The real problem with Boko Haram

The problem is not that they are abducting women and selling them as wives, but that they are abducting Christian girls and selling them to Muslim men.  This is not bad for Christian girls.  It is bad for Christian men.

The Cathedral, oddly, seems far more frightened of Christian Holy War than Muslim Jihad (observe their disturbing response to ethnic cleansing by Christians in the Central Africa Republic), so is reluctant to mention who is being abducted.

When group A abducts girls from group B, if it makes the girls available for general public use by group A members, this is extremely bad for the girls, since no one man has an incentive to take care of them.  But if it assigns them to particular individual men of group A, then not only does that individual have an incentive to take care of the girl and her children, but the apparatus of violence and coercion that made the transfer likely means that he has greater paternal security, and greater reason to expect the girl to stick around, and thus greater incentive to care for the girl and her children than occurs in the Cathedral approved free love/leking outcome.  Boko Haram believes that western education for girls is bad, because it indoctrinates them with immoral and self destructive ideas, and that girls should be married off at an early age.  Seems to me that they are obviously right about this.  The success in Christian societies of the Cathedral program of undermining marriage means that Christian men lack incentive to defend their women from Muslim men, as we see not only in Africa, but in Sweden and England.

36 Responses to “The real problem with Boko Haram”

  1. peppermint says:

    This article makes me angrier than anything I’ve seen on StormFront or DailyStormer. Why don’t they ever link to you?

  2. Dave says:

    Actually, if you do a Google image search on “Chibok mothers”, most of them are wearing hijabs. They’re Muslim, just not Muslim enough for Boko Haram. Are Nigeria and Syria slipping into an Islamic Singularity?

    Also, shouldn’t your last two “group B”s say “group A”?

    • jim says:

      The image “Chibok Girls” shows a bunch of girls in Muslim clothing.

      But when I do a google image search on Boko Haram Girls, I see Boko Haram men in Muslim gear, dads and mothers of abducted girls not in muslim gear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIcbeoVUSKo It looks like all, or nearly all, of the parents are Christian.

      I do not see a single individual who was identified in the accompanying story as a victim or parent of the victim dressed like the “Chibok girls”.

      Fixed the A and B mixup.

      An image search for images like “Chibok girls” reveals the image to be a stock photo of a group of girls in school uniform, and thus not necessarily an indicator of the religion either of the girls wearing the uniform, or the girls abducted.

      • Dave says:

        In any case, the fact that girls age 16-18 were still in school and not married shows that their parents practiced Cathedral values.

        (O/T) I’m impressed by your theory of left-singularities, but have you noticed lately that singularities occur much more frequently in the Islamic world than in the West?

        • peppermint says:

          The Donald Singularity Theory is one of the most important advances in sociology since sociology was founded

        • jim says:

          (O/T) I’m impressed by your theory of left-singularities, but have you noticed lately that singularities occur much more frequently in the Islamic world than in the West?

          Islam is supposed to have a Caliph. If someone is holier than the Caliph, he is not supposed to argue that he therefore should be obeyed and the Caliph not be obeyed, and if he does argue this, the Caliph is supposed to cut off his head.

          Islam today does not have a Caliph. Absent a Caliph, tends to madness.

          • hitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitler says:

            Looking across history (and especially the present), Orthodox Christianity seems less vulnerable to Progressivism than Catholic Christianity. In Latin America, the Catholic church fused itself into Communism, while in Eastern Europe, the Orthodox church resisted Communism (at great cost to itself). Even in America, the Orthodox seems to be more conservative liturgically, and theologically.

            Yet the Orthodox have no Pope – no unified authority. Just a bunch of bishops, who each run their own diocese and disagree about tons of stuff. Why has Orthodox Christianity not gone off the deep end, despite enormous amounts of propaganda and persecution?

          • red says:

            Eastern oxthadox is a tradition based religions rather than a holier than thou or holy book based religion. Tradition has proven to the stablizing force and creator of stable system for humans. In many ways orthadoxy is the organic religious expression of the local populaces gentic culture.

          • peppermint says:

            The Donald Singularity Theory is that people try to grab more power for themselves by claiming to be holier. With less opportinuties for advancement, less of a reason for heresy.

            Look at this guy’s resume – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirill_I_of_Moscow

            Presumably he started as a priest, was chosen to be the bishop of a diocese, now he’s the archbishop of Russia. Whereas in the Catholic church, personnel get shuffled around a lot between dioceses, and go from priest to bishop to cardinal with a number of minor ranks in between. Lots of opportunity for trying to outshine your fellows.

          • hitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitler says:

            Makes sense. And the leaders of the Catholic church are those that managed to move up the hierarchy, so they’re the most hardcore of the holier-than-thou Catholics. However, the Pope is limited by a bunch of practical constraints, like remaining consistent with previous Catholic doctrine, so he can’t revise the entire church. It has to be incremental, and modest.

            Only problem is that there are a few major recent Catholic trends that don’t seem like Progressive victories. Papal Infallibility and the Pope’s power in general, the current Catholic emphasis on Abortion and Contraception, and possibly the church’s belief in Clerical Celibacy, and Women’s Ordination. They seem to have given into Progressivism on most other issues, in practice if not in theory.

            Clerical Celibacy and Women’s Ordination are arguably holdovers from a previous era, or from more conservative areas of the world that the Vatican doesn’t want to piss off. And the Church seems to becoming more accepting of church leadership by women and married men, even if neither can become priests. I don’t know if they’re really holdouts against Progressivism on these issues.

            I don’t know about Contraception and Abortion. I now have a hypothesis for the Pope’s power.

            The doctrine of Papal Infallibility developed around the middle ages. I could easily imagine some holier-than-thou academic, church bureaucrat or politician trying to curry favor with the Vatican, and thus preaching Papal Infallibility. He REALLY believes in the Catholic church, as opposed to all those other Catholics.

            In the Orthodox church, all you can be is excessively devoted to the Bishop. And it would be difficult to preach about the infallibility of (only) your own Bishop, since everybody outside your Diocese will think you’re a heretic (and a corrupt moron). Unless your diocese is very isolated, it’s not practical.

            The Catholic version might create a stronger-and-stronger feedback loop, with Christian doctrine being continually modified to place the Pope at a more and more central place. He becomes the Vicar of Christ, then some people trying to get his favor tell him he’s the Universal Bishop. Once he’s the Universal Bishop he’s really powerful, so people really want to be in his favor. Everybody tells him he’s Infallible, and once he’s Infallible everybody really, really, really wants to be in his favor…

          • Van Phauc says:

            Eastern Orthodoxy is probably alright as a religion for Slavs and Greeks.

            But if actual White People from the progressive regions of the world get involved they’ll ruin it very, very quickly.

            http://www.allsaintsbloomington.org/important-message/

            “On Saturday, April 12, 2014, I received Matthew Heimbach into the Orthodox communion through the sacrament of Chrismation. I did not understand at that time that he held nationalistic, segregationist views. Immediately upon learning of the scope and development of Matthew’s views, I responded to his decisions quickly and decisively, meeting with him in person and by phone on multiple occasions, and conferring with our bishop.

            Matthew must cease and desist all activities, both online, in print, and in person, promoting racist and seperationist ideologies, effective immediately. He must formally reject violence, hate speech, and the heresy of Phyletism. Finally, he must submit to period of formal penance in order to be received back into the Orthodox communion.”

            That happened.

          • hitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitler says:

            He was using an Orthodox cross to beat an anti-racist activist. He was also kicked out of the League of the South for speaking at a neo-nazi rally. The Antiochian Orthodox church is probably being disproportionate, but they aren’t baseless here.

            http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Heimbach#Excommunication_by_Orthodox_Church_of_Antioch

          • Van Phauc says:

            Nah, he just had it in his hand when he was attacked by some antifa and he defended himself.

            Anyway, the Matts are idiots for playing this game but the precedent has been set.

            Progressive entryists agree: Rejecting “hate speech” = key component of Orthodoxy.

            This is what happens when you let Western Europeans into your Eastern Orthodox Church.

  3. R7_Rocket says:

    If the women are worthless, they are certainly not worth defending. Boko Haram appears to understand this, the Cathedral does not.

  4. tryptophan says:

    “Boko Haram believes that western education for girls is bad”

    There’s no need for that “for girls” in there.

  5. J says:

    The girls kidnapped are not Christian. They were attending a secular State school. Thearea – Borno State – is nominally Muslim. Your analysis of Nigerian Christians not defending their females is ludicrous. Since independence, there is bitter rivalry between the Christian South (Igbo peoples) and the North (Fulani and Hausa). The oil is in the South and the Christians are winning. Pay attention to the fact that all the atrocities are in the North against Southern immigrants.

