early days yet in the war on toxic masculinity.

The Dark Enlightenment emphasizes survival as a virtue, as indeed the root of all virtues. For example homosexuality is bad because homosexuals spread disease and don’t care about the future or the long term. We should enforce the marital contract so that we can have grandchildren, and so that the race and the culture survives. And so on and so forth. The old testament morality is arguably survival morality.

If survival is the root of all virtues, then we should conquer other nations to survive, colonize space to survive. At which conclusion the Dark Enlightenment parts company with with most people’s understanding of traditional Christianity.

The Old Testament was pretty cool with genocide. God would just say “genocide those pagans, I don’t love them even if I created them”. Most think that Jesus had a different opinion. I would say his opinion was more subtle and sophisticated, rather than directly contradictory.

CS Lewis gives us the standard modern progressive bleeding heart christian position on eradicating inferior races and cultures:

‘Speak to Ransom and he shall turn it into our speech,’ said Oyarsa.

Weston accepted the arrangement at once. He believed that the hour of his death was come and he was determined to utter the thing — almost the only thing outside his own science — which he had to say. He cleared his throat, almost he struck a gesture, and began:

‘To you I may seem a vulgar robber, but I bear on my shoulders the destiny of the human race. Your tribal life with its stone-age weapons and beehive huts, its primitive coracles and elementary social structure, has nothing to compare with our civilization — with our science, medicine and law, our armies, our architecture, our commerce, and our transport system which is rapidly annihilating space and time. Our right to supersede you is the right of the higher over the lower. Life—’

‘Half a moment,’ said Ransom in English. ‘That’s about as much as I can manage at one go.’ Then, turning to Oyarsa, he began translating as well as he could. The process was difficult and the result — which he felt to be rather unsatisfactory — was something like this:

‘Among us, Oyarsa, there is a kind of hnau who will take other hnaus’ food and — and things, when they are not looking. He says he is not an ordinary one of that kind. He says what he does now will make very different things happen to those of our people who are not yet born. He says that, among you, hnau of one kindred live all together and the hrossa have spears like those we used a very long time ago and your huts are small and round and your boats small and light like our old ones, and you have one ruler. He says it is different with us. He says we know much. There is a thing happens in our world when the body of a living creature feels pains and becomes weak, and he says we sometimes know how to stop it. He says we have many bent people and we kill them or shut them in huts and that we have people for settling quarrels between the bent hnau about their huts and mates and things. He says we have many ways for the hnau of one land to kill those of another and some are trained to do it. He says we build very big and strong huts of stones and other things — like the pfifltriggi. And he says we exchange many things among ourselves and can carry heavy weights very quickly a long way. Because of all this, he says it would not be the act of a bent hnau if our people killed all your people.’

As soon as Ransom had finished, Weston continued.

‘Life is greater than any system of morality; her claims are absolute. It is not by tribal taboos and copy-book maxims that she has pursued her relentless march from the amoeba to man and from man to civilization.’

‘He says,’ began Ransom, ‘that living creatures are stronger than the question whether an act is bent or good – no, that cannot be right – he says it is better to be alive and bent than to be dead – no – he says, he says – I cannot say what he says, Oyarsa, in your language.

CS Lewis goes on to lecture us, or rather have an angel lecture us, that all thinking beings are fundamentally the same, that we should not value some of them, such as neighbors and kin, over others of them. But that is not Christianity. That is progressivism – “all men are created equal”. If on the other hand, we should care about kin and neighbors more than we should care about far away strangers, and both Old and New Testaments make it pretty clear that we should, then there is some important truth in Weston’s position, and a dangerous and deadly lie in the position of Ransom and the angel.

Christians tend to attribute Weston’s program to progressives, but as Sweden and Paris demonstrate, the progressive program is pretty much the opposite, being so opposed to genocide that they wind up with autogenocide.

Clearly Weston’s program is wrong. And clearly the progressive / modern Christian / CS Lewis / Ransom program is also wrong. The God of the old Testament was not cool with Weston’s program, being pretty big on tribal taboos and all that, but he was, nonetheless, pretty cool with genocide.

Humans are human because of a thousand genocides.

What was Jesus’ program?

I will answer that question in a little while.

All this inclusiveness and diversity is not being reciprocated, and is not going to be reciprocated. It is cuckoldry. And this has been glaringly obvious since whites were ethnically cleansed out of the inner city. When whites are 43% of the voters, the government just takes their stuff away. That is simply the way things are. Just as when Muslims are ten to thirty percent of the population, you get holy war, when whites are in the minority, democracy will dispossess them.

