The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Fred Reed ArchiveBlogview
Internal Secession and the Road to Ruin: Two Countries

Trump did not cause the deep division in the country. It caused him. There are two very different Americas. I suspect that the half of the country that voted for Trump, that voted with wild enthusiasm, that roared at huge rallies, was not so much voting for Trump as against the other America. It was just that they had never had a chance before. The two countries have little in common and do not belong on the same geography.

Whether Trump proves to be the catastrophic buffoon he apparently aspires to be, the current protests illuminate a stark difference between his supporters and Hillary’s. The chasm is far deeper than just politics, embracing culture, taste, manners and morals. The groups are distinct and incompatible .

The desire to shock of the eternally pubescent. Smirk, smirk, look at me, smirk, smirk.

The desire to shock of the eternally pubescent. Smirk, smirk, look at me, smirk, smirk.

The difference begins with manners. Throughout the campaign Trump’s partisans forgathered in huge rallies, applauded, calmly went home, and later voted. At the same time we saw on Clinton’s behalf mobs of ill-bred, worse mannered, loutish, perennial adolescents blocking highways, shutting down rallies, engaging in vandalism and physically attacking supporters of Trump. Cars were destroyed, fires set, ATMs smashed. Black Lives Matter, always ghetto predators, were worst, but low-grade college students and their equally dismal professors joined in. They were obscene, infantile.

And naive: They apparently believe that they harm Trump though of course their behavior drives people in the other direction. I am no fan of Donald , but I look the foregoing and think Anything else.

We saw Ashley Judd, apparently an actress, addressing the “Women’s March.”

“I am not as nasty as racism, fraud, conflict of interest, homophobia, sexual assault, transphobia, white supremacy, misogyny, ignorance, white privilege. I’m not as nasty as using little girls like Pokemon before their bodies have even developed. I am not as nasty as your own daughter being your favorite sex symbol, like your wet dreams infused with your own genes.”

The astonishing thing is not that some foul-mouthed twit came up with such cloacal gush, but that the “Women’s March” sponsored her, did not eject or even censure her.

Can you imagine any of Trump’s middle-American supporters accusing Obama of lusting for incest with his daughters? The two camps are different peoples. Half of the country seems culturally dominated from the ghetto. The other half embodies standards of behavior that have usually been thought congruent with civil society. While Trump himself is crass, making menstrual jibes on the air at Megyn Kelly for example, his supporters are not.

Any number of arguments can be adduced against Trump but so much of the outpouring of hostility, even from the intelligent, lacks thought. Thisaphobe, thataphobe, Nazi, misogynist. Putin’s Bitch. Most seem not to know what the words mean, or care.

Wild thought: We may be seeing Darwinian regression. The intellectual nanoparticles waving placards, the sobbing talking headesses may represent the return of the procaryote IQ. They give us a living paleontological record of what life looked like before it evolved. Think “Cambrian Implosion.” I imagine Rachel Maddow with twelve body segments and compound eyes.

Different peoples. I would like to see a comparative poll: How many women who voted for Trump would allow themselves to be associated with Ms. Judd’s remarks? None, I suspect. How many women voting for Trump would parade around in “pussy hats”? How many fathers voting for Trump would allow their daughters, have raised their daughters, to behave as the “Women’s Marchers”? Their children to copy Black Lives Matter?

Different civilizations. Virtually no overlap.

The media are decidedly of the Clinton America. In Washington at least some journalists donned pussy hats and jointed the demonstrators. Trashy behavior has seeped into many in the professional classes. Trump recently sued a journalist and the London Daily Mail for describing Melania as “a high-end escort”–i.e., a take-out call girl, a prostitute. Can you imagine a conservative paper–say, the Washington Times, The American Conservative, National Review–describing Michelle Obama as a whore? Or Trump’s fans wearing scrotal hats?

There is a brattyness in the apparent belief of the Clinton Americans that they are entitled to the electoral result of their choice. When they don’t get it, they act like spoiled two-year-olds. Poor widdle fings! It is embarrassing. If Hillary had won, would disappointed Trumpists be squalling and posing in genital headgear or looting and burning? Whatever the merits of the politics of either side, the two have little in common culturally.

The divide is far deeper and more general than the heat of the election. The sprawling class from which the protesters come, not just in Washington or just recently, opposes the bedrock of our approximation of democracy. It is not an economic divide. On American campuses almost everywhere “students,” most of whom do not have the intelligence for college, use the tactics of Brown Shirts to shut down speeches by anyone who does not agree with them. They have no conception of reasoned debate, toleration of disagreement, or respect for law. Rather than promote assimilation to the American norm, or what was the American norm, the only hope to keep the country from devolving into warring tribes, they promote identity politics. They do not, for example, disavow the depredations of Black Lives Matter. Any behavior is acceptable, even admirable, if engaged in by their side.

Decorum and its lack are recurrent themes. I have no hard evidence, but suspect that the Other America believes that men should behave as gentlemen and women, ladies; that sex should be a private matter and in particular that children should not be too early exposed to it. Clinton’s America leans more to the view that sexual language is authentic and natural. Hemorrhagic tuberculosis is natural, but perhaps not to be encouraged. And so from a mainstream performer, Beyonce, the lyrics

“Can you lick my Skittles, it’s the sweetest in the middle/ Pink is the flavor, solve the riddle”

Berkeley Protests of Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos Caused $100,000 in Damage

Berkeley Protests of Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos Caused $100,000 in Damage

Painfully cute. Can you imagine Billie Holiday singing this? Ella Fitzgerald? From rappers there is far more explicit, scatological, and sadomasochistic “music.” Whether you think this is people’s art, the authentic expression of an oppressed race, or something that should be scrawled on the wall of a public toilet, tracks with who you voted for. Again, two countries.

“Protests that erupted at UC Berkeley ahead of a planned Wednesday appearance by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus, the school said Thursday.”

These vandals are the storm troopers of the Clinton America. I cannot imagine the Other America behaving thusly because of the scheduling of any speaker whatever.

ORDER IT NOW

For whatever reason, those who regard themselves as liberals are far more given to demonstrating and rioting than conservatives, and far more vulgar. I say “regard themselves as liberals.” Their behavior is opposite to classical liberalism. Vulgarity is not liberalism. Neither is arson. Neither is suppression of free speech. All of these are now the norm on campuses, in the media, among both students and professors. And among the protesters.

Another country.

Protests as such give little to deplore. Demonstrations are both legal and constitutionally protected if well behaved, and the women in Washington were. It is the values they represent that marks them as another country. The self-satisfaction appalls, the belief that they represent the universe. Coming together in vast shared tantrums, endlessly reaffirming each other on Facebook, may give them an exaggerated impression of their numbers. Thus the frequent use of the phrase “we the people.” Actually they are “we, quite a large number of the people.” As I write Trump’s approval stands at 52%. My guess is that the man’s unending truculence will lower his numbers, but it hasn’t yet. And a complete failure of his presidency will not change the fact that half of the country is thoroughly sick of the other half.

Where does this lead?

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Left, Donald Trump 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Fred, I agree with your assessment about the two Americas, but not with that about Trump.
    I think your critical remarks about him are unwarranted, and that he’s doing a terrific job. He’s intelligent, nimble and an amazingly hard worker doing his best for America and its citizens. You’re severely underestimating him.

    Read More
    • Disagree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @george strong
    I stopped reading after low-T addled old man Fred called Trump a buffoon. The only buffoon is Mexi-phile Fred.
    , @Tony
    https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Brass_Pole_in_Bangkok.html?id=UgF_AAAACAAJ
    Fred looks like a member of the Village People. Members of the Village People wouldn't normally be big Trump fans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/freed/internal-secession-and-the-road-to-ruin-two-countries/#comment-1769431
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. A division of the depth accurately described by Fred will lead probably to at least two nations in the present geographic space occupied by the United States. The division might be well managed, with two or more highly autonomous regions with overall loyalty to a central government, or, more likely it will be a chaotic fracturing following a serious financial/economic crisis, possibly accompanied by a major defeat in war (think aircraft carrier going down with all hands or a major Army or Marine unit annihilated or forced to surrender). The tinder is clearly there–where will the spark come from?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Discard
    Have you seen the Trump/Clinton divide by county? Trump haters are much more concentrated in urban areas than Americans are. They are an archipelago, not a country.
  3. Ironically, the first country to nuke the USA will be – the USA

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12

    Ironically, the first country to nuke the USA will be – the USA
     
    Well, you, sure as hell, raised a tremendously important issue. Should (God forbids) US gets destabilized the problem of "ownership" of US nuclear arsenal will (if not already) occupy thinking of many nations. This is one of the major reasons (which is also a point of cognitive dissonance for US pundits) why Russia wants to see US stable and sane. Kinda kills the current narrative of Russia "undermining US "democracy"" (double quotation is deliberate).
    , @El Dato
    The delirious writings of Frank Miller were prophetic!

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

    I love pop culture!
  4. Trump has already accomplished a lot by exposing the media and its intimate ties to the demo-communists, demolishing PC, confronting the Judicial dictatorship. Now he has exposed the fact that parts of the Deep State are clearly treasonous….Other than that, Fred’s article is spot on, although he has not explored the probable consequences of having a ghetto level society based in the big cities confronting a heavily armed population largely outside the cities whose values are still based in civility and western civilization.

    Read More
  5. @The Scalpel
    Ironically, the first country to nuke the USA will be - the USA

    Ironically, the first country to nuke the USA will be – the USA

    Well, you, sure as hell, raised a tremendously important issue. Should (God forbids) US gets destabilized the problem of “ownership” of US nuclear arsenal will (if not already) occupy thinking of many nations. This is one of the major reasons (which is also a point of cognitive dissonance for US pundits) why Russia wants to see US stable and sane. Kinda kills the current narrative of Russia “undermining US “democracy”” (double quotation is deliberate).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    One of the things that the South African government did right was to dismantle its nuclear weapons and its nuclear weapons program before turning power over to a black government. I hope someone is thinking about how the U.S should handle its nuclear weapons and the program when whites become a mere plurality and then a minority. Blacks and Mestizoes probably lack the intellectual and emotional capability to handle nuclear weapons and the production processes to make, maintain and retire them safely.
    , @Joe Magarac

    Russia wants to see US stable and sane.
     
    Good God yes.

    There could be a nuclear war over gay "marriage".
  6. Fred, when you’re hot your hot, when you’re not you’re not.
    One other thought — unless there is a plan to secure the borders in whatever new state we might create, the same cretins will be coming over to f&&& it up after they get through f&&&&&& up the one they came from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Macon Richardson
    Your last paragraph promised "one last thought". I failed to find it.

    By the way, in which pack of cretins did your family enter the United States? Or to be more eloquent in my choice of words, in which pack of losers did your family enter the United States?

    My pack of losers were Scots who entered after the battle of Culloden when there weren't any united states in North America.

    While runaway immigration is a dire problem for us now, I dare say that runaway immigration has been a problem for each and every established cohort in North America since 1492.

    "We're here! Now lock the door!"
    , @pyrrhus
    You can bet that the conservative part of the split up will enforce its borders with barbed wire, machine guns, and maybe mine fields, to prevent people fleeing the leftist hellhole when it collapses from showing up.
  7. @SmoothieX12

    Ironically, the first country to nuke the USA will be – the USA
     
    Well, you, sure as hell, raised a tremendously important issue. Should (God forbids) US gets destabilized the problem of "ownership" of US nuclear arsenal will (if not already) occupy thinking of many nations. This is one of the major reasons (which is also a point of cognitive dissonance for US pundits) why Russia wants to see US stable and sane. Kinda kills the current narrative of Russia "undermining US "democracy"" (double quotation is deliberate).

    One of the things that the South African government did right was to dismantle its nuclear weapons and its nuclear weapons program before turning power over to a black government. I hope someone is thinking about how the U.S should handle its nuclear weapons and the program when whites become a mere plurality and then a minority. Blacks and Mestizoes probably lack the intellectual and emotional capability to handle nuclear weapons and the production processes to make, maintain and retire them safely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    Don't worry, there will be people in the USA's white community to handle that still.
    , @RadicalCenter
    We'll have to give our nukes to Russia for safekeeping, just like France, England, and Israel should do before they turn plurality-Muslim/African.
    , @SteveRogers42
    The funny thing is -- if you have nuclear weapons, your people don't HAVE to "become a mere plurality and then a minority". They are "The Final Argument of Kings".

    Gnomesayin?
    , @Corvinus
    "Blacks and Mestizoes probably lack the intellectual and emotional capability to handle nuclear weapons and the production processes to make, maintain and retire them safely."

    Right, because the first thing they are going to do is blow every single white person to smithereens. We all know that they can't be trusted. [sarcasm]

    Seems to me that white people ought to be blamed for creating this ultimate death trap since they enjoy blowing things up and have demonstrated a knack for destroying entire civilizations. Must be inborn.
  8. We truly live in interesting times.

    Fred is dead-on accurate in his assessment of two Americas, but I think he’s much too harsh in his assessment of Trump.

    As for Trump’s success or failure, time will tell.

    However, it was glaringly obvious to all but the clueless that Trump was probably the last and best hope for those of us who would like to retain the principles the country was founded upon, despised the crony capitalism of the elites, wished to not have illegal immigrants decide all future elections, and wanted to keep out those incompatible with the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    Best wishes and Godspeed to “draining the swamp”, ’cause there’s a lot of swamp that needs draining in Washington, D.C.

    Read More
  9. @Diversity Heretic
    One of the things that the South African government did right was to dismantle its nuclear weapons and its nuclear weapons program before turning power over to a black government. I hope someone is thinking about how the U.S should handle its nuclear weapons and the program when whites become a mere plurality and then a minority. Blacks and Mestizoes probably lack the intellectual and emotional capability to handle nuclear weapons and the production processes to make, maintain and retire them safely.

    Don’t worry, there will be people in the USA’s white community to handle that still.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead.

    What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the "Arab Spring" in a different direction?

    We need global nuclear disarmament, and not for the reasons we thought we did.

  10. As I write Trump’s approval stands at 52%. My guess is that the man’s unending truculence will lower his numbers, but it hasn’t yet. And a complete failure of his presidency will not change the fact that half of the country is thoroughly sick of the other half.

    Perhaps his “unending truculence” is what won him the election.

    It is true that Trump’s voters were, by and large, well-mannered and socially conservative folk – but they also realized that they needed a brawler to win against the left. Republicans have tried gentlemanliness in the past – McCain and Romney – and it wasn’t a winning strategy. So, this time they nominated a candidate who wasn’t so overly refined and rarefied, and to everyone’s surprise, he won.

    He won’t be judged on his manners in the future, but on his accomplishments. How he does will depend on what he can do. If he can deliver 4% annual economic growth all these prophecies of his impending collapse will be forgotten.

    Read More
    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "He won’t be judged on his manners in the future, but on his accomplishments. How he does will depend on what he can do. If he can deliver 4% annual economic growth all these prophecies of his impending collapse will be forgotten."

    I approve of Trump, but he's doomed if that is the criteria.

    Just don't think it is possible to to have 4% real growth, except in blue moon years, with the mature American economy and demographics. Real growth that is, not statistical sleight of hand.
    , @Corvinus
    "It is true that Trump’s voters were, by and large, well-mannered and socially conservative folk – but they also realized that they needed a brawler to win against the left."

    Yes, the working classes, the same group that had voted twice for Obama because he had championed their causes.
  11. Where does it lead? …..
    What would early Americans say? …..

    “— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Just keep it quiet, remember, none of these college kids know any history, so this would be a surprise to them. :)

    Read More
  12. Trump was our last, worst hope.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    OH I don't know as he was our last worse hope for Clinton a stark raving lunatic would have been much worse one, only needed to see her cackling about Libya to understand that it probably makes little difference who is in, for we are an empire in decline hated in most of the world and distrusted in the rest the only thing that remains to be seen is just how they handle the decline of the empire war or peace.!!
  13. All very rich coming from a guy like you Fred who lives in a gated community in a failed Narco-state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @VonZorch
    How typically leftardian. Cannot refute the argument so attack the speaker.
    , @hyperbola
    But then, how did Mexico get to be a "failed naro-state"? Perhaps due to the actions of the same groups that are making the US into a failed state?

    No: No Wall Could Hurt Mexico as Much as NAFTA Has
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/no-no-wall-could-hurt-mexico-as-much-as-nafta-has/5574960

    ... While it is finally widely recognized that so-called free trade agreements have harmed millions of U.S. workers, thought leaders from both sides of the political spectrum continue to assume NAFTA has been good for Mexico. This assumption is forcefully contradicted by the facts.

    If we look at the most basic measure of economic progress, the growth of gross domestic product, or income per person, Mexico, which signed on to NAFTA in 1994, has performed the 15th-best out of 20 Latin American countries.

    Other measures show an even sadder picture. The poverty rate in 2014 was 55.1 percent, an increase from the 52.4 percent measurement in 1994.

    Wages tell a similar story: There’s been almost no growth in real inflation-adjusted wages since 1994 – just about 4.1 percent over 21 years.

    Why has Mexico fared so poorly under NAFTA?

    Well, it must be understood that NAFTA marked a continuation of policies that began in the 1980s under pressure from Washington and the International Monetary Fund, when Mexico had been left particularly vulnerable from a debt crisis and world recession.

    These policies included the deregulation and liberalization of manufacturing, foreign investment and ownership – 70 percent of Mexico’s banking system is now foreign-owned......
  14. Well done Fred. Your depiction of the two Americas is most excellent. We are witnessing the decadence and corruption that mark the end of empire. The transition from sole superpower to just another large country in the Americas will be characterized by economic privation and social upheaval. Both Americas will have to focus on eating regular and living indoors. Hillary’s people will die off if Trump’s people do not feed them and give them shelter. Somebody should write A Day Without White Guys. Maybe you should write it Fred. The transition could take years or decades. The survivors will have an opportunity to build something new.

    Read More
  15. @Fran Macadam
    Trump was our last, worst hope.

    OH I don’t know as he was our last worse hope for Clinton a stark raving lunatic would have been much worse one, only needed to see her cackling about Libya to understand that it probably makes little difference who is in, for we are an empire in decline hated in most of the world and distrusted in the rest the only thing that remains to be seen is just how they handle the decline of the empire war or peace.!!

    Read More
  16. So where do the borders get drawn if we split the country?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester
    The iSteve blog has already had a few passes on this.

    The line of the Sierra Nevada Mountains extended north are a close approximation for cutting off the Left Coast as its own country. Then, the Appalachian Mountains are a good starting point to carve out and discard the Yankee urban enclaves starting in Baltimore and moving north.

    This gets rid of the two coastal mega-cities that have been trying to use force to turn the rest of the country into a Marxist dystopia ruled by the globalist apparatchiks of the Fifth International.

    The South and the Great Flyover would be the third piece of the puzzle, although the status of a few of the liberal northern states would be up for grabs. Maybe they could join Canada. Their liberal politics map very well to that of Justin Trudeau.
  17. “Conservatives” are less inclined to be creative types than “liberals.” In other words, they tend to be consumers rather than producers of culture. Does alienation in the Marxist sense encourage obsessive/compulsive persons to pursue cultural occupations?

    To expand on this, before the advent of the phonograph or radio most people who achieved a certain level of disposable income learned how to play an instrument. They wrote long letters. They entertained themselves by drawing pictures. Some found out they were good at this activity and maybe became professional musicians, artists or writers. But they weren’t considered to be of a particular political type until beginning around the time of Mozart.

    According to Ezra Pound, culture is what’s left over after you forgot what you tried to learn. This seems a reasonable definition to me. Therefore, culture is instinct. But educated instinct. While there is no such thing as bad primitive art, as we move up the civilizational ladder we are now at a place where bad art is produced in very large amounts indeed. It appears that the components are so complicated that only a particular type of person is willing and able to organize images, gestures and sounds in a certain way. And that person, or a high percentage anyway, is alienated from traditional forms of beauty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Very interesting comment.

    Henry Miller wrote a whole book about America, The Air-Conditioned Nightmare. He suffered greatly when he went to live in Big Sur.

    Practically every Hollywood grandee there is cannot stand the country in which they tragically must reside.

    It's not so much that they're alienated from traditional forms of beauty as that they're alienated from the essential core of the country.

    The court jester serves a useful function if he hints at certain unhealthy or erroneous aspects of the king's rule. A little scorn heaped on the poisonous anti-Russian hysteria would work wonders would work wonders in many a government and media office building.

    The current jester facsimiles turn their proper role upside down and search out material in the gutter or celebrate depravity and sedition. "Silence of the Lambs" and "Brokeback Mountain" an example of the former; any attack on "McCarthyism," the latter.
  18. Sorry Fred but can’t help myself. Very interesting article.

    “Shaping reality by ignoring reality through mind bending is a secret pleasure, which conservatives who struggle so hard to get some sense out of reality cannot understand.” – former communist commenter at another website

    I agree. Conservatives should study mind bending. If for no other reason than to “get” progressivism. Modernism is a mirror-image to story-telling. In modernism, or what they refer to now as post-modernism, there is no story, only irony and brutal exploitation of « human rights » as a means to power. Wherever you look for meaning it vanishes. This creates a mystery in which the shamans of modernism rejoice. It’s curious that the communists rejected modernism in favor of social realism. They viewed it as bourgeois and decadent. Early Russian communist artists like Naum Gabo are now models for race and class warfare waged by totalitarians hellbent on destroying the West. What a hoot.

    Conservatives keep trying to put meaning into progressivism where there is none. Only envy and alienation. They try to find stories where there is no story. They flatter themselves by projecting carefully reasoned arguments onto their opponents where none exist and are laughed at. This increases their befuddlement. The progressive then compounds this bewilderment by mimicking reason in perverse ways.

    Read More
  19. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Whether Trump proves to be the catastrophic buffoon he apparently aspires to be

    Even buffoons come in different flavors.
    For example, there are buffoons who pull their own strings, and buffoons whose strings are pulled (by a lobby, a lover or wife, a wound of their pride, anything else).
    Does someone agree that the first kind are much better?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    I think Fred is a First Type Buffoon. But I could be wrong.
  20. @Anonymous

    Whether Trump proves to be the catastrophic buffoon he apparently aspires to be
     
    Even buffoons come in different flavors.
    For example, there are buffoons who pull their own strings, and buffoons whose strings are pulled (by a lobby, a lover or wife, a wound of their pride, anything else).
    Does someone agree that the first kind are much better?

    I think Fred is a First Type Buffoon. But I could be wrong.

    Read More
  21. I imagine Rachel Maddow with twelve body segments and compound eyes.

    Fred, it’s the peyote talking. You have two options:

    1.) Ween yourself off the stuff and seek professional help.

    Or

    2.) Realize this is your spirit guide and crank it to eleven.

    Read More
  22. @Diversity Heretic
    One of the things that the South African government did right was to dismantle its nuclear weapons and its nuclear weapons program before turning power over to a black government. I hope someone is thinking about how the U.S should handle its nuclear weapons and the program when whites become a mere plurality and then a minority. Blacks and Mestizoes probably lack the intellectual and emotional capability to handle nuclear weapons and the production processes to make, maintain and retire them safely.

    We’ll have to give our nukes to Russia for safekeeping, just like France, England, and Israel should do before they turn plurality-Muslim/African.

    Read More
  23. The most pain, the deepest, everlasting sorrow and grief, comes from the simple observation that it was and is our supposed Best & Brightest who subverted and $sold out us Americans and our America – for nothing more than thirty pieces of FTSE, Nikkei, Wall Street Globali$m. The next most pain comes from observing how many useful volunteer Left-lib idiots and craven mercenaries do the boot-stamping-on-a-human-face dirty work of the Best & Brightest.

    “George Orwell could not have foreseen that individuals would give up their freedom to be punitive Big Brother themselves.” – Joyce Carol Oates

    Read More
  24. Better than a lot of your recent stuff. I would take issue, however, with ” Trump himself is crass, making menstrual jibes on the air at Megyn Kelly”. That never happened, it’s entirely the product of the dirty minds and malice of the media. You have to know that, so I don’t understand why you would repeat that slander.

    I understand you don’t like Trump. Don’t let it warp your judgment.

    Read More
  25. @Diversity Heretic
    One of the things that the South African government did right was to dismantle its nuclear weapons and its nuclear weapons program before turning power over to a black government. I hope someone is thinking about how the U.S should handle its nuclear weapons and the program when whites become a mere plurality and then a minority. Blacks and Mestizoes probably lack the intellectual and emotional capability to handle nuclear weapons and the production processes to make, maintain and retire them safely.

    The funny thing is — if you have nuclear weapons, your people don’t HAVE to “become a mere plurality and then a minority”. They are “The Final Argument of Kings”.

    Gnomesayin?

    Read More
  26. @Crawfurdmuir

    As I write Trump’s approval stands at 52%. My guess is that the man’s unending truculence will lower his numbers, but it hasn’t yet. And a complete failure of his presidency will not change the fact that half of the country is thoroughly sick of the other half.
     
    Perhaps his "unending truculence" is what won him the election.

    It is true that Trump's voters were, by and large, well-mannered and socially conservative folk - but they also realized that they needed a brawler to win against the left. Republicans have tried gentlemanliness in the past - McCain and Romney - and it wasn't a winning strategy. So, this time they nominated a candidate who wasn't so overly refined and rarefied, and to everyone's surprise, he won.

    He won't be judged on his manners in the future, but on his accomplishments. How he does will depend on what he can do. If he can deliver 4% annual economic growth all these prophecies of his impending collapse will be forgotten.

    “He won’t be judged on his manners in the future, but on his accomplishments. How he does will depend on what he can do. If he can deliver 4% annual economic growth all these prophecies of his impending collapse will be forgotten.”