  6. J says:

    It happens that I lived in the NortEastern State a year and had a project near the area in question. The people are NOT Southern tribes likes the Igbo and Ibibio and Yoruba that are mostly Christian. This is a Muslim area, traditionally ruled by the Emir of Bornu and the people is Kanuri that is Nilotic (like Obama) and closely related to the dominating Fulani people. I never heard of a church in the area, and doubt the Chibok schtettl had Christians. Fact is that they were living in a Muslim Emirate and never molested by their neighbors – all this time when Christian immigrants from the South are being burnt alive all over the Sahel belt. Yet I am sure that the secular State Girls School was led by transient Southern Christians, most of the teachers must have been, because in Nigeria, educated people (employed by the Government) tend to be from the South. In short, I dont see that Christians failed to defend their females in Chibok.

  7. J says:

    Moreover, given the deadly persecution of Christians in Northern Nigeria, the whole kidnapping episode shows that Boko Haram, in this case, was not out to kill Christians, but to get those nice Muslim girls out of secular, Western education. Exactly what Boko Haram means. Attending secular State schools is forbidden.

    “Selling the girls in the market” in the Sahel does not mean “12 years a Slave” phantasy. Good and pious Muslim girls over twelve should have been given in marriage to some Muslim man. Muslim girls in Nigeria are no more sold like Beduin girls are sold in the Middle East, it is bride-price customary all over these parts of the world. The ktubah, for instance, is such a contract.

  8. […] points out the real problem with Boko Haram—being on the wrong side of history is the worstest crime in the world. Also Powerline speaks […]

  9. nydwracu says:

    Given the etymology of Hausa ‘boko’, it should totally be loaned into English. A word that means both ‘bullshit’ and ‘the ideals of whitecloak Anglos’ is exactly what our language needs.

    (‘Whitecloak’ is another very useful word — anyone who hasn’t read Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series, go do that.)

  10. Kuribo says:

    No, the problem is exactly that girls are being abducted and sold at all.

    “Christians” like you make me glad I’m an atheist. Any being that would reward a solipsistic, selfish person like you is unworthy of my worship.

    I like the teachings of Christ. I do not like Christians because they are so unlike Christ.

    • jim says:

      Nonsense. Progressive education educates girls to foolishly fool around with a small minority of charismatic males until their beauty is gone and their fertility is drying up. They are better off getting married at an early age. Women are not competent to make these decisions for themselves, and can easily be encouraged and manipulated to make extremely bad decisions, with great costs to themselves and their society.

  11. LAchlan says:

    Say what you like about Boko Haram, but “Whiter Shade of Pale” is an excellent song!

  12. Van Phauc says:

    Jim was right, they were Christian girls who were rescued from a future as cat ladies.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/10/we-want-them-to-run-inside-two-nigerian-schoolgirls-harrowing-escape-from-boko-haram/

    ————————————-
    “If these girls are given the opportunity to get out of that place, we want them to run,” said Precious, who, like the majority of her classmates, is Christian.

    They told the girls that they were “forbidden from a Christian education,” Precious told Greve.

    “We will keep the girls alive but we are going to kill the boys,” the men said, Precious recalled. They tried to persuade them, offering, ”show us where the boys are and we’ll let you go. We think you are lying.”

    When the men had gathered the girls at the front of the school compound, one of them said, “We will release you but you have to get married. No more schooling,” Hope said.

    Some of the men fought and shouted amongst themselves. One said, ”We have to call our master before we let them go. Keep them.”
    ….
    There were three girls, however, the militants didn’t have room for. One of the men shouted, “Are you Christian or Muslim?”

    One of the girls was a Muslim, so she was allowed to run home, Precious said.

    One of the Christian girls was pushed to the ground and a militant placed the muzzle of his weapon against her head.

    “Renounce your faith or we kill you,” he said.

    “It’s better to die than to renounce Christ,” the girl replied, Precious said.

    He yelled it again, Precious said, pushing the girl farther into the hard earth. Then he let her up.

    “He said, ‘Run home or we will kill you.’ They let the three girls go and they went running home,” Precious told Greve.

    When the captors stopped at the camp in the forest where the girls were held the first night, Hope remembers one of the commanders saying, “From today, we change your religion to Muslim, from today we’ll treat you like a Muslim. Our objective is that we kill all the non-Muslim men and then we’ll marry you. This is our plan. This is why we are doing this.”
    —————————————

    Say what you will about Boko Haram but they’re not exactly ISIS.

    One images that this sort of thing has happened in this area more than a few times over the years.

Leave a Reply