Altruism is seldom the game theoretic solution. When it is the solution it’s a result of a highly successful culture that is fragile. The Dark Enlightenment talks about high trust equilibrium a lot. High trust equilibria are rare and hard to maintain. Underestimating both the value and difficulty involved in creating high trust equilibria is the major failing of progressivism and modern Christianity. A few centuries ago, we were a lot better at it. Old type Christianity was a lot better at it.

The natural equilibrium is defect defect, and the trick is to break out of that natural equilibrium, to get a cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Following a high trust strategy in a low trust environment is a failure mode. However, part of switching from a low trust to a high trust environment involves someone deciding to follow a high trust strategy despite the risk of being in a low trust environment.

Evil exists, so either God does not will the good, or he is not able, or he is messing with us on purpose. (Testing our resolve, making us suffer so we grow more resilient.) Human Biodiversity would imply that innately evil or useless people are not part of God’s plan, only means of his to mess with you. Are we allowed to remove those tests of God?

Given that there is an Old Testament and a New Testament, it follows that there is a time to turn the other cheek, and a time to slay the women and children. And if one takes the New Testament seriously, the New Testament should give us a hint as to when it is OK to go Old Testament on problem people.

Jesus did not tell us to love starving African children. Jesus said “love thy neighbor”, not love the whole world. The human heart is not large enough to love the whole world. A man can only love his own small part of the world.

Which then led to discussion on who is thy neighbor, and his clarification still did not include the whole world. Seems to me his story of the Good Samaritan implies that standard behavior to all those other Samaritans (rape and kill, loot and burn) was OK, or if not really OK, nonetheless a regrettable necessity in this fallen world.

Which in our game theoretic terminology, the terminology of the Dark Enlightenment, means you should attempt to break out of defect/defect equilibrium when you have a chance of doing so, not regardless of whether you have a chance of doing so.

In a more obviously threatening world, Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan is unlikely to suffer radical scope inflation, but safe and coddled as the cuckservative is, he doesn’t translate the parable into “I’ll get a mexican I find lying near-dead by the road to a hospital,” but rather, “I’ll save the WHOLE WIDE WORLD one adoption at a time.” So in the more materially trying times that are historically typical, 3) sets a standard the average congregant only hopes to approximate. But in these unusually prosperous times, the cuckservative instead sees a bar to be cleared by as wide a margin as he can muster. He wants to outdo Jesus, and he’s under the delusion that he can.

The Starving Children of Africa are not good Samaritans. Given half a chance they will cut your throat for a nickel. And if you think that they are good Samaritans, you are holier than Jesus. Recollect my recommended procedure for those that claim authority on the basis that they are holier than Jesus. A large part of the reason that so many black African children are starving is that black Africa is stuck in a severe defect/defect equilibrium, and cannot get out of it except that white men with whips take charge of them.

So: To return to the title of this post: How does the good Christian genocide inferior races and take their stuff? Clearly Weston’s approach is unchristian. But Ransom is not Christian either.  He thinks he is Christian, but he and his angel are progressives. There has to be right way to do it. The New Testament does not dump the old.

A common Dark Enlightenment theme is that while our physical technology has been improving, our social technology has been collapsing, has been being systematically destroyed. Chesterton’s fence keeps being demolished by status signaling do-gooders.

So how did our good Christian predecessors manage a good Christian genocide? Naturally they did so in a way that built a high trust society, whereas Weston’s approach to genocide “It is not by tribal taboos and copy-book maxims that she has pursued her relentless march from the amoeba to man and from man to civilization” is apt to undermine a high trust society.

We shall visit past good Christian genocides, but, before visiting past good Christian genocides, let us revisit the parable of the Good Samaritan:

Luke Chapter 10:

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

So the good Samaritan is the neighbor of the man who fell among thieves.

Which implies that the Levite and the priest were not the neighbor of the man who fell among thieves, let alone all the other Samaritans.

Since the protagonist of the story was from Jerusalem, the levite and the priest were geographically his neighbors, but, being no good, did not deserve to be treated as neighbors. The Samaritan was not geographically his neighbor, but did deserve to be treated as a neighbor. The word “Neighbor” implies that geography and ethnicity matters, but not to the extent of overriding human decency.

Notice that wine is mildly antiseptic, and prevents wounds from becoming infected, while oil protects the exposed living flesh that is trying to form scar tissue to cover the wound. Jesus is not only commending good behavior, but also reminding his audience to follow the best medical practice of the day.