    I approve of Trump, but he’s doomed if that is the criteria.

    Just don’t think it is possible to to have 4% real growth, except in blue moon years, with the mature American economy and demographics. Real growth that is, not statistical sleight of hand.

    Read More
  27. @Flip
    So where do the borders get drawn if we split the country?

    The iSteve blog has already had a few passes on this.

    The line of the Sierra Nevada Mountains extended north are a close approximation for cutting off the Left Coast as its own country. Then, the Appalachian Mountains are a good starting point to carve out and discard the Yankee urban enclaves starting in Baltimore and moving north.

    This gets rid of the two coastal mega-cities that have been trying to use force to turn the rest of the country into a Marxist dystopia ruled by the globalist apparatchiks of the Fifth International.

    The South and the Great Flyover would be the third piece of the puzzle, although the status of a few of the liberal northern states would be up for grabs. Maybe they could join Canada. Their liberal politics map very well to that of Justin Trudeau.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mtn cur
    Indeed, the elitist southern planters and their sandbagged minions found that even with most men of military age gone to serve in "the war," the south Appalachians cut the confederacy in half, with a little help from highlanders with obsolete weapons.
    , @James N. Kennett
    Your proposed map approximates this one, the parody map of "The United States of Canada" and "Jesusland".

    http://s47.photobucket.com/user/baritonobasso/media/jesusland.gif.html

    The trouble is, there are a lot of red-state people in the blue states, and vice versa.
    , @Ace
    Those lines will be more likely to be established de facto around dense urban areas in the event of serious economic difficulties. A much larger percentage of the population lives in cities than was true in the Depression and they are dependent on our just-in-time supply system. And a full tank of gas gets you nowhere if the interstates are blocked.

    Blue state pathology will die on the vine before any line drawing needs to be done.

  28. @in the middle
    Don't worry, there will be people in the USA's white community to handle that still.

    Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead.

    What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the “Arab Spring” in a different direction?

    We need global nuclear disarmament, and not for the reasons we thought we did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    We need global nuclear disarmament
     
    Amen to that! The sooner, the better!

    Peace.
    , @Corvinus
    "Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead."

    So, who are the "good whites" and who are the "bad whites"? Clarity, please.

    "What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the “Arab Spring” in a different direction?"

    Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership. You assume that he or she is going to revert back to their tribal instincts. So, to answer your inquiry, nothing is going to happen that would jeopardize those two nations in this specific case. Perhaps you ought to take a break from your lawyer gig, it really is impacting your thought process.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    I never thought that I'd agree with the concept of global nuclear disarmament either. But demographic developments in the U.S., France and Great Britain are leading me to the conclusion that it is increasingly unwise to trust the leadership of these countries with nuclear weapons. Bizarrely, I'm less afraid today of Russian or Chinese nukes than I am of American ones.
  29. @john cronk
    Fred, I agree with your assessment about the two Americas, but not with that about Trump.
    I think your critical remarks about him are unwarranted, and that he's doing a terrific job. He's intelligent, nimble and an amazingly hard worker doing his best for America and its citizens. You're severely underestimating him.

    I stopped reading after low-T addled old man Fred called Trump a buffoon. The only buffoon is Mexi-phile Fred.

    Read More
  30. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead.

    What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the "Arab Spring" in a different direction?

    We need global nuclear disarmament, and not for the reasons we thought we did.

    We need global nuclear disarmament

    Amen to that! The sooner, the better!

    Peace.

    Read More
  31. Can you imagine any of Trump’s middle-American supporters accusing Obama of lusting for incest with his daughters?

    Why, frankly, no.

    Read More
  32. Can you imagine any of Trump’s middle-American supporters accusing Obama of lusting for incest with his daughters?

    IIRC, there was this accusation of Clinton running a child molestation ring. Not that much of a difference there, I suppose. Both sides have a lot of idiots. That’s political activism for you.

    Daily Mail for describing Melania as “a high-end escort”–i.e., a take-out call girl, a prostitute. Can you imagine a conservative paper

    Err…, the Daily Mail is a conservative paper.

    Vulgarity is not liberalism. Neither is arson. Neither is suppression of free speech.

    On the one hand promoting free speech, on the other hand complaining about vulgarity? Not very coherent. If you have free speech, vulgarity is covered by it.
    &, again, vulgarity comes from supporters of both sides (to varying degrees & in various forms, but still).

    Read More
  33. Trrump recently sued a journalist and the London Daily Mail for describing Melania as “a high-end escort”–i.e., a take-out call girl, a prostitute. Can you imagine a conservative paper–say, the Washington Times, The American Conservative, National Review–describing Michelle Obama as a whore?

    Again, Federico, you win!

    http://www.gossipextra.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Melania-3.jpg

    Read More
  34. @TheJester
    The iSteve blog has already had a few passes on this.

    The line of the Sierra Nevada Mountains extended north are a close approximation for cutting off the Left Coast as its own country. Then, the Appalachian Mountains are a good starting point to carve out and discard the Yankee urban enclaves starting in Baltimore and moving north.

    This gets rid of the two coastal mega-cities that have been trying to use force to turn the rest of the country into a Marxist dystopia ruled by the globalist apparatchiks of the Fifth International.

    The South and the Great Flyover would be the third piece of the puzzle, although the status of a few of the liberal northern states would be up for grabs. Maybe they could join Canada. Their liberal politics map very well to that of Justin Trudeau.

    Indeed, the elitist southern planters and their sandbagged minions found that even with most men of military age gone to serve in “the war,” the south Appalachians cut the confederacy in half, with a little help from highlanders with obsolete weapons.

    Read More
  35. @Diversity Heretic
    One of the things that the South African government did right was to dismantle its nuclear weapons and its nuclear weapons program before turning power over to a black government. I hope someone is thinking about how the U.S should handle its nuclear weapons and the program when whites become a mere plurality and then a minority. Blacks and Mestizoes probably lack the intellectual and emotional capability to handle nuclear weapons and the production processes to make, maintain and retire them safely.

    “Blacks and Mestizoes probably lack the intellectual and emotional capability to handle nuclear weapons and the production processes to make, maintain and retire them safely.”

    Right, because the first thing they are going to do is blow every single white person to smithereens. We all know that they can’t be trusted. [sarcasm]

    Seems to me that white people ought to be blamed for creating this ultimate death trap since they enjoy blowing things up and have demonstrated a knack for destroying entire civilizations. Must be inborn.

    Read More
  36. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead.

    What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the "Arab Spring" in a different direction?

    We need global nuclear disarmament, and not for the reasons we thought we did.

    “Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead.”

    So, who are the “good whites” and who are the “bad whites”? Clarity, please.

    “What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the “Arab Spring” in a different direction?”

    Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership. You assume that he or she is going to revert back to their tribal instincts. So, to answer your inquiry, nothing is going to happen that would jeopardize those two nations in this specific case. Perhaps you ought to take a break from your lawyer gig, it really is impacting your thought process.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Corvinus,

    He also assumes the Muslim wouldn't be white themselves...

    Anyway on the nuclear weapon thing - I was joking with another Muslim reader of UNZ - sure we'll take credit for being the impetus for getting rid of these things!

    "Ooga booga!" Can't trust us Muslims with them - don't know what we'd do; use them, eat them, make sweet, sweet love to them... - LOL!

    Make fun of us, no problem, just get rid of the damned things already - it's like holding a shotgun to the collective brains of the entire world - highly unintelligent, if you ask me.

    For a more academic and nuanced look at what the scholars have stated, I suggest these:
    https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/01/74509.html

    Or the wonderful chapter: (Bringing Faith Back In: Muslim and Christian approaches to nuclear (non) proliferation and disarmament)
    "Ensuring the survival of the State, this abstract, man-made, construct has become the single most important imperative of the secular international system."
    Contemporary Muslim-Christian Encounters: Developments, Diversity and Dialogues

    Hopefully, I will live to see the day when these things are long gone.

    Peace.

    , @The Anti-Gnostic

    So, who are the “good whites” and who are the “bad whites”? Clarity, please.
     
    Irrelevant to the point at hand. Both sides think they are on the side of the good and the other is irredeemably evil. Not a good dynamic with nukes involved.

    Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership. You assume that he or she is going to revert back to their tribal instincts.
     
    You assume that they are coming here for Here. They are not; they are coming for a better There.

    A Muslim British or French Prime Minister would hold the loyalties of his constituents. Muslims hold very different positions from the current governing majorities on things like Palestine and the Israeli State.

    , @StillFree
    "Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership"

    Demographics will put a Muslim in leadership, nothing else.
    , @Ace
    So the Muslims Obama was loyal to this nation? Or is it normal for patriots to grovel before Saudi kinglets?
  37. @Crawfurdmuir

    As I write Trump’s approval stands at 52%. My guess is that the man’s unending truculence will lower his numbers, but it hasn’t yet. And a complete failure of his presidency will not change the fact that half of the country is thoroughly sick of the other half.
     
    Perhaps his "unending truculence" is what won him the election.

    It is true that Trump's voters were, by and large, well-mannered and socially conservative folk - but they also realized that they needed a brawler to win against the left. Republicans have tried gentlemanliness in the past - McCain and Romney - and it wasn't a winning strategy. So, this time they nominated a candidate who wasn't so overly refined and rarefied, and to everyone's surprise, he won.

    He won't be judged on his manners in the future, but on his accomplishments. How he does will depend on what he can do. If he can deliver 4% annual economic growth all these prophecies of his impending collapse will be forgotten.

    “It is true that Trump’s voters were, by and large, well-mannered and socially conservative folk – but they also realized that they needed a brawler to win against the left.”

    Yes, the working classes, the same group that had voted twice for Obama because he had championed their causes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    Yes, the working classes, the same group that had voted twice for Obama because he had championed their causes.
     
    The "working classes" were not the only Trump voters. There is a disproportionate emphasis on white, no-college-degree, working class voters as a Trump constituency. Indeed, such people may have provided the swing vote that carried states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for Trump, but Trump voters also included lots of historically Republican voters who were simply tired of "beautiful losers" like McCain or Romney.

    For example, Trump had significant support among evangelicals, a reliably Republican constituency, despite his being at best a lukewarm mainstream Protestant, and nobody's idea of a moral paragon. Neoconservative efforts to peel away his evangelical support by putting forward the candidacies first of David French and then of Evan McMullin failed abysmally. The neocons thought that evangelicals would "rather be right than be president" - but instead they decided they'd rather have an imperfect president that would side with them on most issues.
  38. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead.

    What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the "Arab Spring" in a different direction?

    We need global nuclear disarmament, and not for the reasons we thought we did.

    I never thought that I’d agree with the concept of global nuclear disarmament either. But demographic developments in the U.S., France and Great Britain are leading me to the conclusion that it is increasingly unwise to trust the leadership of these countries with nuclear weapons. Bizarrely, I’m less afraid today of Russian or Chinese nukes than I am of American ones.

    Read More
  39. @Corvinus
    "Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead."

    So, who are the "good whites" and who are the "bad whites"? Clarity, please.

    "What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the “Arab Spring” in a different direction?"

    Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership. You assume that he or she is going to revert back to their tribal instincts. So, to answer your inquiry, nothing is going to happen that would jeopardize those two nations in this specific case. Perhaps you ought to take a break from your lawyer gig, it really is impacting your thought process.

    Hey Corvinus,

    He also assumes the Muslim wouldn’t be white themselves…

    Anyway on the nuclear weapon thing – I was joking with another Muslim reader of UNZ – sure we’ll take credit for being the impetus for getting rid of these things!

    “Ooga booga!” Can’t trust us Muslims with them – don’t know what we’d do; use them, eat them, make sweet, sweet love to them… – LOL!

    Make fun of us, no problem, just get rid of the damned things already – it’s like holding a shotgun to the collective brains of the entire world – highly unintelligent, if you ask me.

    For a more academic and nuanced look at what the scholars have stated, I suggest these:

    https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/01/74509.html

    Or the wonderful chapter: (Bringing Faith Back In: Muslim and Christian approaches to nuclear (non) proliferation and disarmament)
    “Ensuring the survival of the State, this abstract, man-made, construct has become the single most important imperative of the secular international system.”
    Contemporary Muslim-Christian Encounters: Developments, Diversity and Dialogues

    Hopefully, I will live to see the day when these things are long gone.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Why are your creedal kin slaughtering Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East? And why would Americans and Europeans want your dystopic and dysgenic social model in the West?
  40. @Corvinus
    "It is true that Trump’s voters were, by and large, well-mannered and socially conservative folk – but they also realized that they needed a brawler to win against the left."

    Yes, the working classes, the same group that had voted twice for Obama because he had championed their causes.

    Yes, the working classes, the same group that had voted twice for Obama because he had championed their causes.

    The “working classes” were not the only Trump voters. There is a disproportionate emphasis on white, no-college-degree, working class voters as a Trump constituency. Indeed, such people may have provided the swing vote that carried states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for Trump, but Trump voters also included lots of historically Republican voters who were simply tired of “beautiful losers” like McCain or Romney.

    For example, Trump had significant support among evangelicals, a reliably Republican constituency, despite his being at best a lukewarm mainstream Protestant, and nobody’s idea of a moral paragon. Neoconservative efforts to peel away his evangelical support by putting forward the candidacies first of David French and then of Evan McMullin failed abysmally. The neocons thought that evangelicals would “rather be right than be president” – but instead they decided they’d rather have an imperfect president that would side with them on most issues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Montefrío
    "The “working classes” were not the only Trump voters."

    Indeed they were not! I'm a "Jivey League" grad from the days when the Ivy League was still providing serious education and I wasn't alone among old friends from the halls of ivy supporting Pres. Trump. Granted, he's not Pat Buchanan, but he'll do.

    For my money, the most important group of voters and supporters is to be found in the military, because if the antics of the disaffected worsen...
    , @Corvinus
    "There is a disproportionate emphasis on white, no-college-degree, working class voters as a Trump constituency."

    Probably because Trump himself championed this group as being THE factor as to why he won the election.

    "Indeed, such people may have provided the swing vote that carried states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for Trump..."

    Not "may have", but "decidedly".

    "but Trump voters also included lots of historically Republican voters who were simply tired of “beautiful losers” like McCain or Romney."

    They put their fingers on their nose and pulled the lever for Trump. They were not about to allow a historically weak Democrat win.

    "For example, Trump had significant support among evangelicals, a reliably Republican constituency, despite his being at best a lukewarm mainstream Protestant, and nobody’s idea of a moral paragon."

    They also put their fingers on their nose and pulled the lever for Trump, bastardizing their religious values along the way. So much for principles.
  41. Trump making “mensrual jibes” about Megyn Kelly is projection from the left. He said blood coming out her eyes, coming out of her “whatever.” If you believe blood can come out of the eyes, can’t it also come out of the ears, mouth, nostrils, whatever?

    Read More
  42. @Corvinus
    "Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead."

    So, who are the "good whites" and who are the "bad whites"? Clarity, please.

    "What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the “Arab Spring” in a different direction?"

    Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership. You assume that he or she is going to revert back to their tribal instincts. So, to answer your inquiry, nothing is going to happen that would jeopardize those two nations in this specific case. Perhaps you ought to take a break from your lawyer gig, it really is impacting your thought process.

    So, who are the “good whites” and who are the “bad whites”? Clarity, please.

    Irrelevant to the point at hand. Both sides think they are on the side of the good and the other is irredeemably evil. Not a good dynamic with nukes involved.

    Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership. You assume that he or she is going to revert back to their tribal instincts.

    You assume that they are coming here for Here. They are not; they are coming for a better There.

    A Muslim British or French Prime Minister would hold the loyalties of his constituents. Muslims hold very different positions from the current governing majorities on things like Palestine and the Israeli State.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Irrelevant to the point at hand. Both sides think they are on the side of the good and the other is irredeemably evil. Not a good dynamic with nukes involved."

    It is most relevant, considering white nationalists such as yourself preach and screech this meme.

    "You assume that they are coming here for Here. They are not; they are coming for a better There."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Immigrants who come to America come here for opportunities that they lacked over there, and will better themselves and their nation.

    "A Muslim British or French Prime Minister would hold the loyalties of his constituents."

    Corrected for accuracy --> A Muslim prime minister in those two nations will hold the loyalties for the citizens who put them in charge of that nation.
  43. @Talha
    Hey Corvinus,

    He also assumes the Muslim wouldn't be white themselves...

    Anyway on the nuclear weapon thing - I was joking with another Muslim reader of UNZ - sure we'll take credit for being the impetus for getting rid of these things!

    "Ooga booga!" Can't trust us Muslims with them - don't know what we'd do; use them, eat them, make sweet, sweet love to them... - LOL!

    Make fun of us, no problem, just get rid of the damned things already - it's like holding a shotgun to the collective brains of the entire world - highly unintelligent, if you ask me.

    For a more academic and nuanced look at what the scholars have stated, I suggest these:
    https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/01/74509.html

    Or the wonderful chapter: (Bringing Faith Back In: Muslim and Christian approaches to nuclear (non) proliferation and disarmament)
    "Ensuring the survival of the State, this abstract, man-made, construct has become the single most important imperative of the secular international system."
    Contemporary Muslim-Christian Encounters: Developments, Diversity and Dialogues

    Hopefully, I will live to see the day when these things are long gone.

    Peace.

    Why are your creedal kin slaughtering Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East? And why would Americans and Europeans want your dystopic and dysgenic social model in the West?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey TAG,

    Why are your creedal kin slaughtering Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East?
     
    They have been denounced as extremists by every Muslim scholar I have come across. I would think slaughtering of religious minorities is actually par for the course. It seems about as shocking as finding out prostitutes sell their bodies for money.

    Tell you what - why don't you tell me why they are slaughtering our scholars left, right and center:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7a_GNX_ZKE

    And why others of my creedal kin are on the front lines shooting at and getting shot by them.

    And why would Americans and Europeans want your dystopic and dysgenic social model in the West?
     
    Don't know, ask the ones that don't mind us being around. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but you don't need Muslims around to have a dystopic social model going - the Left is doing plenty well without our input. The Right can't seem to get its head on straight either...just saying.

    Now, down to brass tacks; yes, yes - we're all just inbred retards that hump monkeys and eat ear wax - and our numbers are gaining in the UK and France - so can we get rid of the nukes already? You really don't want them in our hands, do you?

    Peace.
  44. @Heymrguda
    Fred, when you're hot your hot, when you're not you're not.
    One other thought -- unless there is a plan to secure the borders in whatever new state we might create, the same cretins will be coming over to f&&& it up after they get through f&&&&&& up the one they came from.

    Your last paragraph promised “one last thought”. I failed to find it.

    By the way, in which pack of cretins did your family enter the United States? Or to be more eloquent in my choice of words, in which pack of losers did your family enter the United States?

    My pack of losers were Scots who entered after the battle of Culloden when there weren’t any united states in North America.

    While runaway immigration is a dire problem for us now, I dare say that runaway immigration has been a problem for each and every established cohort in North America since 1492.

    “We’re here! Now lock the door!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    You do realize that North and South America were wildernesses in 1492 and up through the 19th century, right? It's been estimated that there were only 1 million Indians living in the area that became the US and Canada in the 15th century. In other words, there was more than enough room for everyone. Now, however, in the present techno-world in which we live, it's probably a good idea to slow the influx.
    , @Heymrguda
    Maybe I was not clear in my meaning, the cretins I was talking about were the progressive SJWs who will migrate to any new political entity after they've finished trashing the alternate left wing state that has been created for them. Unless some way is found to keep them out they'll proceed to repeat the same tactics they now use against Trump.

    We apparently have at least one thing in common, I am scots and scotch Irish on both sides of my family.
    , @The True and Original David
    "We're here! Now lock the door!"

    It's not merely that we're here. It's that we built the place. But in any case, isn't it good that we losers became winners and are standing our ground at last? The worm has to turn somewhere.
  45. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Why are your creedal kin slaughtering Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East? And why would Americans and Europeans want your dystopic and dysgenic social model in the West?

    Hey TAG,

    Why are your creedal kin slaughtering Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East?

    They have been denounced as extremists by every Muslim scholar I have come across. I would think slaughtering of religious minorities is actually par for the course. It seems about as shocking as finding out prostitutes sell their bodies for money.

    Tell you what – why don’t you tell me why they are slaughtering our scholars left, right and center:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7a_GNX_ZKE

    And why others of my creedal kin are on the front lines shooting at and getting shot by them.

    And why would Americans and Europeans want your dystopic and dysgenic social model in the West?

    Don’t know, ask the ones that don’t mind us being around. I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, but you don’t need Muslims around to have a dystopic social model going – the Left is doing plenty well without our input. The Right can’t seem to get its head on straight either…just saying.

    Now, down to brass tacks; yes, yes – we’re all just inbred retards that hump monkeys and eat ear wax – and our numbers are gaining in the UK and France – so can we get rid of the nukes already? You really don’t want them in our hands, do you?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Talha,
    So what do you make of the Sufi shrines that were violently attacked in Pakistan allegedly by IS militants? I believe you are an adherent of the Sufi branch of Islam.
    , @Ace
    Hey, Talha, I see you're fond of the "they're killing our scholars" point. That Iraqi scholar His Eminence Al-Sayyid Ali Al-Husseini Al-Sistani thinks I'm najis, a filthy being on a par with dead bodies, dogs, excrement and blood. A sentiment mirrored in the Sunni love of the concept of dhimmitude.

    It's such a blessing when any one Muslim comes to live among us kuffar. However, some of us doubt you all will make the political inroads you hope for. It really is madness to think we can live together.
  46. @Diversity Heretic
    A division of the depth accurately described by Fred will lead probably to at least two nations in the present geographic space occupied by the United States. The division might be well managed, with two or more highly autonomous regions with overall loyalty to a central government, or, more likely it will be a chaotic fracturing following a serious financial/economic crisis, possibly accompanied by a major defeat in war (think aircraft carrier going down with all hands or a major Army or Marine unit annihilated or forced to surrender). The tinder is clearly there--where will the spark come from?

    Have you seen the Trump/Clinton divide by county? Trump haters are much more concentrated in urban areas than Americans are. They are an archipelago, not a country.

    Read More
  47. @Si1ver1ock


    I imagine Rachel Maddow with twelve body segments and compound eyes.

     

    Fred, it's the peyote talking. You have two options:

    1.) Ween yourself off the stuff and seek professional help.

    Or

    2.) Realize this is your spirit guide and crank it to eleven.

    That looks more like San Pedro in the photo

    Read More
  48. This seems to be a good place to quote again Henry Adams’ impression of Washington upon returning in 1860 from his Continental (European) attempt at education:

    The Government had an air of social instability and incompleteness that went far to support the right of secession in theory as in fact; but right or wrong, secession was likely to be easy where there was so little to secede from. The Union was a sentiment, but not much more, and in December, 1860, the sentiment about the Capitol was chiefly hostile, so far as it made itself felt.

    Read More
  49. @Macon Richardson
    Your last paragraph promised "one last thought". I failed to find it.

    By the way, in which pack of cretins did your family enter the United States? Or to be more eloquent in my choice of words, in which pack of losers did your family enter the United States?

    My pack of losers were Scots who entered after the battle of Culloden when there weren't any united states in North America.

    While runaway immigration is a dire problem for us now, I dare say that runaway immigration has been a problem for each and every established cohort in North America since 1492.

    "We're here! Now lock the door!"

    You do realize that North and South America were wildernesses in 1492 and up through the 19th century, right? It’s been estimated that there were only 1 million Indians living in the area that became the US and Canada in the 15th century. In other words, there was more than enough room for everyone. Now, however, in the present techno-world in which we live, it’s probably a good idea to slow the influx.

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred
    http://www.nature.com/news/collapse-of-aztec-society-linked-to-catastrophic-salmonella-outbreak-1.21485

    In 1519, when forces led by Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortés arrived in Mexico, the native population was estimated at about 25 million. A century later, after a Spanish victory and a series of epidemics, numbers had plunged to around 1 million.
     
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170217013044.htm

    They found that California had the highest population density in all of North America, with lots of small groups living in close proximity. There were approximately 100 different languages spoken in California at the time. The data showed how the scarcity of resources and violence correlates.
     
    https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/hundreds-of-ancient-earthworks-built-in.html#aYLkYQ3hw6kGZqZD.97

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


    The Spanish explorer Francisco de Orellana, the 16th century explorer who was the first European to traverse the Amazon River, reported densely populated regions running hundreds of kilometers along the river, suggesting population levels exceeding even those of today. These populations left no lasting monuments, possibly because they used local wood as their construction material, which would have rotted in the humid climate (stone was unavailable). While it is possible Orellana may have exaggerated the level of development among the Amazonians, their semi-nomadic descendants have the odd distinction among tribal indigenous societies of a hereditary, yet landless, aristocracy, a historical anomaly for a society without a sedentary, agrarian culture. This suggests they once were more settled and agrarian but became nomadic after the demographic collapse of the 16th and 17th century, due to European-introduced diseases, while still maintaining certain traditions.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture
  50. @Rich
    You do realize that North and South America were wildernesses in 1492 and up through the 19th century, right? It's been estimated that there were only 1 million Indians living in the area that became the US and Canada in the 15th century. In other words, there was more than enough room for everyone. Now, however, in the present techno-world in which we live, it's probably a good idea to slow the influx.

    http://www.nature.com/news/collapse-of-aztec-society-linked-to-catastrophic-salmonella-outbreak-1.21485

    In 1519, when forces led by Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortés arrived in Mexico, the native population was estimated at about 25 million. A century later, after a Spanish victory and a series of epidemics, numbers had plunged to around 1 million.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170217013044.htm

    They found that California had the highest population density in all of North America, with lots of small groups living in close proximity. There were approximately 100 different languages spoken in California at the time. The data showed how the scarcity of resources and violence correlates.

    https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/hundreds-of-ancient-earthworks-built-in.html#aYLkYQ3hw6kGZqZD.97

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

    The Spanish explorer Francisco de Orellana, the 16th century explorer who was the first European to traverse the Amazon River, reported densely populated regions running hundreds of kilometers along the river, suggesting population levels exceeding even those of today. These populations left no lasting monuments, possibly because they used local wood as their construction material, which would have rotted in the humid climate (stone was unavailable). While it is possible Orellana may have exaggerated the level of development among the Amazonians, their semi-nomadic descendants have the odd distinction among tribal indigenous societies of a hereditary, yet landless, aristocracy, a historical anomaly for a society without a sedentary, agrarian culture. This suggests they once were more settled and agrarian but became nomadic after the demographic collapse of the 16th and 17th century, due to European-introduced diseases, while still maintaining certain traditions.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

    The population figure for indigenous peoples in the Americas before the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated that the pre-Columbian population was as low as 10 million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a middle estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for an estimate of 100 million or more.[1]
     
  51. @another fred
    http://www.nature.com/news/collapse-of-aztec-society-linked-to-catastrophic-salmonella-outbreak-1.21485

    In 1519, when forces led by Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortés arrived in Mexico, the native population was estimated at about 25 million. A century later, after a Spanish victory and a series of epidemics, numbers had plunged to around 1 million.
     
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170217013044.htm

    They found that California had the highest population density in all of North America, with lots of small groups living in close proximity. There were approximately 100 different languages spoken in California at the time. The data showed how the scarcity of resources and violence correlates.
     
    https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/hundreds-of-ancient-earthworks-built-in.html#aYLkYQ3hw6kGZqZD.97

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


    The Spanish explorer Francisco de Orellana, the 16th century explorer who was the first European to traverse the Amazon River, reported densely populated regions running hundreds of kilometers along the river, suggesting population levels exceeding even those of today. These populations left no lasting monuments, possibly because they used local wood as their construction material, which would have rotted in the humid climate (stone was unavailable). While it is possible Orellana may have exaggerated the level of development among the Amazonians, their semi-nomadic descendants have the odd distinction among tribal indigenous societies of a hereditary, yet landless, aristocracy, a historical anomaly for a society without a sedentary, agrarian culture. This suggests they once were more settled and agrarian but became nomadic after the demographic collapse of the 16th and 17th century, due to European-introduced diseases, while still maintaining certain traditions.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture

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

    The population figure for indigenous peoples in the Americas before the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated that the pre-Columbian population was as low as 10 million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a middle estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for an estimate of 100 million or more.[1]

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred
    Again Wikipedia:

    Historian David Henige has argued that many population figures are the result of arbitrary formulas selectively applied to numbers from unreliable historical sources. He believes this is a weakness unrecognized by several contributors to the field, and insists there is not sufficient evidence to produce population numbers that have any real meaning. He characterizes the modern trend of high estimates as "pseudo-scientific number-crunching." Henige does not advocate a low population estimate, but argues that the scanty and unreliable nature of the evidence renders broad estimates inevitably suspect, saying "high counters" (as he calls them) have been particularly flagrant in their misuse of sources.[14] Many population studies acknowledge the inherent difficulties in producing reliable statistics, given the scarcity of hard data.[citation needed]

    The population debate has often had ideological underpinnings.[15] Low estimates were sometimes reflective of European notions of cultural and racial superiority. Historian Francis Jennings argued, "Scholarly wisdom long held that Indians were so inferior in mind and works that they could not possibly have created or sustained large populations."[16]
     

  52. @another fred
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

    The population figure for indigenous peoples in the Americas before the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated that the pre-Columbian population was as low as 10 million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a middle estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for an estimate of 100 million or more.[1]
     

    Again Wikipedia:

    Historian David Henige has argued that many population figures are the result of arbitrary formulas selectively applied to numbers from unreliable historical sources. He believes this is a weakness unrecognized by several contributors to the field, and insists there is not sufficient evidence to produce population numbers that have any real meaning. He characterizes the modern trend of high estimates as “pseudo-scientific number-crunching.” Henige does not advocate a low population estimate, but argues that the scanty and unreliable nature of the evidence renders broad estimates inevitably suspect, saying “high counters” (as he calls them) have been particularly flagrant in their misuse of sources.[14] Many population studies acknowledge the inherent difficulties in producing reliable statistics, given the scarcity of hard data.[citation needed]

    The population debate has often had ideological underpinnings.[15] Low estimates were sometimes reflective of European notions of cultural and racial superiority. Historian Francis Jennings argued, “Scholarly wisdom long held that Indians were so inferior in mind and works that they could not possibly have created or sustained large populations.”[16]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Where to start?

    "Low population estimates has often had ideological underpinnings,,," So is it possible that the new high estimates might also have ideological underpinnings?

    Mexico's "native population was estimated at 25 million." I specifically stated the US and Canada.

    "Most scholars writing in the 19th century estimated ...10 million." That 10 million number is for North and South America. I would trust the scholars of the 19th century much more than the politically correct scholars of today. If any researcher writes a paper that doesn't make any minority, in this case American Indians, look superior, they'll quickly find they are fired, or if already tenured, defunded.

    The Indians of pre-Columbian US and Canada were mostly hunter-gatherers, with no horses and no metallurgy. The estimate of 1 million sounds accurate to me.
  53. @another fred
    Again Wikipedia:

    Historian David Henige has argued that many population figures are the result of arbitrary formulas selectively applied to numbers from unreliable historical sources. He believes this is a weakness unrecognized by several contributors to the field, and insists there is not sufficient evidence to produce population numbers that have any real meaning. He characterizes the modern trend of high estimates as "pseudo-scientific number-crunching." Henige does not advocate a low population estimate, but argues that the scanty and unreliable nature of the evidence renders broad estimates inevitably suspect, saying "high counters" (as he calls them) have been particularly flagrant in their misuse of sources.[14] Many population studies acknowledge the inherent difficulties in producing reliable statistics, given the scarcity of hard data.[citation needed]

    The population debate has often had ideological underpinnings.[15] Low estimates were sometimes reflective of European notions of cultural and racial superiority. Historian Francis Jennings argued, "Scholarly wisdom long held that Indians were so inferior in mind and works that they could not possibly have created or sustained large populations."[16]
     

    Where to start?

    “Low population estimates has often had ideological underpinnings,,,” So is it possible that the new high estimates might also have ideological underpinnings?

    Mexico’s “native population was estimated at 25 million.” I specifically stated the US and Canada.

    “Most scholars writing in the 19th century estimated …10 million.” That 10 million number is for North and South America. I would trust the scholars of the 19th century much more than the politically correct scholars of today. If any researcher writes a paper that doesn’t make any minority, in this case American Indians, look superior, they’ll quickly find they are fired, or if already tenured, defunded.

    The Indians of pre-Columbian US and Canada were mostly hunter-gatherers, with no horses and no metallurgy. The estimate of 1 million sounds accurate to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobRich
    The Gilson and De Lemos families, which met with Native leaders and examined Native documents in the 1500-1600's and financed many explorations, have a tradition of 100K Indians in US-Canada and 1MM overall. There was a population collapse from civil warfare against their statist mound/pyramid-building, enslaving, and human-sacrificing overlords and resultant disease, but it happened before the Euros arrived.

    I spoke with their leader MG who also runs the Libertarian world movement, and he confirmed that is the tradition. He thinks documents may still exist in the Indias Spanish Archives but may be unreadable today.

    In other words, thanks to Euros, the Native populations today are at an all-time high. The reverse seems to be Marxist propaganda.
  54. @Macon Richardson
    Your last paragraph promised "one last thought". I failed to find it.

    By the way, in which pack of cretins did your family enter the United States? Or to be more eloquent in my choice of words, in which pack of losers did your family enter the United States?

    My pack of losers were Scots who entered after the battle of Culloden when there weren't any united states in North America.

    While runaway immigration is a dire problem for us now, I dare say that runaway immigration has been a problem for each and every established cohort in North America since 1492.

    "We're here! Now lock the door!"

    Maybe I was not clear in my meaning, the cretins I was talking about were the progressive SJWs who will migrate to any new political entity after they’ve finished trashing the alternate left wing state that has been created for them. Unless some way is found to keep them out they’ll proceed to repeat the same tactics they now use against Trump.

    We apparently have at least one thing in common, I am scots and scotch Irish on both sides of my family.

    Read More
  55. @Talha
    Hey TAG,

    Why are your creedal kin slaughtering Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East?
     
    They have been denounced as extremists by every Muslim scholar I have come across. I would think slaughtering of religious minorities is actually par for the course. It seems about as shocking as finding out prostitutes sell their bodies for money.

    Tell you what - why don't you tell me why they are slaughtering our scholars left, right and center:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7a_GNX_ZKE

    And why others of my creedal kin are on the front lines shooting at and getting shot by them.

    And why would Americans and Europeans want your dystopic and dysgenic social model in the West?
     
    Don't know, ask the ones that don't mind us being around. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but you don't need Muslims around to have a dystopic social model going - the Left is doing plenty well without our input. The Right can't seem to get its head on straight either...just saying.

    Now, down to brass tacks; yes, yes - we're all just inbred retards that hump monkeys and eat ear wax - and our numbers are gaining in the UK and France - so can we get rid of the nukes already? You really don't want them in our hands, do you?

    Peace.

    Talha,
    So what do you make of the Sufi shrines that were violently attacked in Pakistan allegedly by IS militants? I believe you are an adherent of the Sufi branch of Islam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey KenH,

    Just a clarification; Sufism or what it may be known by from its other names - Ilm ul-Ihsan, Tazkiyat un-Nafs, Tasawwuf, etc. is a branch from the Islamic sciences (like hadith, tafseer, etc.) and has been an integral part of Islam from the beginning. If the Salafi/Wahhabi voice was not as loud as it is today, there would not even be a debate about this.

    As far as the mausoleums or grave sites of the various Sufi saints of the past being attacked by Daesh or their cohorts - doesn't surprise me, again we call them extremists for a reason. I'm actually surprised it took them this long to start, honestly. Pakistan is full of these places - very target-rich environment for these blood-thirsty fellows. I don't understand these people - I honestly do not think they are right in the head. The Indian writer, Pankaj Mishra said some very profound words in a recent interview:
    "Religion today, is not the religion of the centuries and centuries. Religion in the past meant human lives being almost completely enclosed by a transcendent authority. These were people who felt the presence of God in their lives, who we used to call 'God-fearing'. Lives were essentially shaped by that felt presence.
    Today people who claim to be religious are very much part of the modern world. They are using religion as an ideology, making themselves more attractive. Religion is something we have actually lost. This is one reason for the desperation among fundamentalists, because they have lost religion, and cannot resurrect it. This [is] one reason they often happen to be engineers and scientists. God has nothing to do with what they know of the world. These are deeply secularised people, and their longing for religion is hopeless and desperate. Which makes them perfect nihilists."
    https://thewire.in/103616/liberal-democracy-pankaj-mishra-age-of-anger/

    My hope is that their sanguinary ways will repel more and more people away from their interpretation and back into the arms of traditional orthodoxy.

    If you have read Muslim history, then you will know it is pretty shocking what extremists are capable of; up to and including declaring the Hajj to be prohibited and murdering innocent pilgrims and dumping their bodies in the well of Zam Zam. Hats off to you if you can figure out which group that was.

    Peace.
  56. @KenH
    Talha,
    So what do you make of the Sufi shrines that were violently attacked in Pakistan allegedly by IS militants? I believe you are an adherent of the Sufi branch of Islam.

    Hey KenH,

    Just a clarification; Sufism or what it may be known by from its other names – Ilm ul-Ihsan, Tazkiyat un-Nafs, Tasawwuf, etc. is a branch from the Islamic sciences (like hadith, tafseer, etc.) and has been an integral part of Islam from the beginning. If the Salafi/Wahhabi voice was not as loud as it is today, there would not even be a debate about this.

    As far as the mausoleums or grave sites of the various Sufi saints of the past being attacked by Daesh or their cohorts – doesn’t surprise me, again we call them extremists for a reason. I’m actually surprised it took them this long to start, honestly. Pakistan is full of these places – very target-rich environment for these blood-thirsty fellows. I don’t understand these people – I honestly do not think they are right in the head. The Indian writer, Pankaj Mishra said some very profound words in a recent interview:
    “Religion today, is not the religion of the centuries and centuries. Religion in the past meant human lives being almost completely enclosed by a transcendent authority. These were people who felt the presence of God in their lives, who we used to call ‘God-fearing’. Lives were essentially shaped by that felt presence.
    Today people who claim to be religious are very much part of the modern world. They are using religion as an ideology, making themselves more attractive. Religion is something we have actually lost. This is one reason for the desperation among fundamentalists, because they have lost religion, and cannot resurrect it. This [is] one reason they often happen to be engineers and scientists. God has nothing to do with what they know of the world. These are deeply secularised people, and their longing for religion is hopeless and desperate. Which makes them perfect nihilists.”

    https://thewire.in/103616/liberal-democracy-pankaj-mishra-age-of-anger/

    My hope is that their sanguinary ways will repel more and more people away from their interpretation and back into the arms of traditional orthodoxy.

    If you have read Muslim history, then you will know it is pretty shocking what extremists are capable of; up to and including declaring the Hajj to be prohibited and murdering innocent pilgrims and dumping their bodies in the well of Zam Zam. Hats off to you if you can figure out which group that was.

    Peace.

    Read More
  57. @TheJester
    The iSteve blog has already had a few passes on this.

    The line of the Sierra Nevada Mountains extended north are a close approximation for cutting off the Left Coast as its own country. Then, the Appalachian Mountains are a good starting point to carve out and discard the Yankee urban enclaves starting in Baltimore and moving north.

    This gets rid of the two coastal mega-cities that have been trying to use force to turn the rest of the country into a Marxist dystopia ruled by the globalist apparatchiks of the Fifth International.

    The South and the Great Flyover would be the third piece of the puzzle, although the status of a few of the liberal northern states would be up for grabs. Maybe they could join Canada. Their liberal politics map very well to that of Justin Trudeau.

    Your proposed map approximates this one, the parody map of “The United States of Canada” and “Jesusland”.

    http://s47.photobucket.com/user/baritonobasso/media/jesusland.gif.html

    The trouble is, there are a lot of red-state people in the blue states, and vice versa.

    Read More
  58. Fred, these two groups don’t share the same geography. Trump Americans live in farming towns, industrial small cities and the outer suburbs of large cities. Hillary Americans live in big cities and college/tourism towns.

    How do you think white liberals, despite being in a demographic minority, are able to hold such massive protest marches? They can do so because they are geographically concentrated in large cities and can easily attract the attention of the national media. This geographic/organisational advantage is probably the main reason why the liberal left has so much cultural influence.

    Read More
  59. @Crawfurdmuir

    Yes, the working classes, the same group that had voted twice for Obama because he had championed their causes.
     
    The "working classes" were not the only Trump voters. There is a disproportionate emphasis on white, no-college-degree, working class voters as a Trump constituency. Indeed, such people may have provided the swing vote that carried states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for Trump, but Trump voters also included lots of historically Republican voters who were simply tired of "beautiful losers" like McCain or Romney.

    For example, Trump had significant support among evangelicals, a reliably Republican constituency, despite his being at best a lukewarm mainstream Protestant, and nobody's idea of a moral paragon. Neoconservative efforts to peel away his evangelical support by putting forward the candidacies first of David French and then of Evan McMullin failed abysmally. The neocons thought that evangelicals would "rather be right than be president" - but instead they decided they'd rather have an imperfect president that would side with them on most issues.

    “The “working classes” were not the only Trump voters.”

    Indeed they were not! I’m a “Jivey League” grad from the days when the Ivy League was still providing serious education and I wasn’t alone among old friends from the halls of ivy supporting Pres. Trump. Granted, he’s not Pat Buchanan, but he’ll do.

    For my money, the most important group of voters and supporters is to be found in the military, because if the antics of the disaffected worsen…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Bingo!

    Military personnel overwhelmingly voted for Trump.
  60. Like your columns in general Fred but Trump a “catastrophic buffoon”? OK fine, Fred, trash the candidate that us mouth-breathing dummies back here in the states who aren’t smart enough to move Mexico, supported and selected. But don’t pee all over Trump and then walk away and not provide a better alternative. Who would that have been, Fred? Name one candidate in your mind Fred that could have beaten hilLIARy, other than Trump of course.

    Read More
  61. @The Scalpel
    Ironically, the first country to nuke the USA will be - the USA

    The delirious writings of Frank Miller were prophetic!

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

    I love pop culture!

    Read More
  62. @Rich
    Where to start?

    "Low population estimates has often had ideological underpinnings,,," So is it possible that the new high estimates might also have ideological underpinnings?

    Mexico's "native population was estimated at 25 million." I specifically stated the US and Canada.

    "Most scholars writing in the 19th century estimated ...10 million." That 10 million number is for North and South America. I would trust the scholars of the 19th century much more than the politically correct scholars of today. If any researcher writes a paper that doesn't make any minority, in this case American Indians, look superior, they'll quickly find they are fired, or if already tenured, defunded.

    The Indians of pre-Columbian US and Canada were mostly hunter-gatherers, with no horses and no metallurgy. The estimate of 1 million sounds accurate to me.

    The Gilson and De Lemos families, which met with Native leaders and examined Native documents in the 1500-1600′s and financed many explorations, have a tradition of 100K Indians in US-Canada and 1MM overall. There was a population collapse from civil warfare against their statist mound/pyramid-building, enslaving, and human-sacrificing overlords and resultant disease, but it happened before the Euros arrived.

    I spoke with their leader MG who also runs the Libertarian world movement, and he confirmed that is the tradition. He thinks documents may still exist in the Indias Spanish Archives but may be unreadable today.

    In other words, thanks to Euros, the Native populations today are at an all-time high. The reverse seems to be Marxist propaganda.

    Read More
  63. Fred, should the US start EXPANDING beginning with Mexico?

    At one time half of Mexico voted to join the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    I'm sure Baja California, and maybe Yucatan would love to leave Mexico. Whether that would be a good thing for Americans is somewhat doubtful...
  64. @SmoothieX12

    Ironically, the first country to nuke the USA will be – the USA
     
    Well, you, sure as hell, raised a tremendously important issue. Should (God forbids) US gets destabilized the problem of "ownership" of US nuclear arsenal will (if not already) occupy thinking of many nations. This is one of the major reasons (which is also a point of cognitive dissonance for US pundits) why Russia wants to see US stable and sane. Kinda kills the current narrative of Russia "undermining US "democracy"" (double quotation is deliberate).

    Russia wants to see US stable and sane.

    Good God yes.

    There could be a nuclear war over gay “marriage”.

    Read More
  65. A woman doesn’t have to be a feminist to believe in her inalienable right to exercise control over whose sperm is allowed to come into contact with her “uterine wall”; she only needs to be a normal female of whatever species.

    Why then can feminist protestors not see that the State too has the right to exert some control over who shall pass through its gates? Don’t States also have the right not to be raped?

    Read More
  66. @Heymrguda
    Fred, when you're hot your hot, when you're not you're not.
    One other thought -- unless there is a plan to secure the borders in whatever new state we might create, the same cretins will be coming over to f&&& it up after they get through f&&&&&& up the one they came from.

    You can bet that the conservative part of the split up will enforce its borders with barbed wire, machine guns, and maybe mine fields, to prevent people fleeing the leftist hellhole when it collapses from showing up.

    Read More
  67. @RobRich
    Fred, should the US start EXPANDING beginning with Mexico?

    At one time half of Mexico voted to join the US.

    I’m sure Baja California, and maybe Yucatan would love to leave Mexico. Whether that would be a good thing for Americans is somewhat doubtful…

    Read More
  68. I’m not as nasty as using little girls like Pokemon before their bodies e even developed. I am not as nasty as own daughter being your favorite sex symbol, like your wet dreams infused with your own genes.

    The astonishing thing is that this doesn’t represent Trump, but does accurately represent fatty Lena Dunham when she said, in published writing, a published book, no less, in essence:

    I’m fine with interfering with little girls before their bodies have even developed. I am every bit as nasty, as I boasted about doing it to my own much younger little sister as my favorite sex symbol, like my wet dreams infused with my own genes.

    Sure, that is an adaption of Judd’s stupid post, not a real quote, but accurately reflects her pal Dunham’s boasts in writing.

    Astonishing hypocrisy, to accuse one of non-existent behaviour, and to ignore real intra-familial assault (the definition of ‘incest’ being associated with generative or potentially such intercourse, the word doesn’t fit Dunham’s despicable self-boasted behavior).

    The ref. to Pokkemon is funny, implyimg that Ashley spent some time in her limo., rabidly playing Pokkemon Go! in the past year.

    Read More
  69. Trump is to Wovoka what the White Man’s Ghost Dance is to the Injun’s Ghost Dance.

    The cities (civilization) are causing humans to evolve at a rapid pace, making them more domesticated, in the same way that the Siberian foxes were rapidly tamed. See wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox

    How? Cities…

    “… amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants … people don’t make cities liberal — cities make people liberal.”

    Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America
    The Atlantic, 2011
    theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/red-state-blue-city-how-the-urban-rural-divide-is-splitting-america/265686/

    Civilization (city-living) marches on. And you won’t like it any more than the Injuns did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey ST Post,

    Excellent points! Which is why I shake my head when people in the West see throngs of liberal-minded marchers on the streets of downtown Tehran, but are surprised that the clerics are still in charge...downtown Tehran has about as much in common with Mashhad and Qom and the vast rural areas of Iran as San Francisco does with Oklahoma City and Waco.

    Everyone has their 'fly-over' regions; some are just larger than others.

    Peace.
  70. As I write Trump’s approval stands at 52%. My guess is that the man’s unending truculence will lower his numbers, but it hasn’t yet. And a complete failure of his presidency will not change the fact that half of the country is thoroughly sick of the other half.

    Where does this lead?

    no where.

    the divide and conquer is complete.

    Read More
  71. The good news is Leftist Feminists have a very difficult time procreating. Feminists are allergic to male sperm. Unless they figure out some sort of asexual reproduction they are destined to be a short lived irritating phenomenon.

    Read More
  72. @Steel T Post
    Trump is to Wovoka what the White Man's Ghost Dance is to the Injun's Ghost Dance.

    The cities (civilization) are causing humans to evolve at a rapid pace, making them more domesticated, in the same way that the Siberian foxes were rapidly tamed. See wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox

    How? Cities...

    "... amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants ... people don't make cities liberal -- cities make people liberal."

    Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America
    The Atlantic, 2011
    theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/red-state-blue-city-how-the-urban-rural-divide-is-splitting-america/265686/
     
    Civilization (city-living) marches on. And you won't like it any more than the Injuns did.

    Hey ST Post,

    Excellent points! Which is why I shake my head when people in the West see throngs of liberal-minded marchers on the streets of downtown Tehran, but are surprised that the clerics are still in charge…downtown Tehran has about as much in common with Mashhad and Qom and the vast rural areas of Iran as San Francisco does with Oklahoma City and Waco.

    Everyone has their ‘fly-over’ regions; some are just larger than others.

    Peace.

    Read More
  73. Can you imagine a conservative paper–say, the Washington Times, The American Conservative, National Review–describing Michelle Obama as a whore?

    Not Michelle Obama, no. These American “conservatives” would never attack a leftist that way. But the “conservatives” at the Weekly Standard, National Review, The Washington Examiner etc have attacked Trump and his family in terms just as crude and vulgar as that. In NRO recently Trump’s sons were called “Uday and Qusay” – meaning Trump is Saddam and his sons enjoy torturing people to death. Stay classy, National Review!

    Read More
  74. @Montefrío
    "The “working classes” were not the only Trump voters."

    Indeed they were not! I'm a "Jivey League" grad from the days when the Ivy League was still providing serious education and I wasn't alone among old friends from the halls of ivy supporting Pres. Trump. Granted, he's not Pat Buchanan, but he'll do.

    For my money, the most important group of voters and supporters is to be found in the military, because if the antics of the disaffected worsen...

    Bingo!

    Military personnel overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

    Read More
  75. @Corvinus
    "Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead."

    So, who are the "good whites" and who are the "bad whites"? Clarity, please.

    "What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the “Arab Spring” in a different direction?"

    Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership. You assume that he or she is going to revert back to their tribal instincts. So, to answer your inquiry, nothing is going to happen that would jeopardize those two nations in this specific case. Perhaps you ought to take a break from your lawyer gig, it really is impacting your thought process.

    “Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership”

    Demographics will put a Muslim in leadership, nothing else.

    Read More
  76. The woman in the middle, emerging from her pink costume, could, along with her similarly dressed sisters, obviously be called ‘born again liberals’.

    Read More
  77. As long as Pres. Trump has the support of the military, as he should, because his government is the legally constituted government, there is little danger of civil war. Stalin once asked “How many divisions does the pope have?” Well, Pres. Trump has ten US Army divisions, not to mention the other branches of the service and other law enforcement groups also sworn to uphold the law. Kind of hard to imagine generalissimo Michael Moore and all the pussy-hat brigades combined pulling off a successful armed rebellion,no?

    Remember Eisenhower and Little Rock? Check out the Insurrection Act, 10 U.S. Code section 331. And as someone who lives in a country that has experienced martial law, it should be noted that the required repression always begins in urban areas.