So you are not required to love the Levite, the priest, and all the other Samaritans. Just that good Samaritan. And, given the conspicuous propensity of the Staving Children of Africa to behave badly towards white people, and indeed badly to any African who is not close kin, you can refrain from loving them also. You are required to show generosity and forgiveness that moves us from defect/defect equilibrium to cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, but not actually required to be a doormat to be walked on. You are not required, or even permitted, to be a cuckold. If you love the priest after he passed by on the other side, you are undermining, rather than supporting, a high trust equilibrium. Further, if someone claims to love the priest after he crossed to the other side, and the social justice warrior who threw him to the wolves without worrying about his innocence or guilt, he is claiming to be holier than Jesus, and if I had my way, we would crucify him and see if he rises again. Holiness spirals are dangerous, and need to be forcefully discouraged.

And now, the much promised, much foreshadowed, account of how to genocide inferior races and take their stuff in a good Christian fashion, as our ancestors did; Past best practice for acquiring land and resources currently occupied by no-good people who prevent it from being put to its highest and best use while supporting, rather than undermining, your society’s high trust equilibrium:

A bunch of white American settlers want to settle on American Indian land.  Indians have previously indicated that they are unhappy with this, and there are previous agreements that white people will not settle on this land.  You offer them payment, including a lot of barrels of firewater.  Indians accept the deal, land for nice stuff, including lots of firewater. They get drunk, stay drunk, while settlers move in and build some forts.

After a while, the whiskey runs out.  The Indians wake up with a blazing hangover, no food, and no hunting grounds.  “We have been cheated”, they wail.

They demand their land back.  The settlers in the fort tell them to go to hell.

Some braves agree to go bravely looking for some undefended or minimally defended white women and children.  They catch a woman, and two small children.  Whom they rape, then skin, then burn alive.  Then they bravely go back to their tribe and tell their tribe. “Well now it is war.  So which side are you on.  The side of us very brave braves, or the side of the people who took your land and gave you this hangover?”

The tribe declares for the warpath.

And then you kill them all and take their stuff.

Weston’s error was that he proposed to kill them and take their stuff without first legitimately purchasing the land and tempting them into committing unspeakable crimes.  Had he done so, and obtained the land in that fashion, then this would have created the dangerous precedent that some stronger party could take the land from him, undermining the high trust equilibrium that made the great achievements of his society, of which he was so proud, possible, for that high trust equilibrium and the ensuing high achievements rested on tribal taboos and copy-book maxims.

A Russian Jet that was flying over Syria at the invitation and with the permission of the Syrian government was bombing Turks in Syria. While bombing Turks in Syria, was shot down by Turkey, which is part of NATO. Allegedly the jet strayed slightly inside Turkey, but it was shot down over Syria, the wreckage landed inside Syria, the pilots landed inside Syria, and the pilots were murdered inside Syria. We know it was shot down over Syria because of video uploaded by the Turks who murdered one of the pilots. Although Turkey says it was flying inside Turkish airspace, it was shot down in a Turkish no fly zone over Syria.

The pilots parachuted safely and were promptly murdered, by an organization that is theoretically an enemy of the US, but which in Syria is receiving backing and arms from the US and is composed of people who are ethnically Turks operating on the border of NATO ally Turkey with the protection of Turkey. The killers videotape themselves shooting the pilot endlessly while chanting “Allah Akbar” and upload the video to the internet.

Obama and the US enthusiastically backs Turkey, as Turkey makes war on Christians.

Obama says Turkey has the right to defend itself and its airspace. It certainly has the right to defend its airspace by shooting Russians in Turkish airspace. Does not follow that it has the right to defend its airspace by shooting Russians in Syria. The plane was shot down while bombing Turks in Syria. Hard for it to intrude on Turkish airspace while its bombs are landing where they are supposed to.

Will this incident lead to World War III? Probably not. But this kind of stupidity and recklessness will lead to World War III. It has been a long time since the last big war, so people are forgetting that peace is hard, war is easy. If we don’t get World War III this time over Syria, we will get it next time over someplace else, or the time after that. I am still inclined to bet on Civil War II rather than World War III, because the American elite is increasingly disloyal and incohesive.

Turks celebrate Paris attack

Turks boo and chant during moment of silence for Paris.

Not all Muslims will kill you, just as not all Christians will turn the other cheek, but if he will not kill you, he is not being a good Muslim. In this case, the no true scotsman fallacy is no fallacy, since killing infidels is required by the Koran. If he is not murdering innocents and raping children, does not take his religion very seriously.

And always have been.