    As for cities being synonymous with civilization, that may have been true up to medieval times, but no more. Oh yes, most of the military is made up of “flyover” folks, you know, the ones who produce what civilization relies upon. When it comes to civility, I’ll take Waco and Oklahoma City over San Francisco any day of the week.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steel T Post
    I do agree with you that I'd take a smaller town over a bigger city, and I have turned down a gig paying $100k+ a year near NYC back in the 1990's. After considering it, I told the fellow I'd rather pick up beer cans along road in the Midwest than move near the East Coast. But, as much as I like Midwest people who are just like me, I'll be the first to admit I live in a vast industrial-strength agricultural wasteland steadily sucked dry by cities.

    As definitions go, Civi (L.) = Citi (or City.) Civilization still means city living, accompanied by stripping and soil-mining resources from outlying areas. A better term is "agricultural civilization." Since the Middle Ages, civilization (city-living) hasn't disappeared, but rather intensified. Anthropologists still define civilization via V. Gordon Childe's criteria thusly:


    Primary Criteria
    1. Settlement of cities of 5,000 or more people.
    2. Full-time labor specialization.
    3. Concentration of surplus.
    4. Class structure.
    5. State-level political organization.

    Thesis #13: Civilization always pursues complexity.
    theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-godesky-thirty-theses
     

    To be sure, rural "fly-over" people are indeed an integral part of agricultural civilization; however, relatively speaking, they are not quite as intensively domesticated (tamed) as big city dwellers, which explains why civilization uses out-lying areas as a farm for less-domesticated cannon-fodder. Sort of like the British and French relied upon the tough, less-domesticated Injuns as hired guns. Whom the more-civilized expressed their gratitude by genocide, which is just what the relatively more-domesticated in the cities have in store for us. We're Injuns to the Hillary-voting "islands."

    Why? They fear any hint, even if ever so slight, of human wildness—freedom—being out of their control.

  78. Can you imagine any of Trump’s middle-American supporters accusing Obama of lusting for incest with his daughters?

    I know that’s meant as a rhetorical question, but I’ll just take it at face value and answer it. Can I imagine that?

    Uhh, yeah…. I can imagine it. No problem.

    Read More
  79. “The desire to shock of the eternally pubescent.”

    It used to be women told young girls to GROW UP.

    Now? Geez.

    Read More
  80. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Judd:

    “I’m not as nasty as using little girls like Pokemon before their bodies have even developed.”

    Does Judd even know that it is Liberal Globalists who own Disney and music industry that are using little girls as singing and bumping-and-grinding whores?

    She oughta get together with Miley Cyrus sometimes.

    She works in Hollywood. Hasn’t she noticed that…

    1. Hollywood is run by Democrats

    2. Children are used like commodities?

    Read More
  81. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    You know… next time there is a Pu**y March, I suggest some guy get himself in a Mega-Dong gear and join the march. And with a megaphone, the walking Dong should proposition the sea of vaginas to get it on.

    I wonder how the vagina crowd would react.

    Read More
  82. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    If, as the Globo-Progs insist, Islam is a wonderful religion and there is nothing wrong with Muslims, then I suggest we adopt and implement the Sharia way.

    I call for Intersectionality of Islam and feminism, or Sharia for feminists.

    I’m serious. I say we forbid them from dressing and acting like whores. I say we pressure them to act like traditional wives and mothers than wantonly indulgent whores like Lena Dunham.

    What would a Muslim society do with the likes of Lena Dunham and Miley Cyrus?
    Well, we should do THAT over here since the Muslim Way is so wonderful and all about peace, as the Globo-Progs always tell us.

    After all, the American Flag Hijab image says it. Islam is as American as Apple Pie. Just like Rocky Balboa.

    http://americannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Screen-Shot-2015-03-01-at-9.04.55-PM.png

    http://cdn.moviestillsdb.com/sm/27e041eb4c0b583ca4e71c7728b62ef7/rocky-iv.jpg

    So, it is about time we applied Sharia law to feminists and homos.

    Another good thing about Islam is banning pork products. This is good because pigs are such wonderful and intelligent animals. Granted, Muslims ban pork not out of love for pigs but due to stupid belief that pigs are filthy when, in fact, pigs are clean animals.

    I would call for a new kind of Islam where pigs and dogs are appreciated.

    Still, not eating pork will do a lot of good. No civilized person should condone the killing of a pig.

    Read More
  83. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2017/02/has-america-gone-insane.html

    Blogger asks ‘Has American gone insane?’

    Wrong question to ask. Sane and Insane, too binary.

    We are now living in the age of Trans-sanity.

    There are at least 50 mental states.

    Real, surreal, unreal, hyper-real, irreal, fanta-real, subreal, bi-real, queereal, etc.

    Read More
  84. @Montefrío
    As long as Pres. Trump has the support of the military, as he should, because his government is the legally constituted government, there is little danger of civil war. Stalin once asked “How many divisions does the pope have?” Well, Pres. Trump has ten US Army divisions, not to mention the other branches of the service and other law enforcement groups also sworn to uphold the law. Kind of hard to imagine generalissimo Michael Moore and all the pussy-hat brigades combined pulling off a successful armed rebellion,no?

    Remember Eisenhower and Little Rock? Check out the Insurrection Act, 10 U.S. Code section 331. And as someone who lives in a country that has experienced martial law, it should be noted that the required repression always begins in urban areas.

    As for cities being synonymous with civilization, that may have been true up to medieval times, but no more. Oh yes, most of the military is made up of "flyover" folks, you know, the ones who produce what civilization relies upon. When it comes to civility, I'll take Waco and Oklahoma City over San Francisco any day of the week.

    I do agree with you that I’d take a smaller town over a bigger city, and I have turned down a gig paying $100k+ a year near NYC back in the 1990′s. After considering it, I told the fellow I’d rather pick up beer cans along road in the Midwest than move near the East Coast. But, as much as I like Midwest people who are just like me, I’ll be the first to admit I live in a vast industrial-strength agricultural wasteland steadily sucked dry by cities.

    As definitions go, Civi (L.) = Citi (or City.) Civilization still means city living, accompanied by stripping and soil-mining resources from outlying areas. A better term is “agricultural civilization.” Since the Middle Ages, civilization (city-living) hasn’t disappeared, but rather intensified. Anthropologists still define civilization via V. Gordon Childe’s criteria thusly:

    Primary Criteria
    1. Settlement of cities of 5,000 or more people.
    2. Full-time labor specialization.
    3. Concentration of surplus.
    4. Class structure.
    5. State-level political organization.

    Thesis #13: Civilization always pursues complexity.
    theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-godesky-thirty-theses

    To be sure, rural “fly-over” people are indeed an integral part of agricultural civilization; however, relatively speaking, they are not quite as intensively domesticated (tamed) as big city dwellers, which explains why civilization uses out-lying areas as a farm for less-domesticated cannon-fodder. Sort of like the British and French relied upon the tough, less-domesticated Injuns as hired guns. Whom the more-civilized expressed their gratitude by genocide, which is just what the relatively more-domesticated in the cities have in store for us. We’re Injuns to the Hillary-voting “islands.”

    Why? They fear any hint, even if ever so slight, of human wildness—freedom—being out of their control.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Montefrío
    I'm a native NYer (Manhattan, the core of the Big Apple) who fondly remembers many wonderful things about the place, but it's no longer the place for me nor a place in which I'd wish to see my grandsons raised.

    What I meant was that by the Middle Ages, cities were no longer necessarily the most "civilized" (in the colloquial connotation) places to be found. I must also confess to holding very little brief for the pronouncements of social "scientists" including Mr. Childe.

    I suspect that the concept of what constitutes "civilization" these days is too often conflated with "sophistication" and "cosmopolitanism". If one is poor and unlettered, one is likely better off in a rural setting (and likely to be more civil as well) than in an urban setting. That said, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "domesticated/tamed". If by that you mean that rural people are less likely to fall in line with the latest societal fads promulgated by urban pseudo-sophisticates, we're in full agreement.
  85. Fred dislikes Trump because Trump doesn’t wax poetic on how wonderful Mexicans are. This irks Fred because his significant other is Mexican. That’s all there is to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steel T Post
    You are what you eat, venally speaking.

    To be clear, hunting female companionship and hunting meat shares the same Latin root venari—to hunt—from which we derive both venison and venereal.

    Venus, the goddess of love, fell for the handsome hunter Adonis. I wouldn't ding Fred too much; oxytocin—the love hormone that also increases the other appetite—is also the goddess whom you venerate.


    How the "Bonding Potion” Oxytocin May Cure Anorexia Nervosa
    psychologytoday.com/blog/the-truisms-wellness/201508/how-the-bonding-potion-oxytocin-may-cure-anorexia-nervosa
     
  86. How about this:

    The Great Reconfiguration=Native Born White Americans+Native Born White Canadians form new Nation….drive all Asians out…push back all the way to the East Coast+West Coast…

    Read More
  87. Women dressed up as walking vaginas.

    Sort of makes sense in our sicko age.

    It used to be… women were seen as precious porcelain or chinaware.
    They were not to be used for just any occasion by any person. They were to be saved for the right moments. The right man would come along, one who is worthy and decent. And the woman would belong to him like his precious and priceless chinaware or porcelain.

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0f/4e/58/0f4e58abf81ea9e7ea83079cf3c7a0a2.jpg

    Today, women are seen as toilets. Any bunch of men should release their fluids into them.

    Consider the Greatest Generation. There’s a good chance that the woman had her first sexual experience with the man she married, and they formed a deep bond. She was his, and he was hers. As such, she was his special porcelain. Look at women of that generation, and most were porcelain.

    Look at girls of the boomer generation, and they began to turn into toilet bowls. They didn’t care how many released their fluids into them.

    https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-broken-old-abandoned-dirty-toilet-bowl-109144589.jpg

    It is fitting that Lena Dumham the fat ugly whore of the Current Year often takes pics of herself on the toilet. Toilet Harlot. Porcine than Porcelain. She was the posterchild of Hillary’s campaign.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/01/article-2211243-152E8B73000005DC-605_634x444.jpg

    But things may get worse. Girls may go from toilet-hood to latrine-hood. Lay-trine.

    So, womenfolk went from being precious porcelain or chinaware to toilet bowls and latrines.

    Whoopie.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Stainless_steel_urinal.jpg

    Read More
  88. With the browning of America you get browning of US politics. The more of third-world imports are here, the more “third-world” the discourse is becoming.
    It’ll only get worse.

    Read More
  89. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Rather than promote assimilation to the American norm, or what was the American norm, the only hope to keep the country from devolving into warring tribes, they promote identity politics. They do not, for example, disavow the depredations of Black Lives Matter. Any behavior is acceptable, even admirable, if engaged in by their side.”

    But NORMATIVISM is evil, we’ve been told by PC. At elite colleges, a term like ‘heteronormative’ is toxic. We must accept the ‘new normal’, whatever that is in the Current Year.

    And how can there be meaningful assimilation when the white majority no longer has any rudder, tiller, compass, or rulebook? There is only ‘rules for radicals’ to subvert everything.
    Indeed, mass immigration craze makes no sense. We say all those people must come to be a part of this great nation called America, but so much of America has been reviled as ‘racist’ and blah blah.

    Even so, I sort of agree with Derbyshire that EU might be worse off. Mexicans may not be high-achievers, but at least they are civilized. I’d rather have parts of US be Mexicanized… or even Islamicized than Africanized.

    If Africans Africanized Africa, why wouldn’t they Africanize Europe?
    Africans Africanize because they are Africans.

    It’s like, since Europeans Europeanized Europe, they also Europeanized other parts of the world.

    Europeans Europeanize. Africans Africanize.

    If there is an deserted island and if Europeans were to go there, they would Europeanize it because they are European. The New World isn’t part of Europe, but Europeans who arrived there Europeanized much of it.

    If Africans were placed on the island, they would Africanize it. Haiti and Detroit are not part of Africa, but they’ve been Africanized(after having once been Europeanized) by African-Americans.

    There is Europe and Africa as geographical areas.
    But there is also Europeanization and Africanization as socio-economic-cultural processes.

    So, if all Africans were sent to Europe and if all Europeans were sent to Africa, Africans in Europe will go about Africanizing Europe while Europeans in Africa will go about Europeanizing it.
    Consider what Anglos and Dutch did with South Africa. They Europeanized it… but now that Africans took over, they are Africanizing it(just like Zimbabweans Africanized Zimbabwe after kicking out the whites).

    The dynamics between Europeanization and Africanization has been a major theme in US history.

    There was a time when Detroit was nearly all white. It had been Europeanized. But then, blacks took over and they Africanized it. And these processes are largely driven by genetics, especially since the 60s when blacks decided to stop emulating white standards and do their own ‘thang’.

    Can a people be ‘Africanized’ or ‘Europeanized’. Yes, whites can imitate blacks and become ‘Africanized’: uninhibited, loud, abrasive, aggressive, quarrelsome, and cantankerous like rappers. And blacks can imitate whites and become ‘Europeanized’, like Obama and others.
    When there are just few blacks among whites, they come under pressure to imitate Europeanization. But as black numbers swell, they feel more natural being ‘Africanic’ and begin to shift into Africanization mode and act more more disorderly than orderly, especially since they don’t fear the white man who is deemed weaker and slower.

    While it is true that dirt and climate affected genetics over 10,000s of years, the racial genetics in their current state remain constant across different landscapes. So, European genetics will make Europeans Europeanize even none-European places, and African genetics will make Africans Africanize even non-African areas.

    Upon contemplating the state of Africa and Africanized parts of the world, is it a good idea to open your world to Africanization? Having Africans in your nation isn’t just a case of Africans-in-your-nation. What you get is the process of Africanization of your nation.

    Look at St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Chicago. Compare the Europeanized areas and Africanized areas.

    Maybe blacks should be called Africanizers. All lifeforms are active and transformative. Their genes energize them to alter the environment in accordance to genetic tendencies.
    The kind of pressure depends on genes. Different genes apply pressure on their holders to act differently.

    Europeanization-genetics is constructive. Even when Europeans destroy things, they are getting rid of old thing to create new things(often of higher value). It is creative destruction.
    Africanization-genetics is destructive. When blacks destroy something, it is gone and nothing new or better replaces what had been. It is destructive destruction.

    So, blacks in America should be called Africanizers or Africanizing-Americans.

    Read More
  90. “Whether Trump proves to be the catastrophic buffoon he apparently aspires to be…”

    Spoken by a resenter, a true dilettante, and an absolute Fake White Man. Go Home Yanqui…to your squaw and peons and drug lords and totally corrupt mestizo and Spanish thug-grifters.
    you are a race traitor.
    Joe Webb

    Read More
  91. @mj
    Fred dislikes Trump because Trump doesn't wax poetic on how wonderful Mexicans are. This irks Fred because his significant other is Mexican. That's all there is to it.

    You are what you eat, venally speaking.

    To be clear, hunting female companionship and hunting meat shares the same Latin root venari—to hunt—from which we derive both venison and venereal.

    Venus, the goddess of love, fell for the handsome hunter Adonis. I wouldn’t ding Fred too much; oxytocin—the love hormone that also increases the other appetite—is also the goddess whom you venerate.

    How the “Bonding Potion” Oxytocin May Cure Anorexia Nervosa
    psychologytoday.com/blog/the-truisms-wellness/201508/how-the-bonding-potion-oxytocin-may-cure-anorexia-nervosa

    Read More
  92. @IA
    "Conservatives" are less inclined to be creative types than "liberals." In other words, they tend to be consumers rather than producers of culture. Does alienation in the Marxist sense encourage obsessive/compulsive persons to pursue cultural occupations?

    To expand on this, before the advent of the phonograph or radio most people who achieved a certain level of disposable income learned how to play an instrument. They wrote long letters. They entertained themselves by drawing pictures. Some found out they were good at this activity and maybe became professional musicians, artists or writers. But they weren't considered to be of a particular political type until beginning around the time of Mozart.

    According to Ezra Pound, culture is what's left over after you forgot what you tried to learn. This seems a reasonable definition to me. Therefore, culture is instinct. But educated instinct. While there is no such thing as bad primitive art, as we move up the civilizational ladder we are now at a place where bad art is produced in very large amounts indeed. It appears that the components are so complicated that only a particular type of person is willing and able to organize images, gestures and sounds in a certain way. And that person, or a high percentage anyway, is alienated from traditional forms of beauty.

    Very interesting comment.

    Henry Miller wrote a whole book about America, The Air-Conditioned Nightmare. He suffered greatly when he went to live in Big Sur.

    Practically every Hollywood grandee there is cannot stand the country in which they tragically must reside.

    It’s not so much that they’re alienated from traditional forms of beauty as that they’re alienated from the essential core of the country.

    The court jester serves a useful function if he hints at certain unhealthy or erroneous aspects of the king’s rule. A little scorn heaped on the poisonous anti-Russian hysteria would work wonders would work wonders in many a government and media office building.

    The current jester facsimiles turn their proper role upside down and search out material in the gutter or celebrate depravity and sedition. “Silence of the Lambs” and “Brokeback Mountain” an example of the former; any attack on “McCarthyism,” the latter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IA
    Thanks for your reply. I may have to read Collosus of Maroussi again.
  93. making menstrual jibes on the air at Megyn Kelly

    Who is she?

    Peace — Art

    (Sarcasm off.)

    Read More
  94. @TheJester
    The iSteve blog has already had a few passes on this.

    The line of the Sierra Nevada Mountains extended north are a close approximation for cutting off the Left Coast as its own country. Then, the Appalachian Mountains are a good starting point to carve out and discard the Yankee urban enclaves starting in Baltimore and moving north.

    This gets rid of the two coastal mega-cities that have been trying to use force to turn the rest of the country into a Marxist dystopia ruled by the globalist apparatchiks of the Fifth International.

    The South and the Great Flyover would be the third piece of the puzzle, although the status of a few of the liberal northern states would be up for grabs. Maybe they could join Canada. Their liberal politics map very well to that of Justin Trudeau.

    Those lines will be more likely to be established de facto around dense urban areas in the event of serious economic difficulties. A much larger percentage of the population lives in cities than was true in the Depression and they are dependent on our just-in-time supply system. And a full tank of gas gets you nowhere if the interstates are blocked.

    Blue state pathology will die on the vine before any line drawing needs to be done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester
    In bad times, there is a historical tendency for urban areas to attack rural areas and confiscate food supplies in the name of food security. This happened after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and again in the Soviet state when Stalin attacked the brutalized the kulaks in the Ukraine to steal food for the industrialized cities. This was what the Ukrainian Holomodor was all about.

    I expect the megacities on the east and left coast to attempt the same if there are major social disruptions associated with the globalist megacities being cut from the American body politic.
  95. @Talha

    We need global nuclear disarmament
     
    Amen to that! The sooner, the better!

    Peace.

    And repatriation of Muslims!

    Read More
  96. @Corvinus
    "Except half the whites hate the other half and wish they were dead."

    So, who are the "good whites" and who are the "bad whites"? Clarity, please.

    "What is going to happen when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of France or Great Britain and decides to take nation-building or the “Arab Spring” in a different direction?"

    Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership. You assume that he or she is going to revert back to their tribal instincts. So, to answer your inquiry, nothing is going to happen that would jeopardize those two nations in this specific case. Perhaps you ought to take a break from your lawyer gig, it really is impacting your thought process.

    So the Muslims Obama was loyal to this nation? Or is it normal for patriots to grovel before Saudi kinglets?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "So the Muslims Obama was loyal to this nation?"

    He was elected twice to the presidency.

    "Or is it normal for patriots to grovel before Saudi kinglets?"

    There was no "groveling", just showing respect in geopolitics, something clearly you do not comprehend.
    , @Bill Jones
    Bush the lesser certainly set the precedent.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-kissing-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-a-terrorist-act/5332856
  97. @Talha
    Hey TAG,

    Why are your creedal kin slaughtering Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East?
     
    They have been denounced as extremists by every Muslim scholar I have come across. I would think slaughtering of religious minorities is actually par for the course. It seems about as shocking as finding out prostitutes sell their bodies for money.

    Tell you what - why don't you tell me why they are slaughtering our scholars left, right and center:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7a_GNX_ZKE

    And why others of my creedal kin are on the front lines shooting at and getting shot by them.

    And why would Americans and Europeans want your dystopic and dysgenic social model in the West?
     
    Don't know, ask the ones that don't mind us being around. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but you don't need Muslims around to have a dystopic social model going - the Left is doing plenty well without our input. The Right can't seem to get its head on straight either...just saying.

    Now, down to brass tacks; yes, yes - we're all just inbred retards that hump monkeys and eat ear wax - and our numbers are gaining in the UK and France - so can we get rid of the nukes already? You really don't want them in our hands, do you?

    Peace.

    Hey, Talha, I see you’re fond of the “they’re killing our scholars” point. That Iraqi scholar His Eminence Al-Sayyid Ali Al-Husseini Al-Sistani thinks I’m najis, a filthy being on a par with dead bodies, dogs, excrement and blood. A sentiment mirrored in the Sunni love of the concept of dhimmitude.

    It’s such a blessing when any one Muslim comes to live among us kuffar. However, some of us doubt you all will make the political inroads you hope for. It really is madness to think we can live together.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Ace,

    And repatriation of Muslims!
     
    No problem, bro. When I get my official letter stating my citizenship/residency status has been revoked, I'll move out.

    Two things...
    1. Better figure out how to get this done sooner rather than later, because, well...
    http://www.latinpost.com/articles/105363/20151230/number-latinos-converting-islam-growing.htm
    2. Wait for the collective laughter from the rest of the world when you try to tout Western regard for civil rights and rule of law after having collectively exiled legal citizens that have never been convicted of a crime.

    I see you’re fond of the “they’re killing our scholars” point.
     
    No, I actually wish they would stop. But yes, there is a very valid point in bringing up the fact that these extremists are killing off the same people who have the most solid understanding of Islam and its principles.

    If a militant group claimed itself to be Catholic and followed that up with a widespread slaughter of Catholic priests, bishops and nuns - how serious would we take their claims at being 'true Catholics'?

    Your'e pretty fond of bringing up the Shiah ruling about non-Muslims being najis, which I've already told you is not the position of the Sunni Orthodox (and thus 85-90% of Muslims):
    http://www.unz.com/emargolis/donald-bulldoze-the-rotten-gop/?highlight=najis#comment-1363232

    Do you keep bringing this up to score points - heaven forbid.

    A sentiment mirrored in the Sunni love of the concept of dhimmitude.
     
    Do you think I actually take this criticism seriously from a person who has expressed this sentiment before in our exchanges:
    "Muslims need to abjure or go home."

    Dhimmis have had (and continue to have) legal restrictions in some of their activities in Muslim lands (they can't hold high office, can't blaspheme, etc.), but I've never come across one that entails them being kicked out for no reason other than who they are (of course, our extremists don't care about centuries of legal corpus). The Shariah is quite explicit about making and keeping Muslims legally as the alpha group (and Islam legally as the ethical and moral public framework) in Muslim lands. There is a profound wisdom in this; if you don't understand it, then read the above article again.

    I'm guessing there's a former alpha group that rues the day they forgot to incorporate certain legal restrictions for others into their framework.

    It really is madness to think we can live together.
     
    Possibly, but I seem to be doing just fine among my neighbors - we look out for each other and have had great interactions. Daesh also seems to think it impossible to have Christians live among them (disregarding ancient covenants that were established by the Companions [ra] themselves) - they have come up with a 'final solution'.

    Peace.
  98. @Macon Richardson
    Your last paragraph promised "one last thought". I failed to find it.

    By the way, in which pack of cretins did your family enter the United States? Or to be more eloquent in my choice of words, in which pack of losers did your family enter the United States?

    My pack of losers were Scots who entered after the battle of Culloden when there weren't any united states in North America.

    While runaway immigration is a dire problem for us now, I dare say that runaway immigration has been a problem for each and every established cohort in North America since 1492.

    "We're here! Now lock the door!"

    “We’re here! Now lock the door!”

    It’s not merely that we’re here. It’s that we built the place. But in any case, isn’t it good that we losers became winners and are standing our ground at last? The worm has to turn somewhere.

    Read More
  99. @Steel T Post
    I do agree with you that I'd take a smaller town over a bigger city, and I have turned down a gig paying $100k+ a year near NYC back in the 1990's. After considering it, I told the fellow I'd rather pick up beer cans along road in the Midwest than move near the East Coast. But, as much as I like Midwest people who are just like me, I'll be the first to admit I live in a vast industrial-strength agricultural wasteland steadily sucked dry by cities.

    As definitions go, Civi (L.) = Citi (or City.) Civilization still means city living, accompanied by stripping and soil-mining resources from outlying areas. A better term is "agricultural civilization." Since the Middle Ages, civilization (city-living) hasn't disappeared, but rather intensified. Anthropologists still define civilization via V. Gordon Childe's criteria thusly:


    Primary Criteria
    1. Settlement of cities of 5,000 or more people.
    2. Full-time labor specialization.
    3. Concentration of surplus.
    4. Class structure.
    5. State-level political organization.

    Thesis #13: Civilization always pursues complexity.
    theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-godesky-thirty-theses
     

    To be sure, rural "fly-over" people are indeed an integral part of agricultural civilization; however, relatively speaking, they are not quite as intensively domesticated (tamed) as big city dwellers, which explains why civilization uses out-lying areas as a farm for less-domesticated cannon-fodder. Sort of like the British and French relied upon the tough, less-domesticated Injuns as hired guns. Whom the more-civilized expressed their gratitude by genocide, which is just what the relatively more-domesticated in the cities have in store for us. We're Injuns to the Hillary-voting "islands."

    Why? They fear any hint, even if ever so slight, of human wildness—freedom—being out of their control.

    I’m a native NYer (Manhattan, the core of the Big Apple) who fondly remembers many wonderful things about the place, but it’s no longer the place for me nor a place in which I’d wish to see my grandsons raised.

    What I meant was that by the Middle Ages, cities were no longer necessarily the most “civilized” (in the colloquial connotation) places to be found. I must also confess to holding very little brief for the pronouncements of social “scientists” including Mr. Childe.

    I suspect that the concept of what constitutes “civilization” these days is too often conflated with “sophistication” and “cosmopolitanism”. If one is poor and unlettered, one is likely better off in a rural setting (and likely to be more civil as well) than in an urban setting. That said, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “domesticated/tamed”. If by that you mean that rural people are less likely to fall in line with the latest societal fads promulgated by urban pseudo-sophisticates, we’re in full agreement.

    Read More
  100. @Crawfurdmuir

    Yes, the working classes, the same group that had voted twice for Obama because he had championed their causes.
     
    The "working classes" were not the only Trump voters. There is a disproportionate emphasis on white, no-college-degree, working class voters as a Trump constituency. Indeed, such people may have provided the swing vote that carried states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for Trump, but Trump voters also included lots of historically Republican voters who were simply tired of "beautiful losers" like McCain or Romney.

    For example, Trump had significant support among evangelicals, a reliably Republican constituency, despite his being at best a lukewarm mainstream Protestant, and nobody's idea of a moral paragon. Neoconservative efforts to peel away his evangelical support by putting forward the candidacies first of David French and then of Evan McMullin failed abysmally. The neocons thought that evangelicals would "rather be right than be president" - but instead they decided they'd rather have an imperfect president that would side with them on most issues.

    “There is a disproportionate emphasis on white, no-college-degree, working class voters as a Trump constituency.”

    Probably because Trump himself championed this group as being THE factor as to why he won the election.

    “Indeed, such people may have provided the swing vote that carried states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for Trump…”

    Not “may have”, but “decidedly”.

    “but Trump voters also included lots of historically Republican voters who were simply tired of “beautiful losers” like McCain or Romney.”

    They put their fingers on their nose and pulled the lever for Trump. They were not about to allow a historically weak Democrat win.

    “For example, Trump had significant support among evangelicals, a reliably Republican constituency, despite his being at best a lukewarm mainstream Protestant, and nobody’s idea of a moral paragon.”

    They also put their fingers on their nose and pulled the lever for Trump, bastardizing their religious values along the way. So much for principles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    "They also put their fingers on their nose and pulled the lever fore Trump, bastardizing their religious values along the way. So much for principles."

    And would the evangelicals have supported "religious values and principles" by voting for Hillary Clinton?
  101. @The Anti-Gnostic

    So, who are the “good whites” and who are the “bad whites”? Clarity, please.
     
    Irrelevant to the point at hand. Both sides think they are on the side of the good and the other is irredeemably evil. Not a good dynamic with nukes involved.

    Well, that Muslim would have proven their loyalty to that nation by being put in that position of leadership. You assume that he or she is going to revert back to their tribal instincts.
     
    You assume that they are coming here for Here. They are not; they are coming for a better There.

    A Muslim British or French Prime Minister would hold the loyalties of his constituents. Muslims hold very different positions from the current governing majorities on things like Palestine and the Israeli State.

    “Irrelevant to the point at hand. Both sides think they are on the side of the good and the other is irredeemably evil. Not a good dynamic with nukes involved.”

    It is most relevant, considering white nationalists such as yourself preach and screech this meme.

    “You assume that they are coming here for Here. They are not; they are coming for a better There.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Immigrants who come to America come here for opportunities that they lacked over there, and will better themselves and their nation.

    “A Muslim British or French Prime Minister would hold the loyalties of his constituents.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> A Muslim prime minister in those two nations will hold the loyalties for the citizens who put them in charge of that nation.

    Read More
  102. @Ace
    So the Muslims Obama was loyal to this nation? Or is it normal for patriots to grovel before Saudi kinglets?

    “So the Muslims Obama was loyal to this nation?”

    He was elected twice to the presidency.

    “Or is it normal for patriots to grovel before Saudi kinglets?”

    There was no “groveling”, just showing respect in geopolitics, something clearly you do not comprehend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " There was no groveling, just showing respect in geopolitics, something you clearly do not comprehend"

    Something you clearly do not comprehend : Bowing down to any foreign leader ( in fact despot ) is in fact " groveling", and has absolutely nothing to do with " showing respect".

    Nobody, not one individual on this planet should be obliged to " bow " down to any anyone else, and if a leader of one nation " bows " to the leader of another he is doing nothing less than subjugating himself, period.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
  103. @Ace
    Hey, Talha, I see you're fond of the "they're killing our scholars" point. That Iraqi scholar His Eminence Al-Sayyid Ali Al-Husseini Al-Sistani thinks I'm najis, a filthy being on a par with dead bodies, dogs, excrement and blood. A sentiment mirrored in the Sunni love of the concept of dhimmitude.

    It's such a blessing when any one Muslim comes to live among us kuffar. However, some of us doubt you all will make the political inroads you hope for. It really is madness to think we can live together.

    Hey Ace,

    And repatriation of Muslims!

    No problem, bro. When I get my official letter stating my citizenship/residency status has been revoked, I’ll move out.

    Two things…
    1. Better figure out how to get this done sooner rather than later, because, well…

    http://www.latinpost.com/articles/105363/20151230/number-latinos-converting-islam-growing.htm

    2. Wait for the collective laughter from the rest of the world when you try to tout Western regard for civil rights and rule of law after having collectively exiled legal citizens that have never been convicted of a crime.

    I see you’re fond of the “they’re killing our scholars” point.

    No, I actually wish they would stop. But yes, there is a very valid point in bringing up the fact that these extremists are killing off the same people who have the most solid understanding of Islam and its principles.

    If a militant group claimed itself to be Catholic and followed that up with a widespread slaughter of Catholic priests, bishops and nuns – how serious would we take their claims at being ‘true Catholics’?

    Your’e pretty fond of bringing up the Shiah ruling about non-Muslims being najis, which I’ve already told you is not the position of the Sunni Orthodox (and thus 85-90% of Muslims):

    http://www.unz.com/emargolis/donald-bulldoze-the-rotten-gop/?highlight=najis#comment-1363232

    Do you keep bringing this up to score points – heaven forbid.

    A sentiment mirrored in the Sunni love of the concept of dhimmitude.

    Do you think I actually take this criticism seriously from a person who has expressed this sentiment before in our exchanges:
    “Muslims need to abjure or go home.”

    Dhimmis have had (and continue to have) legal restrictions in some of their activities in Muslim lands (they can’t hold high office, can’t blaspheme, etc.), but I’ve never come across one that entails them being kicked out for no reason other than who they are (of course, our extremists don’t care about centuries of legal corpus). The Shariah is quite explicit about making and keeping Muslims legally as the alpha group (and Islam legally as the ethical and moral public framework) in Muslim lands. There is a profound wisdom in this; if you don’t understand it, then read the above article again.

    I’m guessing there’s a former alpha group that rues the day they forgot to incorporate certain legal restrictions for others into their framework.

    It really is madness to think we can live together.

    Possibly, but I seem to be doing just fine among my neighbors – we look out for each other and have had great interactions. Daesh also seems to think it impossible to have Christians live among them (disregarding ancient covenants that were established by the Companions [ra] themselves) – they have come up with a ‘final solution’.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Native Born White Americans are being voted into White racial minority by nonwhite legal immigrants and their children. America as a legal proposition is propaganda that nonwhites don't believe in. Native Born White American and should act upon their legitimate racial interests...mass expulsion is justified to repell an invasion and colonization of Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space. Permission isn't required to do this in a collapsed US Society.
  104. @Ace
    Those lines will be more likely to be established de facto around dense urban areas in the event of serious economic difficulties. A much larger percentage of the population lives in cities than was true in the Depression and they are dependent on our just-in-time supply system. And a full tank of gas gets you nowhere if the interstates are blocked.

    Blue state pathology will die on the vine before any line drawing needs to be done.

    In bad times, there is a historical tendency for urban areas to attack rural areas and confiscate food supplies in the name of food security. This happened after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and again in the Soviet state when Stalin attacked the brutalized the kulaks in the Ukraine to steal food for the industrialized cities. This was what the Ukrainian Holomodor was all about.

    I expect the megacities on the east and left coast to attempt the same if there are major social disruptions associated with the globalist megacities being cut from the American body politic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Believe it or not, a movie about the Ukranian Holomodor will open on Friday, February 24 titled "Bitter Harvest."

    The money for financing the film was put up by a wealthy Ukranian Canadian. It was filmed three years ago and they couldn't get it distributed until now.

    The early reviews are negative. They admit the subject has been "neglected," but it needs a "better director and script."

    Well, why hasn't a big-name director and studio took on the story?
  105. “Demonstrations are both legal and constitutionally protected if well behaved, and the women in Washington were”.

    Hmm… I thought you just spent several sentences showing that they weren’t well behaved?

    As an afterthought I like to ask if any of the Clintonista/Gay Mulatto zealots moved to Canada after the Patriots won the Superbowl. I know that none of the celebrities that promised to emigrate to Canada if Trump won actually did.

    Read More
  106. @Talha
    Hey Ace,

    And repatriation of Muslims!
     
    No problem, bro. When I get my official letter stating my citizenship/residency status has been revoked, I'll move out.

    Two things...
    1. Better figure out how to get this done sooner rather than later, because, well...
    http://www.latinpost.com/articles/105363/20151230/number-latinos-converting-islam-growing.htm
    2. Wait for the collective laughter from the rest of the world when you try to tout Western regard for civil rights and rule of law after having collectively exiled legal citizens that have never been convicted of a crime.

    I see you’re fond of the “they’re killing our scholars” point.
     
    No, I actually wish they would stop. But yes, there is a very valid point in bringing up the fact that these extremists are killing off the same people who have the most solid understanding of Islam and its principles.

    If a militant group claimed itself to be Catholic and followed that up with a widespread slaughter of Catholic priests, bishops and nuns - how serious would we take their claims at being 'true Catholics'?

    Your'e pretty fond of bringing up the Shiah ruling about non-Muslims being najis, which I've already told you is not the position of the Sunni Orthodox (and thus 85-90% of Muslims):
    http://www.unz.com/emargolis/donald-bulldoze-the-rotten-gop/?highlight=najis#comment-1363232

    Do you keep bringing this up to score points - heaven forbid.

    A sentiment mirrored in the Sunni love of the concept of dhimmitude.
     
    Do you think I actually take this criticism seriously from a person who has expressed this sentiment before in our exchanges:
    "Muslims need to abjure or go home."

    Dhimmis have had (and continue to have) legal restrictions in some of their activities in Muslim lands (they can't hold high office, can't blaspheme, etc.), but I've never come across one that entails them being kicked out for no reason other than who they are (of course, our extremists don't care about centuries of legal corpus). The Shariah is quite explicit about making and keeping Muslims legally as the alpha group (and Islam legally as the ethical and moral public framework) in Muslim lands. There is a profound wisdom in this; if you don't understand it, then read the above article again.

    I'm guessing there's a former alpha group that rues the day they forgot to incorporate certain legal restrictions for others into their framework.

    It really is madness to think we can live together.
     
    Possibly, but I seem to be doing just fine among my neighbors - we look out for each other and have had great interactions. Daesh also seems to think it impossible to have Christians live among them (disregarding ancient covenants that were established by the Companions [ra] themselves) - they have come up with a 'final solution'.

    Peace.

    Native Born White Americans are being voted into White racial minority by nonwhite legal immigrants and their children. America as a legal proposition is propaganda that nonwhites don’t believe in. Native Born White American and should act upon their legitimate racial interests…mass expulsion is justified to repell an invasion and colonization of Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space. Permission isn’t required to do this in a collapsed US Society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    That process did NOT begin with non-whites. It began with the Yankee WASP Elites of the northeast and upper midwest allying with the new German (mostly irreligious but also Liberal Protestants) immigrants and their children to embrace hot culture war against the white South and Irish Catholics.

    Even sensitive and caring Yankee WASP Liberals like Ralph Walso Emerson exulted in all the dead white Southerners, as well as hated the Irish as inferior people to the blacks, which he,. like his class, pitied and romanticized.

    Blacks are not the source of the problem. They merely are the pawns and tools of the originators. Jews did not start this horror; Jews simply became the Yankee WASP Elites smartest and most effective ally most other white Gentile groups.

    If you mis-identify the source, your cures will always fail.
    , @Talha
    Hey WBM,

    Native Born White Americans are being voted into White racial minority by nonwhite legal immigrants and their children.
     
    They could stop this tomorrow by fixing their marriages and having children again and cutting down the bloated welfare state - there is still time to turn this ship around. Now if there just is no way to fix this, then the foundations upon which this enterprise was built were - ahem - lacking in foresight.

    America as a legal proposition is propaganda that nonwhites don’t believe in.
     
    It's tough to believe in a legal proposition that is constantly morphing from one thing to another; women can't vote - then they can, no federal income tax - then there is, no social security - then there is, no non-European immigrants (except in slave galleys) - then there are...what exactly are people supposed to believe (have faith - this is a religious parameter) in?

    Native Born White American and should act upon their legitimate racial interests
     
    Look bro - if you think expelling non-Whites is going to fix White marriages, have them reproducing again, etc. that's all fine with me - I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

    I'm all for white people getting their act together and fixing things - I simply think you are looking at symptoms and not the core disease. My wife is a white convert (part of the immigration from Sweden), my kids all look white - I have zero problems telling them to be proud of their Muslim heritage and their Swedish heritage. I have skin in the game.


    Permission isn’t required to do this in a collapsed US Society.
     
    Nor expected from a secular utilitarian framework that isn't based on transcendent principles (or can toss them to the side when inconvenient..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights...when all is running smoothly.").

    Peace.

  107. @TheJester
    In bad times, there is a historical tendency for urban areas to attack rural areas and confiscate food supplies in the name of food security. This happened after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and again in the Soviet state when Stalin attacked the brutalized the kulaks in the Ukraine to steal food for the industrialized cities. This was what the Ukrainian Holomodor was all about.

    I expect the megacities on the east and left coast to attempt the same if there are major social disruptions associated with the globalist megacities being cut from the American body politic.

    Believe it or not, a movie about the Ukranian Holomodor will open on Friday, February 24 titled “Bitter Harvest.”

    The money for financing the film was put up by a wealthy Ukranian Canadian. It was filmed three years ago and they couldn’t get it distributed until now.

    The early reviews are negative. They admit the subject has been “neglected,” but it needs a “better director and script.”

    Well, why hasn’t a big-name director and studio took on the story?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    That's a real conundrum.

    Seriously, the answer is more complicated that the fact that Jews don't want the story told. All the Western democracies had a hand in the guilt of what happened in Russia. Just as all the Western Elites today hate Russia and want it to be the sacrificial victim to their greed, which should take the eyes and ears of their restless subjects away from seeing them for the culturally suicidal monsters they are.

    The huge problem with most of those today who talk up what happened specifically in the Ukraine is that they tend to be easily used by anti-Russian forces in the West. My guess is that if this film is getting any release, then somewhere there is Soros money hoping the film can be used to trash the Russia of today.
  108. If there is not peaceful separation, then the next time the Democrats control the White House, the kulturkampf against white Christian Middle America will turn red hot, and blood will flow. The Left is already as self-righteously crazed as the mobs that brought off the French Revolution.

    Every conservative with a brain and morals – and that means no NeoCons make the cut – should be talking up peaceful separation now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Like you, I wish that somehow a different arrangement for the United States could be rationally discussed. It might not have to be complete separation, but perhaps highly autonomous regions. But the Overton Window just hasn't opened that wide; suggest it and you're treated like a believer in UFOs. A violent break up, which in my opinion is inevitable without some resolution now of the differences within the U.S. may resemble India and Pakistan in 1947.
  109. @War for Blair Mountain
    Native Born White Americans are being voted into White racial minority by nonwhite legal immigrants and their children. America as a legal proposition is propaganda that nonwhites don't believe in. Native Born White American and should act upon their legitimate racial interests...mass expulsion is justified to repell an invasion and colonization of Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space. Permission isn't required to do this in a collapsed US Society.

    That process did NOT begin with non-whites. It began with the Yankee WASP Elites of the northeast and upper midwest allying with the new German (mostly irreligious but also Liberal Protestants) immigrants and their children to embrace hot culture war against the white South and Irish Catholics.

    Even sensitive and caring Yankee WASP Liberals like Ralph Walso Emerson exulted in all the dead white Southerners, as well as hated the Irish as inferior people to the blacks, which he,. like his class, pitied and romanticized.

    Blacks are not the source of the problem. They merely are the pawns and tools of the originators. Jews did not start this horror; Jews simply became the Yankee WASP Elites smartest and most effective ally most other white Gentile groups.

    If you mis-identify the source, your cures will always fail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    In the meantime, Blacks are hostile anti-white Democratic Party Voting Bloc whose numbers exponentially swell with African-Carribean Legal Immigrants and their US born geneline...and White CUCKS such as you are enthusiasts for importing them.
  110. @Corvinus
    "There is a disproportionate emphasis on white, no-college-degree, working class voters as a Trump constituency."

    Probably because Trump himself championed this group as being THE factor as to why he won the election.

    "Indeed, such people may have provided the swing vote that carried states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for Trump..."

    Not "may have", but "decidedly".

    "but Trump voters also included lots of historically Republican voters who were simply tired of “beautiful losers” like McCain or Romney."

    They put their fingers on their nose and pulled the lever for Trump. They were not about to allow a historically weak Democrat win.

    "For example, Trump had significant support among evangelicals, a reliably Republican constituency, despite his being at best a lukewarm mainstream Protestant, and nobody’s idea of a moral paragon."

    They also put their fingers on their nose and pulled the lever for Trump, bastardizing their religious values along the way. So much for principles.

    “They also put their fingers on their nose and pulled the lever fore Trump, bastardizing their religious values along the way. So much for principles.”

    And would the evangelicals have supported “religious values and principles” by voting for Hillary Clinton?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "And would the evangelicals have supported “religious values and principles” by voting for Hillary Clinton?"

    Absolutely not. Both candidates were equally deplorable.
    , @Jake
    That's an interesting question. Hillary and virtually all Protestant denominations would answer in the negative, their leaders often going so far as to assert that they know the Gospel is progressive, ever progressing to new and improved truths - like gay marriage.

    I think the history of Protestantism clearly says that sola fide tends to lead directly to antinomiansim, which all but guarantees wild-eyed liberalism in politics and culture.
  111. @David In TN
    Believe it or not, a movie about the Ukranian Holomodor will open on Friday, February 24 titled "Bitter Harvest."

    The money for financing the film was put up by a wealthy Ukranian Canadian. It was filmed three years ago and they couldn't get it distributed until now.

    The early reviews are negative. They admit the subject has been "neglected," but it needs a "better director and script."

    Well, why hasn't a big-name director and studio took on the story?

    That’s a real conundrum.

    Seriously, the answer is more complicated that the fact that Jews don’t want the story told. All the Western democracies had a hand in the guilt of what happened in Russia. Just as all the Western Elites today hate Russia and want it to be the sacrificial victim to their greed, which should take the eyes and ears of their restless subjects away from seeing them for the culturally suicidal monsters they are.

    The huge problem with most of those today who talk up what happened specifically in the Ukraine is that they tend to be easily used by anti-Russian forces in the West. My guess is that if this film is getting any release, then somewhere there is Soros money hoping the film can be used to trash the Russia of today.

    Read More
  112. @David In TN
    "They also put their fingers on their nose and pulled the lever fore Trump, bastardizing their religious values along the way. So much for principles."

    And would the evangelicals have supported "religious values and principles" by voting for Hillary Clinton?

    “And would the evangelicals have supported “religious values and principles” by voting for Hillary Clinton?”

    Absolutely not. Both candidates were equally deplorable.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Corvinus,

    Now - I do have to admit, the Trumpster did have the one major advantage of not being a loose canon with regards to belligerence against Russia. The lack of a nuclear exchange destroying 2/3 of humanity gets top billing from me. I cannot believe potential candidates were on the podium talking about shooting down Russian planes over Syria - mad men!!!

    Otherwise, good points - I was also a bit surprised at the Evangelical vote - I thought they would sit it out. Hell, I was hoping everyone would sit it out as a vote of no confidence; 300 million people in the country and the elites could only prop up these two as choices??!! The utter contempt the elite have for the common people is something to behold.

    Peace.

    , @David In TN
    Well, we sort of agree. I've voted the lesser evil in presidential elections for decades. In 1992, I voted for Bill Clinton. I would bet he (and Hillary) hold the record for nose-holding votes.

    BTW, in my part of the country, Donald Trump averaged 75 % of the vote. The evangelical types I know voted for him without hesitation for his policy positions.

  113. @David In TN
    "They also put their fingers on their nose and pulled the lever fore Trump, bastardizing their religious values along the way. So much for principles."

    And would the evangelicals have supported "religious values and principles" by voting for Hillary Clinton?

    That’s an interesting question. Hillary and virtually all Protestant denominations would answer in the negative, their leaders often going so far as to assert that they know the Gospel is progressive, ever progressing to new and improved truths – like gay marriage.

    I think the history of Protestantism clearly says that sola fide tends to lead directly to antinomiansim, which all but guarantees wild-eyed liberalism in politics and culture.

    Read More
  114. @Jake
    If there is not peaceful separation, then the next time the Democrats control the White House, the kulturkampf against white Christian Middle America will turn red hot, and blood will flow. The Left is already as self-righteously crazed as the mobs that brought off the French Revolution.

    Every conservative with a brain and morals - and that means no NeoCons make the cut - should be talking up peaceful separation now.

    Like you, I wish that somehow a different arrangement for the United States could be rationally discussed. It might not have to be complete separation, but perhaps highly autonomous regions. But the Overton Window just hasn’t opened that wide; suggest it and you’re treated like a believer in UFOs. A violent break up, which in my opinion is inevitable without some resolution now of the differences within the U.S. may resemble India and Pakistan in 1947.

    Read More
  115. @War for Blair Mountain
    Native Born White Americans are being voted into White racial minority by nonwhite legal immigrants and their children. America as a legal proposition is propaganda that nonwhites don't believe in. Native Born White American and should act upon their legitimate racial interests...mass expulsion is justified to repell an invasion and colonization of Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space. Permission isn't required to do this in a collapsed US Society.

    Hey WBM,

    Native Born White Americans are being voted into White racial minority by nonwhite legal immigrants and their children.

    They could stop this tomorrow by fixing their marriages and having children again and cutting down the bloated welfare state – there is still time to turn this ship around. Now if there just is no way to fix this, then the foundations upon which this enterprise was built were – ahem – lacking in foresight.

    America as a legal proposition is propaganda that nonwhites don’t believe in.

    It’s tough to believe in a legal proposition that is constantly morphing from one thing to another; women can’t vote – then they can, no federal income tax – then there is, no social security – then there is, no non-European immigrants (except in slave galleys) – then there are…what exactly are people supposed to believe (have faith – this is a religious parameter) in?

    Native Born White American and should act upon their legitimate racial interests

    Look bro – if you think expelling non-Whites is going to fix White marriages, have them reproducing again, etc. that’s all fine with me – I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

    I’m all for white people getting their act together and fixing things – I simply think you are looking at symptoms and not the core disease. My wife is a white convert (part of the immigration from Sweden), my kids all look white – I have zero problems telling them to be proud of their Muslim heritage and their Swedish heritage. I have skin in the game.

    Permission isn’t required to do this in a collapsed US Society.

    Nor expected from a secular utilitarian framework that isn’t based on transcendent principles (or can toss them to the side when inconvenient…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights…when all is running smoothly.”).

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    First, with respect to America as a legal proposition, stuff about female voters, income-tax, etc. is pretty much beside the point; the notion is as silly as you paint it (though you later seem to agree with it), but not for those reasons. Interestingly, NJ actually originally allowed women to vote, revoking this permission in 1807. Female suffrage is a strange topic- did you know the most vocal advocate against female suffrage in Republican Spain was the socialist Margarita Nelken? Apparently she was afraid (correctly) that women would vote for more conservative candidates; which goes to demonstrate something I've always held, that practically nobody really cares about democracy for its own sake- which also explains the bizarre international attitudes of the U.S., where "pro-democracy" is the slogan used to dethrone rulers we don't like, who will be called "undemocratic" no matter how their political system works. And vice-versa, of course. Some Unz writers have described this as well.

    The vast majority of my interactions with Muslims have been positive; I knew some Gulenists (at least, I conjecture now they must have been; I hadn't heard of the term then) who were tenants of some family members; nice people, hardly ever complained. I even briefly took Arabic lessons from one of them; I still have a few Gulen books they gave me. I've known various other Muslims through the years, mostly through Ceylonese relatives, mostly good companions (also mostly non- or badly-practicing; you should hear about the subterfuges people use to get drink on a poya day, when the government of Ceylon forbids establishments to serve liquor).

    Nevertheless through various interactions, and especially through my interactions with you, among others, I don't think any Muslim presence beyond a small minority in size is desirable here or in any Christian country, and that such a country would be both prudent and well within its rights in attempting to limit Muslim influence, through immigration controls (or financial controls, when foreign capital is an issue) or other moral and reasonable means. Muslims think about the world in a different way than we do; the approach to morality, to civil society and governance, etc. is foreign to our way of life and thought and a deadly threat to it. I'm greatly indebted to you as an example of the way a good Muslim, and probably a most excellent person, approaches these questions: it is always in a way different and fundamentally opposed to a Western approach, even when the same conclusions are reached.