For over a thousand years, a multitude of nations, states, peoples, cultures, religions, and empires have attempted to coexist with Islam. None have succeeded. We will not be the first.

If you have a few percent of Muslims, you have what you can pretend is a major crime problem. If you have ten to thirty percent, you have a low level civil war, which intermittently becomes a high level civil war whenever you relax or show signs of weakness. If you have thirty percent, you can have a fairly tense peace, like the not-quite-war in Mindanao if you have a large well disciplined military, guards and soldiers everywhere, and regularly and routinely deploy death squads, but you cannot afford rule of law – you can have peace only by ruthlessly and unhesitatingly applying the laws of war. With a large Muslim minority you need death squads and the routine and frequent application of torture to keep the almost-peace, the not-quite-war.

France has five or ten percent Muslims, regular car burnings, Calais has been burning for some time, and the French state has no power over substantial areas that have been successfully seized by Islam.

France has taken pretend measures – checking passports at major entry points. This is security theater. Calais continues to burn, and the French authorities avert their eyes. Muslim illegal immigrants continue to flood over the borders unopposed. Rapes by Muslims are piously ignored. Preachers continue to preach terror, and while Muslim preachers preach terror, the French authorities arrest and prosecute Marine LePen and Eric Zemmour for incitement.  A Muslim that gets over the border cannot be deported.

Far from France getting serious about stopping terror, it remains a criminal offense to advocate getting serious about the problem.

Under recent international law you cannot return people unless their country of origin agrees to accept them, or at least that is how international law has recently come to be interpreted.  And the countries of origin never agree. Australia and Israel have been cheerfully breaking this law, and New Zealand has been furtively breaking it.  Burma has been dumping Muslims into boats and telling them that if they want to live under Islam, start sailing to a Muslim country.

When France rounds up illegals and dumps them in Africa or the Middle East, then France will be beginning to get serious.  But no one can imagine such a thing, let alone propose it, for to imagine such a thing is a thought crime.

France is absolutely unserious about dealing with terrorism, and to even think seriously about dealing with terrorism is a crime no Frenchman will admit to committing.

The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.  If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he does not take his religion seriously.

Bay of pigs official history:

“On January 1, 1959, a young Cuban nationalist named Fidel Castro (1926-) drove his guerilla army into Havana and overthrew General Fulgencio Batista (1901-1973), the nation’s American-backed president. For the next two years, officials at the U.S. State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) attempted to push Castro from power. “

But it was the state department that overthrew Batista and installed Castro. Maybe they repented of this when Castro revealed himself to be a full on communist. But if they ever repented, official history would call Castro a communist, not a nationalist, and would call the Bay of Pigs a revolt, not an invasion, for it was conducted by Cuban Nationals and therefore arguably a revolt, not an invasion.

Initially the invading force had US air support, which would have made it impossible for Castro to deploy heavy weapons or massed troops against them, thus extremely difficult to destroy them. But the US air support was abruptly and unexpectedly withdrawn, leaving the invasion force hanging out to dry.

Not deploying the US air force at all makes sense. Deploying it makes sense. But deploying it, and then suddenly not deploying it only makes sense if you want your invading force to be annihilated.

The moment there were juicy high value targets available to the US air force, including Castro himself commanding his troops in the field, the US airforce went home.

If you want to overthrow Castro, blowing him up in the battlefield is likely to be highly effective.

If they were so overconfident that they expected their forces to win without air support, why apply air support initially? Surely if overconfidence was the problem the normal sequence would be to try it without air support, then when the $#!& hits the fan and large concentrations of enemy show up, apply air support.

Looks to me that those men were betrayed to their deaths, same tactic as Lord Howe betraying his men to their deaths.

The purpose of the Bay of Pigs operation, as actually implemented, was to prove that communism could not be rolled back because of the direction of history and the glorious liberation of the oppressed masses.  History is supposedly on the side of the left, and if history fails to conform to script, it gets a helping hand.

If the purpose of the Bay of Pigs operation was to overthrow Castro, would have bombed command, control and communication on the prospect that he might be there, as in fact he was.

If the purpose of the Bay of Pigs operation was to overthrow Castro, official history would call him a communist, not a nationalist.

If the purpose of the Bay of Pigs operation was to overthrow Castro, official history would call it a revolt, just as our pet infidel raping mass murdering terrorists in Syria are supposedly revolting against the evil and oppressive Syrian government, not invading Syria.

The inability of the American government to overthrow Castro resembles the inability of the House and Senate Republicans to pass a budget that denies the left a single item on its wish list, however outrageously repugnant and violently unpopular.