    I put the paragraph before the previous in as an indication that I have nothing in the least against Muslims. In fact, there are many causes Muslims and Christians share, and can jointly advance; as an instance of collaboration there is the Spanish Civil War, where Moors and Spaniards fought jointly against an enemy of both. Somewhere (I think in Lunn's Spanish Rehearsal, though I can't find the reference) a Moor states to the author something like: "Any man who would burn a house of God must be His enemy", in reference to the church-burnings under the Republic*, and the Caid's address to the Beni Urriaguel, briefly given in Gironella's Los Cipreses creen en Dios (which, unfortunately, being a novel, gives no references) is sublime. However, this doesn't mean that a significant Muslim presence in Christian lands is desirable, any more than a significant Communist presence is desirable (and the U.S. in the past took various steps to reduce Communist influence, some perhaps excessive but generally well-advised), even though Communists too can be excellent people; one of my parents was briefly one.

    For the record, I feel the same way about Mormons, who resemble Muslims in many ways, but they're already here and probably more American than me, so no action is recommended. I'll put the general case to you this way: how would you feel about, say, a massive migration of Nigerian Catholics, or a massive return of the pieds-noirs, to Tunisia (enough to form a significant voting bloc)? Or the admittedly unlikely case of a massive Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist emigration to Pakistan?

    *I wish he would share this insight with those of his co-religionists who have burned Coptic churches in Egypt and elsewhere.
    , @War for Blair Mountain
    You want to keep flooding Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space with Muslims....An open and deliberate policy of creating a massive Muslim "American" voting bloc that enthusiastically votes whitey into a racial minority within the borders of America. This is the main overriding obvious cause of the racial transformation of the US. This makes your Muslim kind a very hostile presence within the borders of America.

    Among other things, it is brutal competition for the scarce resources within the borders of the US. And this had very great consequences for affordable Native Born White American Family Formation.

    Your wife is a race traitor...and should have been expelled to your Muslim homeland.
  116. @Corvinus
    "And would the evangelicals have supported “religious values and principles” by voting for Hillary Clinton?"

    Absolutely not. Both candidates were equally deplorable.

    Hey Corvinus,

    Now – I do have to admit, the Trumpster did have the one major advantage of not being a loose canon with regards to belligerence against Russia. The lack of a nuclear exchange destroying 2/3 of humanity gets top billing from me. I cannot believe potential candidates were on the podium talking about shooting down Russian planes over Syria – mad men!!!

    Otherwise, good points – I was also a bit surprised at the Evangelical vote – I thought they would sit it out. Hell, I was hoping everyone would sit it out as a vote of no confidence; 300 million people in the country and the elites could only prop up these two as choices??!! The utter contempt the elite have for the common people is something to behold.

    Peace.

    Read More
  117. @Corvinus
    "So the Muslims Obama was loyal to this nation?"

    He was elected twice to the presidency.

    "Or is it normal for patriots to grovel before Saudi kinglets?"

    There was no "groveling", just showing respect in geopolitics, something clearly you do not comprehend.

    ” There was no groveling, just showing respect in geopolitics, something you clearly do not comprehend”

    Something you clearly do not comprehend : Bowing down to any foreign leader ( in fact despot ) is in fact ” groveling”, and has absolutely nothing to do with ” showing respect”.

    Nobody, not one individual on this planet should be obliged to ” bow ” down to any anyone else, and if a leader of one nation ” bows ” to the leader of another he is doing nothing less than subjugating himself, period.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    If you are the genuine subject of a monarch (Obama isn't) it is a mark of respect to bow (or curtsy) to that monarch. It's not degrading at all. And a monarch kneels before a priest as God's representative. Context matters.
  118. @Authenticjazzman
    " There was no groveling, just showing respect in geopolitics, something you clearly do not comprehend"

    Something you clearly do not comprehend : Bowing down to any foreign leader ( in fact despot ) is in fact " groveling", and has absolutely nothing to do with " showing respect".

    Nobody, not one individual on this planet should be obliged to " bow " down to any anyone else, and if a leader of one nation " bows " to the leader of another he is doing nothing less than subjugating himself, period.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    If you are the genuine subject of a monarch (Obama isn’t) it is a mark of respect to bow (or curtsy) to that monarch. It’s not degrading at all. And a monarch kneels before a priest as God’s representative. Context matters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    You really are full of it, aren't you?

    Does Liz II kneel before priests?

    Barry the Kenyan should have curtseyed to her.
    , @Ace
    In Japan, only people of low rank bow deeply to another. Even though he's not Japanese Obama bowed to the Japanese fellow, I forget who, like a gardener bows to his employer. Among equals the bow is much more restrained. Obama wanted to abase himself and heap shame on his own country by acting like a servant.
  119. @Corvinus
    "And would the evangelicals have supported “religious values and principles” by voting for Hillary Clinton?"

    Absolutely not. Both candidates were equally deplorable.

    Well, we sort of agree. I’ve voted the lesser evil in presidential elections for decades. In 1992, I voted for Bill Clinton. I would bet he (and Hillary) hold the record for nose-holding votes.

    BTW, in my part of the country, Donald Trump averaged 75 % of the vote. The evangelical types I know voted for him without hesitation for his policy positions.

    Read More
  120. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Hey WBM,

    Native Born White Americans are being voted into White racial minority by nonwhite legal immigrants and their children.
     
    They could stop this tomorrow by fixing their marriages and having children again and cutting down the bloated welfare state - there is still time to turn this ship around. Now if there just is no way to fix this, then the foundations upon which this enterprise was built were - ahem - lacking in foresight.

    America as a legal proposition is propaganda that nonwhites don’t believe in.
     
    It's tough to believe in a legal proposition that is constantly morphing from one thing to another; women can't vote - then they can, no federal income tax - then there is, no social security - then there is, no non-European immigrants (except in slave galleys) - then there are...what exactly are people supposed to believe (have faith - this is a religious parameter) in?

    Native Born White American and should act upon their legitimate racial interests
     
    Look bro - if you think expelling non-Whites is going to fix White marriages, have them reproducing again, etc. that's all fine with me - I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

    I'm all for white people getting their act together and fixing things - I simply think you are looking at symptoms and not the core disease. My wife is a white convert (part of the immigration from Sweden), my kids all look white - I have zero problems telling them to be proud of their Muslim heritage and their Swedish heritage. I have skin in the game.


    Permission isn’t required to do this in a collapsed US Society.
     
    Nor expected from a secular utilitarian framework that isn't based on transcendent principles (or can toss them to the side when inconvenient..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights...when all is running smoothly.").

    Peace.

    First, with respect to America as a legal proposition, stuff about female voters, income-tax, etc. is pretty much beside the point; the notion is as silly as you paint it (though you later seem to agree with it), but not for those reasons. Interestingly, NJ actually originally allowed women to vote, revoking this permission in 1807. Female suffrage is a strange topic- did you know the most vocal advocate against female suffrage in Republican Spain was the socialist Margarita Nelken? Apparently she was afraid (correctly) that women would vote for more conservative candidates; which goes to demonstrate something I’ve always held, that practically nobody really cares about democracy for its own sake- which also explains the bizarre international attitudes of the U.S., where “pro-democracy” is the slogan used to dethrone rulers we don’t like, who will be called “undemocratic” no matter how their political system works. And vice-versa, of course. Some Unz writers have described this as well.

    The vast majority of my interactions with Muslims have been positive; I knew some Gulenists (at least, I conjecture now they must have been; I hadn’t heard of the term then) who were tenants of some family members; nice people, hardly ever complained. I even briefly took Arabic lessons from one of them; I still have a few Gulen books they gave me. I’ve known various other Muslims through the years, mostly through Ceylonese relatives, mostly good companions (also mostly non- or badly-practicing; you should hear about the subterfuges people use to get drink on a poya day, when the government of Ceylon forbids establishments to serve liquor).

    Nevertheless through various interactions, and especially through my interactions with you, among others, I don’t think any Muslim presence beyond a small minority in size is desirable here or in any Christian country, and that such a country would be both prudent and well within its rights in attempting to limit Muslim influence, through immigration controls (or financial controls, when foreign capital is an issue) or other moral and reasonable means. Muslims think about the world in a different way than we do; the approach to morality, to civil society and governance, etc. is foreign to our way of life and thought and a deadly threat to it. I’m greatly indebted to you as an example of the way a good Muslim, and probably a most excellent person, approaches these questions: it is always in a way different and fundamentally opposed to a Western approach, even when the same conclusions are reached.

    I put the paragraph before the previous in as an indication that I have nothing in the least against Muslims. In fact, there are many causes Muslims and Christians share, and can jointly advance; as an instance of collaboration there is the Spanish Civil War, where Moors and Spaniards fought jointly against an enemy of both. Somewhere (I think in Lunn’s Spanish Rehearsal, though I can’t find the reference) a Moor states to the author something like: “Any man who would burn a house of God must be His enemy”, in reference to the church-burnings under the Republic*, and the Caid’s address to the Beni Urriaguel, briefly given in Gironella’s Los Cipreses creen en Dios (which, unfortunately, being a novel, gives no references) is sublime. However, this doesn’t mean that a significant Muslim presence in Christian lands is desirable, any more than a significant Communist presence is desirable (and the U.S. in the past took various steps to reduce Communist influence, some perhaps excessive but generally well-advised), even though Communists too can be excellent people; one of my parents was briefly one.

    For the record, I feel the same way about Mormons, who resemble Muslims in many ways, but they’re already here and probably more American than me, so no action is recommended. I’ll put the general case to you this way: how would you feel about, say, a massive migration of Nigerian Catholics, or a massive return of the pieds-noirs, to Tunisia (enough to form a significant voting bloc)? Or the admittedly unlikely case of a massive Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist emigration to Pakistan?

    *I wish he would share this insight with those of his co-religionists who have burned Coptic churches in Egypt and elsewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hola Senor!

    Female suffrage is a strange topic-
     
    Tell me about it!

    I don’t think any Muslim presence beyond a small minority in size is desirable here or in any Christian country, and that such a country would be both prudent and well within its rights in attempting to limit Muslim influence
     
    I can see this, and, as I've stated before - this is all quite reasonable. Any nation should be able to limit immigration as it sees fit to the benefit of its people.

    or other moral and reasonable means
     
    You mean by restricting political rights - i.e. Muslims would not be fully enfranchised?

    Muslims think about the world in a different way than we do; the approach to morality, to civil society and governance, etc. is foreign to our way of life and thought
     
    Being a traditional Muslim, I have no qualms about stating Islam as what it is - it is not just a different ethnic take on democracy or modern life as some Muslims like to portray it. No - it is submission to the Creator; no less. And He has something to say about how society is organized - this was recognized in Europe in the past, not so much now. Muslims that are conscious are watching with interest the developments in the West as a model of what to and what not to do. The West is actually doing the world a great service (a self-sacrificing one) in showing what happens to a society that carries out Post-Modernism to its inevitable ends - Dr. Seyyed Hosein Nasr has written quite a bit on this.

    and a deadly threat to it
     
    If by this you mean, wherever Islam plants itself, it eventually permeates and gains prominence in society and replaces other systems - well, I have to admit, that seems to be the historical case whether it comes in through defeat of the prevailing political structure on the battlefield (like Byzantium and Persia) or through preaching (like Malaysia and Sub-Saharan Africa). I cannot imagine it changing that general vector in the West other than in details.

    Read the section - One-way Street of Religions, by Nicholas Nassib Taleb:
    http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

    Though if you mean a deadly threat as in it will forcibly change other people's way of life, then, I would say, this is not the case. Christian minorities (before the recent madness) generally went about their business throughout the Middle East with little fanfare and few restrictions. The King of Morocco (who is considered the guardian of the Islamic order in that nation aka 'Commander of the Faithful') is known as the guardian of its Jewish community too:
    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Moroccos-king-attends-Casablanca-synagogue-Jewish-museum-ceremony-476053

    Muslims have generally encouraged living in physically separated, self-governed communities for their minorities. From the earliest writings on the subject, non-Muslims are supposed to have their own civil courts and institutions. Good fences make good neighbors - and no culture wars. These communities need have little restrictions within their own areas. But, yes, no more blasphemous movies about the Son of Mary (pbuh) or the Prophet (pbuh) or marrying Muslim women - we don't play footsie with that.

    In fact, there are many causes Muslims and Christians share, and can jointly advance
     
    Agreed.

    However, this doesn’t mean that a significant Muslim presence in Christian lands is desirable
     
    I can sympathize with this. Christian (maybe post-Christian) lands are vulnerable right now - I do not envy the identity crisis they are going through (the above article) or loss of population. This can be terrifying especially since, post WW2, they seemed to be pre-eminent on the world stage - just a generation ago they granted freedom to the many colonies they had subjugated around the world. Throw into the mix (in a society that has lost much faith) a faith that takes itself seriously, I can understand the hesitancy and even trepidation.

    For my part, I am glad to live in the US - it and its people have been good to me, but I also know that - traditionally speaking - I am a guest here in the eyes of the Shariah. 'Citizenship', 'residency' etc. are all terms that are from a reasonably recent and potentially unreliable framework that can be revoked given the right political circumstances. Muslims who put their faith in such things haven't read enough history. If I have to ship out, no problem - the world is vast and God provides..."Indeed, the earth belongs to God. He causes to inherit it whom He wills of His servants. And the [best] outcome is for the righteous." (7:128)

    If the people of the West are looking for solutions, I think there is no substitute for cultural cohesion like religion. Going back to Christianity or taking on Islam is an option. We Muslims (a good number of us) have done a fairly piss-poor job of living up to it - perhaps the people of the West will grasp it far better than we have and will be able to help us out of our malaise as fellow brothers - the flag is always there to be picked up by whoever wants it (we have already been put on notice):
    "God is Free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; and they will not be the likes of you." (47:38)

    I’ll put the general case to you this way: how would you feel about, say, a massive migration of Nigerian Catholics, or a massive return of the pieds-noirs, to Tunisia (enough to form a significant voting bloc)?
     
    Not a problem, as I stated before, legally the Shariah has already tackled this in the past. If you've read Muslim history, you'll know Muslims ruled their lands for centuries as a minority religion in Persia, the Levant and North Africa. Any immigrants to Muslim countries are already aware that threats to the prevailing order are not tolerated; taxes and political deference has always been the essence of the dhimmi contract - in return, we are supposed to protect their blood as we do ours - though some of us have obviously been lacking in this regard. Who said they must or must not have the right to vote?

    Again, I'm not an advocate of mass immigration into post-Christian lands; they have every right to curb this phenomenon and I honestly don't think they are capable of handling the consequences.

    burned Coptic churches in Egypt and elsewhere
     
    When a scholar I know heard of the recent bombing of a Coptic church in Egypt, he stated:
    "To break the ancient pact of security of the Companions (may God be pleased with them) is an act of disgraceful treachery without excuse."

    Peace.
  121. @Talha
    Hey WBM,

    Native Born White Americans are being voted into White racial minority by nonwhite legal immigrants and their children.
     
    They could stop this tomorrow by fixing their marriages and having children again and cutting down the bloated welfare state - there is still time to turn this ship around. Now if there just is no way to fix this, then the foundations upon which this enterprise was built were - ahem - lacking in foresight.

    America as a legal proposition is propaganda that nonwhites don’t believe in.
     
    It's tough to believe in a legal proposition that is constantly morphing from one thing to another; women can't vote - then they can, no federal income tax - then there is, no social security - then there is, no non-European immigrants (except in slave galleys) - then there are...what exactly are people supposed to believe (have faith - this is a religious parameter) in?

    Native Born White American and should act upon their legitimate racial interests
     
    Look bro - if you think expelling non-Whites is going to fix White marriages, have them reproducing again, etc. that's all fine with me - I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

    I'm all for white people getting their act together and fixing things - I simply think you are looking at symptoms and not the core disease. My wife is a white convert (part of the immigration from Sweden), my kids all look white - I have zero problems telling them to be proud of their Muslim heritage and their Swedish heritage. I have skin in the game.


    Permission isn’t required to do this in a collapsed US Society.
     
    Nor expected from a secular utilitarian framework that isn't based on transcendent principles (or can toss them to the side when inconvenient..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights...when all is running smoothly.").

    Peace.

    You want to keep flooding Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space with Muslims….An open and deliberate policy of creating a massive Muslim “American” voting bloc that enthusiastically votes whitey into a racial minority within the borders of America. This is the main overriding obvious cause of the racial transformation of the US. This makes your Muslim kind a very hostile presence within the borders of America.

    Among other things, it is brutal competition for the scarce resources within the borders of the US. And this had very great consequences for affordable Native Born White American Family Formation.

    Your wife is a race traitor…and should have been expelled to your Muslim homeland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey WBM,

    You want to keep flooding Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space with Muslims
     
    I most certainly do not. Some Muslims are advocating this, but I'm not one of them. I recognize that it is very reasonable for people of any nation to want to halt immigration if it does not jive with the vision they have for their country.

    a massive Muslim “American” voting bloc
     
    The solution is simple - strip us of voting rights or allow Muslims to vote in nothing beyond the county level - this is not rocket science. It's like people only see two options; 1) full inclusion or 2) complete expulsion - there is a lot of gray in between folks.

    Your wife is a race traitor…and should have been expelled to your Muslim homeland.
     
    Man, if I had a dime for every time...I could put my kids through college. She is quite content with her identity and doesn't need your gate-keeper approval for inclusion into Orthodox whiteness. Her younger sister went Muzzie too and married a nice Egyptian guy, they now have two beautiful kids. Her older sister never converted and married a white guy who ditched her for someone else within two years of their marriage (now she is almost done with any chance at having kids, being bounced around from one uncommitted white guy to another) - now tell me who are the race traitors?

    Like I said, when I see a letter stating such with an official Federal seal on it, I'll get my stuff together and help my wife pack.

    Peace.
  122. @Jake
    That process did NOT begin with non-whites. It began with the Yankee WASP Elites of the northeast and upper midwest allying with the new German (mostly irreligious but also Liberal Protestants) immigrants and their children to embrace hot culture war against the white South and Irish Catholics.

    Even sensitive and caring Yankee WASP Liberals like Ralph Walso Emerson exulted in all the dead white Southerners, as well as hated the Irish as inferior people to the blacks, which he,. like his class, pitied and romanticized.

    Blacks are not the source of the problem. They merely are the pawns and tools of the originators. Jews did not start this horror; Jews simply became the Yankee WASP Elites smartest and most effective ally most other white Gentile groups.

    If you mis-identify the source, your cures will always fail.

    In the meantime, Blacks are hostile anti-white Democratic Party Voting Bloc whose numbers exponentially swell with African-Carribean Legal Immigrants and their US born geneline…and White CUCKS such as you are enthusiasts for importing them.

    Read More
  123. @Ace
    So the Muslims Obama was loyal to this nation? Or is it normal for patriots to grovel before Saudi kinglets?
    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    He did indeed. Ugh. At least he didn't wear a dumbass turban. The DOD-approved dhimmi headgear.
  124. @Verymuchalive
    All very rich coming from a guy like you Fred who lives in a gated community in a failed Narco-state.

    How typically leftardian. Cannot refute the argument so attack the speaker.

    Read More
  125. @Diversity Heretic
    If you are the genuine subject of a monarch (Obama isn't) it is a mark of respect to bow (or curtsy) to that monarch. It's not degrading at all. And a monarch kneels before a priest as God's representative. Context matters.

    You really are full of it, aren’t you?

    Does Liz II kneel before priests?

    Barry the Kenyan should have curtseyed to her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    HM Queen Elizabeth kneels to no one on Earth. She wouldn't be able to get up again.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    During her coronation ceremony Queen Elizabeth II removed all of her royal regalia, knelt and took communion. (Elizabeth is slightly unusual as a monarch in that she is also Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith). When I visited Hagia Sophia there was a spot where the Byzantine Emperor prostrated himself before entering the church. I expect that Roman Catholic monarchs often kneel before priests when they receive communion, although being neither Roman Catholic nor the subject of a monarch, I'm not inclined to research the matter. And a Hapsburg is admitted by the monk to the crypt for burial as a poor sinner--nothing else.

    A subject of a monarch who bows or curtseys before that monarch in no way degrades him- or herself. Hierarachy is part of of the natural order of humanity; the French and Russian Revolutions tried to eliminate it and look how they turned out.
  126. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Bill Jones
    You really are full of it, aren't you?

    Does Liz II kneel before priests?

    Barry the Kenyan should have curtseyed to her.

    HM Queen Elizabeth kneels to no one on Earth. She wouldn’t be able to get up again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    She ever kneel before Prince Phillip? Nudge nudge,say no more...
  127. @Ace
    Very interesting comment.

    Henry Miller wrote a whole book about America, The Air-Conditioned Nightmare. He suffered greatly when he went to live in Big Sur.

    Practically every Hollywood grandee there is cannot stand the country in which they tragically must reside.

    It's not so much that they're alienated from traditional forms of beauty as that they're alienated from the essential core of the country.

    The court jester serves a useful function if he hints at certain unhealthy or erroneous aspects of the king's rule. A little scorn heaped on the poisonous anti-Russian hysteria would work wonders would work wonders in many a government and media office building.

    The current jester facsimiles turn their proper role upside down and search out material in the gutter or celebrate depravity and sedition. "Silence of the Lambs" and "Brokeback Mountain" an example of the former; any attack on "McCarthyism," the latter.

    Thanks for your reply. I may have to read Collosus of Maroussi again.

    Read More
  128. @Anon
    First, with respect to America as a legal proposition, stuff about female voters, income-tax, etc. is pretty much beside the point; the notion is as silly as you paint it (though you later seem to agree with it), but not for those reasons. Interestingly, NJ actually originally allowed women to vote, revoking this permission in 1807. Female suffrage is a strange topic- did you know the most vocal advocate against female suffrage in Republican Spain was the socialist Margarita Nelken? Apparently she was afraid (correctly) that women would vote for more conservative candidates; which goes to demonstrate something I've always held, that practically nobody really cares about democracy for its own sake- which also explains the bizarre international attitudes of the U.S., where "pro-democracy" is the slogan used to dethrone rulers we don't like, who will be called "undemocratic" no matter how their political system works. And vice-versa, of course. Some Unz writers have described this as well.

    The vast majority of my interactions with Muslims have been positive; I knew some Gulenists (at least, I conjecture now they must have been; I hadn't heard of the term then) who were tenants of some family members; nice people, hardly ever complained. I even briefly took Arabic lessons from one of them; I still have a few Gulen books they gave me. I've known various other Muslims through the years, mostly through Ceylonese relatives, mostly good companions (also mostly non- or badly-practicing; you should hear about the subterfuges people use to get drink on a poya day, when the government of Ceylon forbids establishments to serve liquor).

    Nevertheless through various interactions, and especially through my interactions with you, among others, I don't think any Muslim presence beyond a small minority in size is desirable here or in any Christian country, and that such a country would be both prudent and well within its rights in attempting to limit Muslim influence, through immigration controls (or financial controls, when foreign capital is an issue) or other moral and reasonable means. Muslims think about the world in a different way than we do; the approach to morality, to civil society and governance, etc. is foreign to our way of life and thought and a deadly threat to it. I'm greatly indebted to you as an example of the way a good Muslim, and probably a most excellent person, approaches these questions: it is always in a way different and fundamentally opposed to a Western approach, even when the same conclusions are reached.

    I put the paragraph before the previous in as an indication that I have nothing in the least against Muslims. In fact, there are many causes Muslims and Christians share, and can jointly advance; as an instance of collaboration there is the Spanish Civil War, where Moors and Spaniards fought jointly against an enemy of both. Somewhere (I think in Lunn's Spanish Rehearsal, though I can't find the reference) a Moor states to the author something like: "Any man who would burn a house of God must be His enemy", in reference to the church-burnings under the Republic*, and the Caid's address to the Beni Urriaguel, briefly given in Gironella's Los Cipreses creen en Dios (which, unfortunately, being a novel, gives no references) is sublime. However, this doesn't mean that a significant Muslim presence in Christian lands is desirable, any more than a significant Communist presence is desirable (and the U.S. in the past took various steps to reduce Communist influence, some perhaps excessive but generally well-advised), even though Communists too can be excellent people; one of my parents was briefly one.

    For the record, I feel the same way about Mormons, who resemble Muslims in many ways, but they're already here and probably more American than me, so no action is recommended. I'll put the general case to you this way: how would you feel about, say, a massive migration of Nigerian Catholics, or a massive return of the pieds-noirs, to Tunisia (enough to form a significant voting bloc)? Or the admittedly unlikely case of a massive Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist emigration to Pakistan?

    *I wish he would share this insight with those of his co-religionists who have burned Coptic churches in Egypt and elsewhere.

    Hola Senor!

    Female suffrage is a strange topic-

    Tell me about it!

    I don’t think any Muslim presence beyond a small minority in size is desirable here or in any Christian country, and that such a country would be both prudent and well within its rights in attempting to limit Muslim influence

    I can see this, and, as I’ve stated before – this is all quite reasonable. Any nation should be able to limit immigration as it sees fit to the benefit of its people.

    or other moral and reasonable means

    You mean by restricting political rights – i.e. Muslims would not be fully enfranchised?

    Muslims think about the world in a different way than we do; the approach to morality, to civil society and governance, etc. is foreign to our way of life and thought

    Being a traditional Muslim, I have no qualms about stating Islam as what it is – it is not just a different ethnic take on democracy or modern life as some Muslims like to portray it. No – it is submission to the Creator; no less. And He has something to say about how society is organized – this was recognized in Europe in the past, not so much now. Muslims that are conscious are watching with interest the developments in the West as a model of what to and what not to do. The West is actually doing the world a great service (a self-sacrificing one) in showing what happens to a society that carries out Post-Modernism to its inevitable ends – Dr. Seyyed Hosein Nasr has written quite a bit on this.

    and a deadly threat to it

    If by this you mean, wherever Islam plants itself, it eventually permeates and gains prominence in society and replaces other systems – well, I have to admit, that seems to be the historical case whether it comes in through defeat of the prevailing political structure on the battlefield (like Byzantium and Persia) or through preaching (like Malaysia and Sub-Saharan Africa). I cannot imagine it changing that general vector in the West other than in details.

    Read the section – One-way Street of Religions, by Nicholas Nassib Taleb:

    http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

    Though if you mean a deadly threat as in it will forcibly change other people’s way of life, then, I would say, this is not the case. Christian minorities (before the recent madness) generally went about their business throughout the Middle East with little fanfare and few restrictions. The King of Morocco (who is considered the guardian of the Islamic order in that nation aka ‘Commander of the Faithful’) is known as the guardian of its Jewish community too:

    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Moroccos-king-attends-Casablanca-synagogue-Jewish-museum-ceremony-476053

    Muslims have generally encouraged living in physically separated, self-governed communities for their minorities. From the earliest writings on the subject, non-Muslims are supposed to have their own civil courts and institutions. Good fences make good neighbors – and no culture wars. These communities need have little restrictions within their own areas. But, yes, no more blasphemous movies about the Son of Mary (pbuh) or the Prophet (pbuh) or marrying Muslim women – we don’t play footsie with that.

    In fact, there are many causes Muslims and Christians share, and can jointly advance

    Agreed.

    However, this doesn’t mean that a significant Muslim presence in Christian lands is desirable

    I can sympathize with this. Christian (maybe post-Christian) lands are vulnerable right now – I do not envy the identity crisis they are going through (the above article) or loss of population. This can be terrifying especially since, post WW2, they seemed to be pre-eminent on the world stage – just a generation ago they granted freedom to the many colonies they had subjugated around the world. Throw into the mix (in a society that has lost much faith) a faith that takes itself seriously, I can understand the hesitancy and even trepidation.

    For my part, I am glad to live in the US – it and its people have been good to me, but I also know that – traditionally speaking – I am a guest here in the eyes of the Shariah. ‘Citizenship’, ‘residency’ etc. are all terms that are from a reasonably recent and potentially unreliable framework that can be revoked given the right political circumstances. Muslims who put their faith in such things haven’t read enough history. If I have to ship out, no problem – the world is vast and God provides…”Indeed, the earth belongs to God. He causes to inherit it whom He wills of His servants. And the [best] outcome is for the righteous.” (7:128)

    If the people of the West are looking for solutions, I think there is no substitute for cultural cohesion like religion. Going back to Christianity or taking on Islam is an option. We Muslims (a good number of us) have done a fairly piss-poor job of living up to it – perhaps the people of the West will grasp it far better than we have and will be able to help us out of our malaise as fellow brothers – the flag is always there to be picked up by whoever wants it (we have already been put on notice):
    “God is Free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; and they will not be the likes of you.” (47:38)

    I’ll put the general case to you this way: how would you feel about, say, a massive migration of Nigerian Catholics, or a massive return of the pieds-noirs, to Tunisia (enough to form a significant voting bloc)?

    Not a problem, as I stated before, legally the Shariah has already tackled this in the past. If you’ve read Muslim history, you’ll know Muslims ruled their lands for centuries as a minority religion in Persia, the Levant and North Africa. Any immigrants to Muslim countries are already aware that threats to the prevailing order are not tolerated; taxes and political deference has always been the essence of the dhimmi contract – in return, we are supposed to protect their blood as we do ours – though some of us have obviously been lacking in this regard. Who said they must or must not have the right to vote?

    Again, I’m not an advocate of mass immigration into post-Christian lands; they have every right to curb this phenomenon and I honestly don’t think they are capable of handling the consequences.

    burned Coptic churches in Egypt and elsewhere

    When a scholar I know heard of the recent bombing of a Coptic church in Egypt, he stated:
    “To break the ancient pact of security of the Companions (may God be pleased with them) is an act of disgraceful treachery without excuse.”

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Christian minorities (before the recent madness) generally went about their business throughout the Middle East with little fanfare and few restrictions.
     
    PTI, but my understanding is that Christian minorities living under the Ottoman Empire indeed faced serious restrictions.

    I can recall my parents informing us that Christian children had to secretly attend schooling in the caves of the mountains so as not to be detected by the Ottomans that they were being instructed in their native language.

    Peace
    , @Anon

    You mean by restricting political rights – i.e. Muslims would not be fully enfranchised?
     
    I didn’t really mean anything specific. I guess what I really had in mind was something like limiting proselytization, or restricting mosque size, sort of like how Protestants were treated under Franco. Again, I really thought of this more for Europe than the U.S.

    “Moral and reasonable” covers a lot of ground; I don’t know how far I myself would go, probably not very.

    If you’ve read Muslim history, you’ll know Muslims ruled their lands for centuries as a minority religion in Persia, the Levant and North Africa.
     
    Yes, which is why I mentioned “as a significant voting bloc” (and Tunisia rather than Morocco). The governmental structure and philosophy of the country would have to change radically to ensure continued Muslim rule.

    In general, the presence of a significant non-Christian minority tends to lower the moral tone of a Christian society; compare, for instance, the New Conquests in Goa with the original Portuguese area. Of course, Muslims, being closer to Christianity to start with, would probably do this to a lesser extent than do Hindus. And I suppose it would be hard to lower the moral tone of much of the U.S. anyway. In the world of deadly threats, I reckon Islam as being somewhat comparable to communism (or Calvinism a few centuries ago; it’s largely defanged itself since) or Nietzscheanism, or Catharism in the middle ages; it’s a fundamentally different conception of the world at violent cross-purposes to our own (and of course there’s always that small fraction of Muslims who adopt some violently berserk interpretation, but I didn’t have them particularly in mind). And I don’t like ghettoization, aesthetically speaking, and would prefer it not become necessary here (our little taste of it, cultural/racial rather than religious, is quite bad enough).

    From the medieval era our governing traditions have been considerably bottom-up as well as top-down; the Protestants tried to change this and failed (in Britain they mostly got lynched by other Protestants); this with other things has been under threat by liberalism* and communism, leading to the “culture wars” so often discussed; we really don’t need a Third Force that both sides will jockey to leverage.

    *Have you heard the interpretation of liberalism as a form of gnosticism? The Gnostics held, along with a lot of strange and variable things, that the OT God, YHWH, or as they termed Him the demiurge, was fundamentally evil, as was the whole natural order, and that Our Lord came to deliver us from him and from the whole material world. Off-topic, but interesting.

    **I tried to post this earlier; apparently it got marked as spam. Why, I don't know; I didn't think I was trying to sell anything ...
  129. @War for Blair Mountain
    You want to keep flooding Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space with Muslims....An open and deliberate policy of creating a massive Muslim "American" voting bloc that enthusiastically votes whitey into a racial minority within the borders of America. This is the main overriding obvious cause of the racial transformation of the US. This makes your Muslim kind a very hostile presence within the borders of America.

    Among other things, it is brutal competition for the scarce resources within the borders of the US. And this had very great consequences for affordable Native Born White American Family Formation.

    Your wife is a race traitor...and should have been expelled to your Muslim homeland.

    Hey WBM,

    You want to keep flooding Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space with Muslims

    I most certainly do not. Some Muslims are advocating this, but I’m not one of them. I recognize that it is very reasonable for people of any nation to want to halt immigration if it does not jive with the vision they have for their country.

    a massive Muslim “American” voting bloc

    The solution is simple – strip us of voting rights or allow Muslims to vote in nothing beyond the county level – this is not rocket science. It’s like people only see two options; 1) full inclusion or 2) complete expulsion – there is a lot of gray in between folks.

    Your wife is a race traitor…and should have been expelled to your Muslim homeland.

    Man, if I had a dime for every time…I could put my kids through college. She is quite content with her identity and doesn’t need your gate-keeper approval for inclusion into Orthodox whiteness. Her younger sister went Muzzie too and married a nice Egyptian guy, they now have two beautiful kids. Her older sister never converted and married a white guy who ditched her for someone else within two years of their marriage (now she is almost done with any chance at having kids, being bounced around from one uncommitted white guy to another) – now tell me who are the race traitors?

    Like I said, when I see a letter stating such with an official Federal seal on it, I’ll get my stuff together and help my wife pack.

    Peace.

    Read More
  130. @Bill Jones
    You really are full of it, aren't you?

    Does Liz II kneel before priests?

    Barry the Kenyan should have curtseyed to her.

    During her coronation ceremony Queen Elizabeth II removed all of her royal regalia, knelt and took communion. (Elizabeth is slightly unusual as a monarch in that she is also Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith). When I visited Hagia Sophia there was a spot where the Byzantine Emperor prostrated himself before entering the church. I expect that Roman Catholic monarchs often kneel before priests when they receive communion, although being neither Roman Catholic nor the subject of a monarch, I’m not inclined to research the matter. And a Hapsburg is admitted by the monk to the crypt for burial as a poor sinner–nothing else.

    A subject of a monarch who bows or curtseys before that monarch in no way degrades him- or herself. Hierarachy is part of of the natural order of humanity; the French and Russian Revolutions tried to eliminate it and look how they turned out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    What utter bollocks. Liz III removed nothing during her coronation ceremony. Princess Elizabeth did.

    You do understand the difference don't you?
  131. @Talha
    Hola Senor!

    Female suffrage is a strange topic-
     
    Tell me about it!

    I don’t think any Muslim presence beyond a small minority in size is desirable here or in any Christian country, and that such a country would be both prudent and well within its rights in attempting to limit Muslim influence
     
    I can see this, and, as I've stated before - this is all quite reasonable. Any nation should be able to limit immigration as it sees fit to the benefit of its people.

    or other moral and reasonable means
     
    You mean by restricting political rights - i.e. Muslims would not be fully enfranchised?

    Muslims think about the world in a different way than we do; the approach to morality, to civil society and governance, etc. is foreign to our way of life and thought
     
    Being a traditional Muslim, I have no qualms about stating Islam as what it is - it is not just a different ethnic take on democracy or modern life as some Muslims like to portray it. No - it is submission to the Creator; no less. And He has something to say about how society is organized - this was recognized in Europe in the past, not so much now. Muslims that are conscious are watching with interest the developments in the West as a model of what to and what not to do. The West is actually doing the world a great service (a self-sacrificing one) in showing what happens to a society that carries out Post-Modernism to its inevitable ends - Dr. Seyyed Hosein Nasr has written quite a bit on this.

    and a deadly threat to it
     
    If by this you mean, wherever Islam plants itself, it eventually permeates and gains prominence in society and replaces other systems - well, I have to admit, that seems to be the historical case whether it comes in through defeat of the prevailing political structure on the battlefield (like Byzantium and Persia) or through preaching (like Malaysia and Sub-Saharan Africa). I cannot imagine it changing that general vector in the West other than in details.

    Read the section - One-way Street of Religions, by Nicholas Nassib Taleb:
    http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

    Though if you mean a deadly threat as in it will forcibly change other people's way of life, then, I would say, this is not the case. Christian minorities (before the recent madness) generally went about their business throughout the Middle East with little fanfare and few restrictions. The King of Morocco (who is considered the guardian of the Islamic order in that nation aka 'Commander of the Faithful') is known as the guardian of its Jewish community too:
    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Moroccos-king-attends-Casablanca-synagogue-Jewish-museum-ceremony-476053

    Muslims have generally encouraged living in physically separated, self-governed communities for their minorities. From the earliest writings on the subject, non-Muslims are supposed to have their own civil courts and institutions. Good fences make good neighbors - and no culture wars. These communities need have little restrictions within their own areas. But, yes, no more blasphemous movies about the Son of Mary (pbuh) or the Prophet (pbuh) or marrying Muslim women - we don't play footsie with that.

    In fact, there are many causes Muslims and Christians share, and can jointly advance
     
    Agreed.

    However, this doesn’t mean that a significant Muslim presence in Christian lands is desirable
     
    I can sympathize with this. Christian (maybe post-Christian) lands are vulnerable right now - I do not envy the identity crisis they are going through (the above article) or loss of population. This can be terrifying especially since, post WW2, they seemed to be pre-eminent on the world stage - just a generation ago they granted freedom to the many colonies they had subjugated around the world. Throw into the mix (in a society that has lost much faith) a faith that takes itself seriously, I can understand the hesitancy and even trepidation.

    For my part, I am glad to live in the US - it and its people have been good to me, but I also know that - traditionally speaking - I am a guest here in the eyes of the Shariah. 'Citizenship', 'residency' etc. are all terms that are from a reasonably recent and potentially unreliable framework that can be revoked given the right political circumstances. Muslims who put their faith in such things haven't read enough history. If I have to ship out, no problem - the world is vast and God provides..."Indeed, the earth belongs to God. He causes to inherit it whom He wills of His servants. And the [best] outcome is for the righteous." (7:128)

    If the people of the West are looking for solutions, I think there is no substitute for cultural cohesion like religion. Going back to Christianity or taking on Islam is an option. We Muslims (a good number of us) have done a fairly piss-poor job of living up to it - perhaps the people of the West will grasp it far better than we have and will be able to help us out of our malaise as fellow brothers - the flag is always there to be picked up by whoever wants it (we have already been put on notice):
    "God is Free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; and they will not be the likes of you." (47:38)

    I’ll put the general case to you this way: how would you feel about, say, a massive migration of Nigerian Catholics, or a massive return of the pieds-noirs, to Tunisia (enough to form a significant voting bloc)?
     
    Not a problem, as I stated before, legally the Shariah has already tackled this in the past. If you've read Muslim history, you'll know Muslims ruled their lands for centuries as a minority religion in Persia, the Levant and North Africa. Any immigrants to Muslim countries are already aware that threats to the prevailing order are not tolerated; taxes and political deference has always been the essence of the dhimmi contract - in return, we are supposed to protect their blood as we do ours - though some of us have obviously been lacking in this regard. Who said they must or must not have the right to vote?

    Again, I'm not an advocate of mass immigration into post-Christian lands; they have every right to curb this phenomenon and I honestly don't think they are capable of handling the consequences.

    burned Coptic churches in Egypt and elsewhere
     
    When a scholar I know heard of the recent bombing of a Coptic church in Egypt, he stated:
    "To break the ancient pact of security of the Companions (may God be pleased with them) is an act of disgraceful treachery without excuse."

    Peace.

    Christian minorities (before the recent madness) generally went about their business throughout the Middle East with little fanfare and few restrictions.

    PTI, but my understanding is that Christian minorities living under the Ottoman Empire indeed faced serious restrictions.

    I can recall my parents informing us that Christian children had to secretly attend schooling in the caves of the mountains so as not to be detected by the Ottomans that they were being instructed in their native language.

    Peace

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Geo,

    I was actually speaking about recent history of the post-Ottoman era.

    And yes, this all depends on where and under what Ottoman administration. Go back far enough and the Ottomans were enslaving Christian children for their Janissary corps - which was a break from the Shariah itself. Muslim rulers have often gone against the Shariah - the possibly-mad Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and forcibly converted non-Muslims - if I remember correctly, his successor allowed them to re-convert. So I was talking really about what our legal corpus states. And yes, there are restrictions - for instance, the Hanafis take into account the demographics of an area in considering whether a church or temple can be built in an area (other schools simply take into account land ownership, etc.) - but all of this is details. If you want to know what restrictions Muslims will not budge on, I outlined them before as the following six (which we find reasonable...others may not of course):
    1) Cannot denigrate or misquote the Qur’an
    2) Cannot insult the Prophet (pbuh)
    3) Cannot slander the religion of Islam (note, this is slander, not criticizing in an academic way)
    4) Cannot approach a Muslim woman for fornication or marriage
    5) Cannot cause harm to a Muslim’s faith (i.e. so trying to convert Muslims is out, a Christian trying to convert a Hindu or vice versa is fine) or property
    6) Cannot help the enemy or their spies

    All else is fairly negotiable, though don't expect rights to hold a gay parade in downtown Cairo or something. My point was simply that people have this crazy assumption of how Muslims are necessarily going to impose their rules on everyone - doesn't work like that, we aren't supposed to. If you want a fairly good example, Malaysia has a Shariah court system that is applied only on Muslims (it has some issues, but what legal system doesn't):
    " Malaysia has a dual-track legal system comprised of civil courts running in parallel with Islamic Sharia courts where Muslim Malays can be tried on religious and moral charges. Sharia is imposed only on Muslims and deals with moral and family matters. Non-Muslims are required to follow secular laws that deal with the same matters."
    http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Malaysia/sub5_4d/entry-3677.html

    This is also a fairly good (but long) read on the subject (with a specific focus on the Hindu practice of sati [widow burning]):
    "We don’t have any explicit discussion of why the Mughal rulers allowed sati to occur, but their reasons are easily deduced. One was the Shariah principle of the religious freedom of dhimmis. Akbar’s 1591 edict prohibited forced sati, but it also instructed governors that, 'if a Hindu woman wished to be burned with her husband, they should not prevent her.' There were also practical and politically pragmatic concerns. Unlike areas like Syria or Iraq, where Muslims made up the vast majority of the population by 1000 CE, Muslims were and have always been a minority in South Asia (an 1875 census taken by the British counted Muslims as about 25% of the population). Bernier, who had extensive experience with the Mughal administration, explains that Jahangir allowed practices such as sati 'not wishing, or not daring, to disturb [Hindus] in the free exercise of their religion.'...Muslim policies towards sati tell us a great deal about the Shariah perspective on reprehensible practices and their limits. Every description we have of sati done under Muslim rule portrays the widow as alert and interacting, so there is no evidence that they were sedated. To the contrary, Muslim rulers required face-to-face meetings with the widows to hear their requests. If a widow wanted to burn herself and would not be convinced otherwise, Muslim rulers acceded to her wishes."
    http://almadinainstitute.org/blog/incest-widow-burning-how-much-can-muslims-stomach/

    Later, the British prohibited it completely.

    Peace.
  132. @geokat62

    Christian minorities (before the recent madness) generally went about their business throughout the Middle East with little fanfare and few restrictions.
     
    PTI, but my understanding is that Christian minorities living under the Ottoman Empire indeed faced serious restrictions.

    I can recall my parents informing us that Christian children had to secretly attend schooling in the caves of the mountains so as not to be detected by the Ottomans that they were being instructed in their native language.

    Peace

    Hey Geo,

    I was actually speaking about recent history of the post-Ottoman era.

    And yes, this all depends on where and under what Ottoman administration. Go back far enough and the Ottomans were enslaving Christian children for their Janissary corps – which was a break from the Shariah itself. Muslim rulers have often gone against the Shariah – the possibly-mad Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and forcibly converted non-Muslims – if I remember correctly, his successor allowed them to re-convert. So I was talking really about what our legal corpus states. And yes, there are restrictions – for instance, the Hanafis take into account the demographics of an area in considering whether a church or temple can be built in an area (other schools simply take into account land ownership, etc.) – but all of this is details. If you want to know what restrictions Muslims will not budge on, I outlined them before as the following six (which we find reasonable…others may not of course):
    1) Cannot denigrate or misquote the Qur’an
    2) Cannot insult the Prophet (pbuh)
    3) Cannot slander the religion of Islam (note, this is slander, not criticizing in an academic way)
    4) Cannot approach a Muslim woman for fornication or marriage
    5) Cannot cause harm to a Muslim’s faith (i.e. so trying to convert Muslims is out, a Christian trying to convert a Hindu or vice versa is fine) or property
    6) Cannot help the enemy or their spies

    All else is fairly negotiable, though don’t expect rights to hold a gay parade in downtown Cairo or something. My point was simply that people have this crazy assumption of how Muslims are necessarily going to impose their rules on everyone – doesn’t work like that, we aren’t supposed to. If you want a fairly good example, Malaysia has a Shariah court system that is applied only on Muslims (it has some issues, but what legal system doesn’t):
    ” Malaysia has a dual-track legal system comprised of civil courts running in parallel with Islamic Sharia courts where Muslim Malays can be tried on religious and moral charges. Sharia is imposed only on Muslims and deals with moral and family matters. Non-Muslims are required to follow secular laws that deal with the same matters.”

    http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Malaysia/sub5_4d/entry-3677.html

    This is also a fairly good (but long) read on the subject (with a specific focus on the Hindu practice of sati [widow burning]):
    “We don’t have any explicit discussion of why the Mughal rulers allowed sati to occur, but their reasons are easily deduced. One was the Shariah principle of the religious freedom of dhimmis. Akbar’s 1591 edict prohibited forced sati, but it also instructed governors that, ‘if a Hindu woman wished to be burned with her husband, they should not prevent her.’ There were also practical and politically pragmatic concerns. Unlike areas like Syria or Iraq, where Muslims made up the vast majority of the population by 1000 CE, Muslims were and have always been a minority in South Asia (an 1875 census taken by the British counted Muslims as about 25% of the population). Bernier, who had extensive experience with the Mughal administration, explains that Jahangir allowed practices such as sati ‘not wishing, or not daring, to disturb [Hindus] in the free exercise of their religion.’…Muslim policies towards sati tell us a great deal about the Shariah perspective on reprehensible practices and their limits. Every description we have of sati done under Muslim rule portrays the widow as alert and interacting, so there is no evidence that they were sedated. To the contrary, Muslim rulers required face-to-face meetings with the widows to hear their requests. If a widow wanted to burn herself and would not be convinced otherwise, Muslim rulers acceded to her wishes.”

    http://almadinainstitute.org/blog/incest-widow-burning-how-much-can-muslims-stomach/

    Later, the British prohibited it completely.

    Peace.

    Read More
  133. 3/4 of a great column, sullied only by those depressing reminders that Fred is now a Mexican citizen periodically pretending to still be an American for publication purposes.

    But you said it yourself, Fred:

    Trump did not cause the deep division in the country. It caused him.

    If you can’t quite grasp that an election victory by a patriot given to swaggering was the only way we were going to get a meaningful election victory of any kind, and regardless is vastly preferable to 4, or 8, or $#@%! 16 years of More Of The Same, maybe it’s time to have Mamacita water down your tequila a bit.

    Read More
  134. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Hola Senor!

    Female suffrage is a strange topic-
     
    Tell me about it!

    I don’t think any Muslim presence beyond a small minority in size is desirable here or in any Christian country, and that such a country would be both prudent and well within its rights in attempting to limit Muslim influence
     
    I can see this, and, as I've stated before - this is all quite reasonable. Any nation should be able to limit immigration as it sees fit to the benefit of its people.

    or other moral and reasonable means
     
    You mean by restricting political rights - i.e. Muslims would not be fully enfranchised?

    Muslims think about the world in a different way than we do; the approach to morality, to civil society and governance, etc. is foreign to our way of life and thought
     
    Being a traditional Muslim, I have no qualms about stating Islam as what it is - it is not just a different ethnic take on democracy or modern life as some Muslims like to portray it. No - it is submission to the Creator; no less. And He has something to say about how society is organized - this was recognized in Europe in the past, not so much now. Muslims that are conscious are watching with interest the developments in the West as a model of what to and what not to do. The West is actually doing the world a great service (a self-sacrificing one) in showing what happens to a society that carries out Post-Modernism to its inevitable ends - Dr. Seyyed Hosein Nasr has written quite a bit on this.

    and a deadly threat to it
     
    If by this you mean, wherever Islam plants itself, it eventually permeates and gains prominence in society and replaces other systems - well, I have to admit, that seems to be the historical case whether it comes in through defeat of the prevailing political structure on the battlefield (like Byzantium and Persia) or through preaching (like Malaysia and Sub-Saharan Africa). I cannot imagine it changing that general vector in the West other than in details.

    Read the section - One-way Street of Religions, by Nicholas Nassib Taleb:
    http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

    Though if you mean a deadly threat as in it will forcibly change other people's way of life, then, I would say, this is not the case. Christian minorities (before the recent madness) generally went about their business throughout the Middle East with little fanfare and few restrictions. The King of Morocco (who is considered the guardian of the Islamic order in that nation aka 'Commander of the Faithful') is known as the guardian of its Jewish community too:
    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Moroccos-king-attends-Casablanca-synagogue-Jewish-museum-ceremony-476053

    Muslims have generally encouraged living in physically separated, self-governed communities for their minorities. From the earliest writings on the subject, non-Muslims are supposed to have their own civil courts and institutions. Good fences make good neighbors - and no culture wars. These communities need have little restrictions within their own areas. But, yes, no more blasphemous movies about the Son of Mary (pbuh) or the Prophet (pbuh) or marrying Muslim women - we don't play footsie with that.

    In fact, there are many causes Muslims and Christians share, and can jointly advance
     
    Agreed.

    However, this doesn’t mean that a significant Muslim presence in Christian lands is desirable
     
    I can sympathize with this. Christian (maybe post-Christian) lands are vulnerable right now - I do not envy the identity crisis they are going through (the above article) or loss of population. This can be terrifying especially since, post WW2, they seemed to be pre-eminent on the world stage - just a generation ago they granted freedom to the many colonies they had subjugated around the world. Throw into the mix (in a society that has lost much faith) a faith that takes itself seriously, I can understand the hesitancy and even trepidation.

    For my part, I am glad to live in the US - it and its people have been good to me, but I also know that - traditionally speaking - I am a guest here in the eyes of the Shariah. 'Citizenship', 'residency' etc. are all terms that are from a reasonably recent and potentially unreliable framework that can be revoked given the right political circumstances. Muslims who put their faith in such things haven't read enough history. If I have to ship out, no problem - the world is vast and God provides..."Indeed, the earth belongs to God. He causes to inherit it whom He wills of His servants. And the [best] outcome is for the righteous." (7:128)

    If the people of the West are looking for solutions, I think there is no substitute for cultural cohesion like religion. Going back to Christianity or taking on Islam is an option. We Muslims (a good number of us) have done a fairly piss-poor job of living up to it - perhaps the people of the West will grasp it far better than we have and will be able to help us out of our malaise as fellow brothers - the flag is always there to be picked up by whoever wants it (we have already been put on notice):
    "God is Free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; and they will not be the likes of you." (47:38)

    I’ll put the general case to you this way: how would you feel about, say, a massive migration of Nigerian Catholics, or a massive return of the pieds-noirs, to Tunisia (enough to form a significant voting bloc)?
     
    Not a problem, as I stated before, legally the Shariah has already tackled this in the past. If you've read Muslim history, you'll know Muslims ruled their lands for centuries as a minority religion in Persia, the Levant and North Africa. Any immigrants to Muslim countries are already aware that threats to the prevailing order are not tolerated; taxes and political deference has always been the essence of the dhimmi contract - in return, we are supposed to protect their blood as we do ours - though some of us have obviously been lacking in this regard. Who said they must or must not have the right to vote?

    Again, I'm not an advocate of mass immigration into post-Christian lands; they have every right to curb this phenomenon and I honestly don't think they are capable of handling the consequences.

    burned Coptic churches in Egypt and elsewhere
     
    When a scholar I know heard of the recent bombing of a Coptic church in Egypt, he stated:
    "To break the ancient pact of security of the Companions (may God be pleased with them) is an act of disgraceful treachery without excuse."

    Peace.

    You mean by restricting political rights – i.e. Muslims would not be fully enfranchised?

    I didn’t really mean anything specific. I guess what I really had in mind was something like limiting proselytization, or restricting mosque size, sort of like how Protestants were treated under Franco. Again, I really thought of this more for Europe than the U.S.

    “Moral and reasonable” covers a lot of ground; I don’t know how far I myself would go, probably not very.

    If you’ve read Muslim history, you’ll know Muslims ruled their lands for centuries as a minority religion in Persia, the Levant and North Africa.

    Yes, which is why I mentioned “as a significant voting bloc” (and Tunisia rather than Morocco). The governmental structure and philosophy of the country would have to change radically to ensure continued Muslim rule.

    In general, the presence of a significant non-Christian minority tends to lower the moral tone of a Christian society; compare, for instance, the New Conquests in Goa with the original Portuguese area. Of course, Muslims, being closer to Christianity to start with, would probably do this to a lesser extent than do Hindus. And I suppose it would be hard to lower the moral tone of much of the U.S. anyway. In the world of deadly threats, I reckon Islam as being somewhat comparable to communism (or Calvinism a few centuries ago; it’s largely defanged itself since) or Nietzscheanism, or Catharism in the middle ages; it’s a fundamentally different conception of the world at violent cross-purposes to our own (and of course there’s always that small fraction of Muslims who adopt some violently berserk interpretation, but I didn’t have them particularly in mind). And I don’t like ghettoization, aesthetically speaking, and would prefer it not become necessary here (our little taste of it, cultural/racial rather than religious, is quite bad enough).

    From the medieval era our governing traditions have been considerably bottom-up as well as top-down; the Protestants tried to change this and failed (in Britain they mostly got lynched by other Protestants); this with other things has been under threat by liberalism* and communism, leading to the “culture wars” so often discussed; we really don’t need a Third Force that both sides will jockey to leverage.

    *Have you heard the interpretation of liberalism as a form of gnosticism? The Gnostics held, along with a lot of strange and variable things, that the OT God, YHWH, or as they termed Him the demiurge, was fundamentally evil, as was the whole natural order, and that Our Lord came to deliver us from him and from the whole material world. Off-topic, but interesting.

    **I tried to post this earlier; apparently it got marked as spam. Why, I don’t know; I didn’t think I was trying to sell anything …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hola Senor,

    I guess what I really had in mind was something like limiting proselytization, or restricting mosque size
     
    Well, we Muslims (at least the old-guard, traditional ones) would be hypocrites in crying foul. But then the West would also be hypocrites in implementing something like this and trying to lecture us on our rules for dhimmis that we consider reasonable. We personally see this as a vindication for the wisdom in the Shariah.

    This has partially started, for instance the minaret ban in Switzerland.

    I will tell you one thing though, the majority of converts that I have seen did not come into Islam through any active proselytization - they came into it after a few years (sometimes nearly a decade) of self-research; we are doing a pretty piss-poor job of getting the word out also - though I've heard many people are getting their info online (videos, searches, etc.) If you come across converts to Islam, ask them how they took the plunge.


    Tunisia
     
    Has already started shifting - keep your eye on it. Deep cleansing secularization was tried there as in Turkey. And, as in Turkey, the pendulum will swing back towards normalcy (inshaAllah) - the Zaytuna Masjid and Madrassah (in Tunis) is probably the oldest Islamic university in the world.

    at violent cross-purposes to our own
     
    Sure, we can be considered a competitor - no argument there - but, I take issue with this one. Sure, in the pre-modern past, Muslims invaded Christian lands and vice versa. But I have not seen any body of Muslim scholars advocating the repeal of or undermining the current international order - have you? The participation of the various Muslim nation-states in this legal non-aggression framework has been ratified by our top jurists. It's not perfect, but it has helped in decreasing violent conflict. If anything, we are simply asking everyone else to stick by it - pound for pound, pint for pint, we've been at the receiving end of far more violence from the West than the other way around in post-UN history - this is pure mathematics.

    we really don’t need a Third Force that both sides will jockey to leverage
     
    Ah yes - the un-Cola. Again, I can understand this sentiment; who wants a fresh new fighter in the ring when the first two have been exhausting each other.

    Have you heard the interpretation of liberalism as a form of gnosticism?
     
    I have not. I thought the belief you describe was what the Cathars believed in. Liberalism seems, at its core, to be hyper-individualistic (yet ironically demanding everyone give up their reservations to it) and divorced from any traditional sense of the word religion altogether.

    Peace.

  135. @Bill Jones
    Bush the lesser certainly set the precedent.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-kissing-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-a-terrorist-act/5332856

    He did indeed. Ugh. At least he didn’t wear a dumbass turban. The DOD-approved dhimmi headgear.

    Read More
  136. @Anon

    You mean by restricting political rights – i.e. Muslims would not be fully enfranchised?
     
    I didn’t really mean anything specific. I guess what I really had in mind was something like limiting proselytization, or restricting mosque size, sort of like how Protestants were treated under Franco. Again, I really thought of this more for Europe than the U.S.

    “Moral and reasonable” covers a lot of ground; I don’t know how far I myself would go, probably not very.

    If you’ve read Muslim history, you’ll know Muslims ruled their lands for centuries as a minority religion in Persia, the Levant and North Africa.
     
    Yes, which is why I mentioned “as a significant voting bloc” (and Tunisia rather than Morocco). The governmental structure and philosophy of the country would have to change radically to ensure continued Muslim rule.

    In general, the presence of a significant non-Christian minority tends to lower the moral tone of a Christian society; compare, for instance, the New Conquests in Goa with the original Portuguese area. Of course, Muslims, being closer to Christianity to start with, would probably do this to a lesser extent than do Hindus. And I suppose it would be hard to lower the moral tone of much of the U.S. anyway. In the world of deadly threats, I reckon Islam as being somewhat comparable to communism (or Calvinism a few centuries ago; it’s largely defanged itself since) or Nietzscheanism, or Catharism in the middle ages; it’s a fundamentally different conception of the world at violent cross-purposes to our own (and of course there’s always that small fraction of Muslims who adopt some violently berserk interpretation, but I didn’t have them particularly in mind). And I don’t like ghettoization, aesthetically speaking, and would prefer it not become necessary here (our little taste of it, cultural/racial rather than religious, is quite bad enough).

    From the medieval era our governing traditions have been considerably bottom-up as well as top-down; the Protestants tried to change this and failed (in Britain they mostly got lynched by other Protestants); this with other things has been under threat by liberalism* and communism, leading to the “culture wars” so often discussed; we really don’t need a Third Force that both sides will jockey to leverage.

    *Have you heard the interpretation of liberalism as a form of gnosticism? The Gnostics held, along with a lot of strange and variable things, that the OT God, YHWH, or as they termed Him the demiurge, was fundamentally evil, as was the whole natural order, and that Our Lord came to deliver us from him and from the whole material world. Off-topic, but interesting.

    **I tried to post this earlier; apparently it got marked as spam. Why, I don't know; I didn't think I was trying to sell anything ...

    Hola Senor,

    I guess what I really had in mind was something like limiting proselytization, or restricting mosque size

    Well, we Muslims (at least the old-guard, traditional ones) would be hypocrites in crying foul. But then the West would also be hypocrites in implementing something like this and trying to lecture us on our rules for dhimmis that we consider reasonable. We personally see this as a vindication for the wisdom in the Shariah.

    This has partially started, for instance the minaret ban in Switzerland.

    I will tell you one thing though, the majority of converts that I have seen did not come into Islam through any active proselytization – they came into it after a few years (sometimes nearly a decade) of self-research; we are doing a pretty piss-poor job of getting the word out also – though I’ve heard many people are getting their info online (videos, searches, etc.) If you come across converts to Islam, ask them how they took the plunge.

    Tunisia

    Has already started shifting – keep your eye on it. Deep cleansing secularization was tried there as in Turkey. And, as in Turkey, the pendulum will swing back towards normalcy (inshaAllah) – the Zaytuna Masjid and Madrassah (in Tunis) is probably the oldest Islamic university in the world.

    at violent cross-purposes to our own

    Sure, we can be considered a competitor – no argument there – but, I take issue with this one. Sure, in the pre-modern past, Muslims invaded Christian lands and vice versa. But I have not seen any body of Muslim scholars advocating the repeal of or undermining the current international order – have you? The participation of the various Muslim nation-states in this legal non-aggression framework has been ratified by our top jurists. It’s not perfect, but it has helped in decreasing violent conflict. If anything, we are simply asking everyone else to stick by it – pound for pound, pint for pint, we’ve been at the receiving end of far more violence from the West than the other way around in post-UN history – this is pure mathematics.

    we really don’t need a Third Force that both sides will jockey to leverage

    Ah yes – the un-Cola. Again, I can understand this sentiment; who wants a fresh new fighter in the ring when the first two have been exhausting each other.

    Have you heard the interpretation of liberalism as a form of gnosticism?

    I have not. I thought the belief you describe was what the Cathars believed in. Liberalism seems, at its core, to be hyper-individualistic (yet ironically demanding everyone give up their reservations to it) and divorced from any traditional sense of the word religion altogether.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    This has partially started
     
    It hasn't started exactly, we've been doing this sort of thing since well before the middle ages. Franco got criticized for his treatment of Protestants, mostly from outside Spain, but he wasn't radically departing even from the traditions of his own country. As "moral and reasonable" goes, this is pretty simple stuff. It's not necessarily connected to the threat of conversion to the proselytizing religion (hence why synagogue height was often limited) but to the definition of the cultural space, the equivalent of the blasphemy laws in British and post-British India, or, in a different context, the sumptuary laws which forbid people to dress up like kings (or, nowadays, like army officers).

    In the current American context I don't see such laws as being necessary or desirable. They may well be so in France (I really don't know much about conditions there), and the French have no particular reason not to enforce such, either from a Catholic perspective or a perspective of laïcité; ditto Switzerland and the Swiss.

    violent cross-purposes
     
    I'm at fault here for using "violent" in two different senses; I added the parenthetical about fanatic jihadis as an afterthought. "Violent" above doesn't mean blood-and-iron necessarily, it's just an intensifier of "at cross-purposes".

    I thought the belief you describe was what the Cathars believed in.
     
    It is.

    All religions have pathologies: ways believers go wrong often and predictably. "Enthusiasm" is a useful term here, more on which soon. Muslims have the berserkergang thing, Christian "enthusiasts" have their own temptations, one of the most common of which is to elevate the spiritual above the material or natural world; this leads in the spiritually diseased believer to a contempt for nature, then for nature's laws, which leads to the belief either hypocritical or outright that all things are permissible to the elect. Msgr. Ronald Knox wrote an excellent and exhaustively-researched book, Enthusiasm, about this sort of thing, the title referring to the contemptuous 18th-century term for the beliefs of people considered fanatics. It's telling that this is now a term of approbation. Msgr. Knox traces this tendency back to the Church at Corinth, to which St. Paul wrote. Incidentally this Church seems to have been in considerable peril, because it required another letter, from the Pope of the time (Clement I) , no more than a few decades later, to rebuke the Corinthians for yet another schism among them, which seems to me also related to their enthusiastic or charismatic bent.

    I should note that traditional Protestantism is actually not an example of this tendency, being based on scholarly study of the Bible and the ancient Church; it can be regarded largely as an intellectually less advantageously placed version of Islam, though I'd note that Muslim sects seem to be separated more on jurisprudence than on theology. A better analogy for the Prots is the Sunni-Shia split, likewise largely independent of the typical Muslim berserkergang-type pathology. Interestingly the Middle East seems to be going through a Thirty Years' War-type situation now, with the similar result of considerable and increasing Shia political independence and influence.

    The association of liberalism with Gnosticism and its successors owes much to Vogelin. I've largely forgotten what else I was going to say, which was probably irrelevant anyway, except perhaps to mention that this stuff somewhat bears out our idea of corruptio optimi pessima.

    Erratum: The quote from the Moor, slightly paraphrased (which is okay because I doubt he spoke English), is not from Lunn but from Luis Bolin's Spain: The Vital Years (p. 229), which is a pity because this is generally a less reliable source. Still, I don't see any reason to doubt the particular statement, which is an expression of a natural and obvious sentiment.

    I'm suspicious of your source above which states that Syria (which is multiply-defined; some clarity is needed) was Muslim-majority by 1000; can this point be reasonably proved? Did the Abbasids ever take a census, for instance?

    With respect to geokat, I'd be more curious about when and where his ancestors lived in Greece. It seems unlikely that the Turks would actively discourage the education of the Greeks on whom they relied for much civil-service work. Of course this might be different during the Greek wars of independence, or especially in Anatolia under the Young Turks.
  137. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Hola Senor,

    I guess what I really had in mind was something like limiting proselytization, or restricting mosque size
     
    Well, we Muslims (at least the old-guard, traditional ones) would be hypocrites in crying foul. But then the West would also be hypocrites in implementing something like this and trying to lecture us on our rules for dhimmis that we consider reasonable. We personally see this as a vindication for the wisdom in the Shariah.

    This has partially started, for instance the minaret ban in Switzerland.

    I will tell you one thing though, the majority of converts that I have seen did not come into Islam through any active proselytization - they came into it after a few years (sometimes nearly a decade) of self-research; we are doing a pretty piss-poor job of getting the word out also - though I've heard many people are getting their info online (videos, searches, etc.) If you come across converts to Islam, ask them how they took the plunge.


    Tunisia
     
    Has already started shifting - keep your eye on it. Deep cleansing secularization was tried there as in Turkey. And, as in Turkey, the pendulum will swing back towards normalcy (inshaAllah) - the Zaytuna Masjid and Madrassah (in Tunis) is probably the oldest Islamic university in the world.

    at violent cross-purposes to our own
     
    Sure, we can be considered a competitor - no argument there - but, I take issue with this one. Sure, in the pre-modern past, Muslims invaded Christian lands and vice versa. But I have not seen any body of Muslim scholars advocating the repeal of or undermining the current international order - have you? The participation of the various Muslim nation-states in this legal non-aggression framework has been ratified by our top jurists. It's not perfect, but it has helped in decreasing violent conflict. If anything, we are simply asking everyone else to stick by it - pound for pound, pint for pint, we've been at the receiving end of far more violence from the West than the other way around in post-UN history - this is pure mathematics.

    we really don’t need a Third Force that both sides will jockey to leverage
     
    Ah yes - the un-Cola. Again, I can understand this sentiment; who wants a fresh new fighter in the ring when the first two have been exhausting each other.

    Have you heard the interpretation of liberalism as a form of gnosticism?
     
    I have not. I thought the belief you describe was what the Cathars believed in. Liberalism seems, at its core, to be hyper-individualistic (yet ironically demanding everyone give up their reservations to it) and divorced from any traditional sense of the word religion altogether.

    Peace.

    This has partially started

    It hasn’t started exactly, we’ve been doing this sort of thing since well before the middle ages. Franco got criticized for his treatment of Protestants, mostly from outside Spain, but he wasn’t radically departing even from the traditions of his own country. As “moral and reasonable” goes, this is pretty simple stuff. It’s not necessarily connected to the threat of conversion to the proselytizing religion (hence why synagogue height was often limited) but to the definition of the cultural space, the equivalent of the blasphemy laws in British and post-British India, or, in a different context, the sumptuary laws which forbid people to dress up like kings (or, nowadays, like army officers).

    In the current American context I don’t see such laws as being necessary or desirable. They may well be so in France (I really don’t know much about conditions there), and the French have no particular reason not to enforce such, either from a Catholic perspective or a perspective of laïcité; ditto Switzerland and the Swiss.

    violent cross-purposes

    I’m at fault here for using “violent” in two different senses; I added the parenthetical about fanatic jihadis as an afterthought. “Violent” above doesn’t mean blood-and-iron necessarily, it’s just an intensifier of “at cross-purposes”.

    I thought the belief you describe was what the Cathars believed in.

    It is.

    All religions have pathologies: ways believers go wrong often and predictably. “Enthusiasm” is a useful term here, more on which soon. Muslims have the berserkergang thing, Christian “enthusiasts” have their own temptations, one of the most common of which is to elevate the spiritual above the material or natural world; this leads in the spiritually diseased believer to a contempt for nature, then for nature’s laws, which leads to the belief either hypocritical or outright that all things are permissible to the elect. Msgr. Ronald Knox wrote an excellent and exhaustively-researched book, Enthusiasm, about this sort of thing, the title referring to the contemptuous 18th-century term for the beliefs of people considered fanatics. It’s telling that this is now a term of approbation. Msgr. Knox traces this tendency back to the Church at Corinth, to which St. Paul wrote. Incidentally this Church seems to have been in considerable peril, because it required another letter, from the Pope of the time (Clement I) , no more than a few decades later, to rebuke the Corinthians for yet another schism among them, which seems to me also related to their enthusiastic or charismatic bent.

    I should note that traditional Protestantism is actually not an example of this tendency, being based on scholarly study of the Bible and the ancient Church; it can be regarded largely as an intellectually less advantageously placed version of Islam, though I’d note that Muslim sects seem to be separated more on jurisprudence than on theology. A better analogy for the Prots is the Sunni-Shia split, likewise largely independent of the typical Muslim berserkergang-type pathology. Interestingly the Middle East seems to be going through a Thirty Years’ War-type situation now, with the similar result of considerable and increasing Shia political independence and influence.

    The association of liberalism with Gnosticism and its successors owes much to Vogelin. I’ve largely forgotten what else I was going to say, which was probably irrelevant anyway, except perhaps to mention that this stuff somewhat bears out our idea of corruptio optimi pessima.

    Erratum: The quote from the Moor, slightly paraphrased (which is okay because I doubt he spoke English), is not from Lunn but from Luis Bolin’s Spain: The Vital Years (p. 229), which is a pity because this is generally a less reliable source. Still, I don’t see any reason to doubt the particular statement, which is an expression of a natural and obvious sentiment.

    I’m suspicious of your source above which states that Syria (which is multiply-defined; some clarity is needed) was Muslim-majority by 1000; can this point be reasonably proved? Did the Abbasids ever take a census, for instance?

    With respect to geokat, I’d be more curious about when and where his ancestors lived in Greece. It seems unlikely that the Turks would actively discourage the education of the Greeks on whom they relied for much civil-service work. Of course this might be different during the Greek wars of independence, or especially in Anatolia under the Young Turks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    With respect to geokat, I’d be more curious about when and where his ancestors lived in Greece.
     
    My ancestors originate from the foothills of Mt. Olympus. How far back is impossible to tell as records were not kept under the Ottoman occupation.

    Your query prompted me to investigate a little further on the topic of Secret School (or Krifo Scholio). It appears there is some controversy over their existence, something I was unaware of:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krifo_scholio

    I am grateful to you for bringing this to my attention.
    , @Talha
    First off - it is a pleasure to engage with someone that has a good grasp of Christian history and its nuances. I sometimes find myself schooling Christians about aspects of their own history, of which some have a boy scout-like knowledge.

    It hasn’t started exactly, we’ve been doing this sort of thing since well before the middle ages.
     
    Bingo! You are absolutely correct about this - I was more referring to the realm of the recent era, in the post-Modern, post-Christian time frame, when it seemed that liberalism was ascendant.

    As “moral and reasonable” goes, this is pretty simple stuff...but to the definition of the cultural space
     
    Agreed and agreed. There are a lot of parallels with the Shariah rules on dhimmis here.

    They may well be so in France
     
    I've often thought that perhaps a way for the French to deal with the situation is to have semi-autonomous regions for Muslims a bit like the millet system of the Ottomans, but if they step out of that area, they must give deference to the normative French law. Of course, a lot of these issues are really just about demographics - if ethnic French can't get that back on track, then the writing is on the wall and the rest is details.

    All religions have pathologies: ways believers go wrong often and predictably.
     
    Agree completely. As I've said to others, the only reason this seems to happen more often among Muslims these days is that they still take their religion seriously. When others did as well, they resulted in their own occasional extremist strains - it's practically inescapable unless you completely de-claw religion or make it into a hobby as post-Modern man has.

    Thanks for that great exposition on the idea of fanaticism from a Christian perspective - we actually have practically that same issue. The Early Khawarij were known for their outward piety, but slaughtered innocent people like sheep.


    I’d note that Muslim sects seem to be separated more on jurisprudence than on theology
     
    The splits on jurisprudence are not considered sectarian differences - one of the things that we consider a miracle in our religion - we consider these differences of opinion a mercy. There used to be many, many schools of jurisprudence in Sunnni Orthodoxy and there are now generally believed to be only four surviving ones (others having been discarded or absorbed). In theology, occurs what we consider another miracle; the consensus upon the acceptability of the three creeds (Athari, Ash'ari and Maturidi) which basically only differ in semantic senses or in whether they answer a specific question or keep silent about it. The Ummah (at least the Sunnis which are 85-90% from Senegal to Malaysia) came to this consensus without any historical synods or councils (sure, there was public debate with the Mu'tazilites, Jabriyyah, etc.) - it really is quite extraordinary. The Zaydis are also practically Sunni if you know the details.

    A better analogy for the Prots is the Sunni-Shia split
     
    The Ibadis and the Shiah are further away in doctrines which we feel are incorrect, but pray they are forgiven any errors of judgement. But the better analogy in my view is actually the recent Salafi/Wahhabi split from within the Sunnis - they represent the ethos of the Protestant Reformation far better.

    Interestingly the Middle East seems to be going through a Thirty Years’ War-type situation now
     
    Agreed, but most of the catalysts are Salafi-Wahhabi extremists. Basically, it's them against all. Look at my post #47 - they don't care much for traditional Sunnis either.

    I’m suspicious of your source above which states that Syria (which is multiply-defined; some clarity is needed) was Muslim-majority by 1000
     
    I agree, Muslim scholars and historians wrote about a non-Muslim majority in that area at least into the 1300's - if I recall correctly. But my source is Prof. Jonathan Brown who is an expert in this field of history and references some of the best works on the subject - my guess is that he did not necessarily mean Syria as we currently consider it.

    Did the Abbasids ever take a census
     
    Almost definitely for the purposes of collecting jizya. There were taxes involved - no way were they going to screw things up with that. Whether we have accurate records, I have no clue - very, very little survived the sack of their capital city by the Mongols in the 13th century.

    Of course this might be different during the Greek wars of independence, or especially in Anatolia under the Young Turks.
     
    To me, this also seems like something the ultra-nationalist secular Turkish state would undertake more so than the Ottomans - or at least in the waning years of the Caliphate when the Turkish nationalists started taking over. For the record, this change in attitude in the Turks also helped kick off the various revolts by Muslims that previously didn't mind their suzerainty much.

    Much thanks for all your insights and your demeanor in this exchange.

    Peace - and I ask that you not deprive me and my family of your prayers.

  138. @Anon

    This has partially started
     
    It hasn't started exactly, we've been doing this sort of thing since well before the middle ages. Franco got criticized for his treatment of Protestants, mostly from outside Spain, but he wasn't radically departing even from the traditions of his own country. As "moral and reasonable" goes, this is pretty simple stuff. It's not necessarily connected to the threat of conversion to the proselytizing religion (hence why synagogue height was often limited) but to the definition of the cultural space, the equivalent of the blasphemy laws in British and post-British India, or, in a different context, the sumptuary laws which forbid people to dress up like kings (or, nowadays, like army officers).

    In the current American context I don't see such laws as being necessary or desirable. They may well be so in France (I really don't know much about conditions there), and the French have no particular reason not to enforce such, either from a Catholic perspective or a perspective of laïcité; ditto Switzerland and the Swiss.

    violent cross-purposes
     
    I'm at fault here for using "violent" in two different senses; I added the parenthetical about fanatic jihadis as an afterthought. "Violent" above doesn't mean blood-and-iron necessarily, it's just an intensifier of "at cross-purposes".

    I thought the belief you describe was what the Cathars believed in.
     
    It is.

    All religions have pathologies: ways believers go wrong often and predictably. "Enthusiasm" is a useful term here, more on which soon. Muslims have the berserkergang thing, Christian "enthusiasts" have their own temptations, one of the most common of which is to elevate the spiritual above the material or natural world; this leads in the spiritually diseased believer to a contempt for nature, then for nature's laws, which leads to the belief either hypocritical or outright that all things are permissible to the elect. Msgr. Ronald Knox wrote an excellent and exhaustively-researched book, Enthusiasm, about this sort of thing, the title referring to the contemptuous 18th-century term for the beliefs of people considered fanatics. It's telling that this is now a term of approbation. Msgr. Knox traces this tendency back to the Church at Corinth, to which St. Paul wrote. Incidentally this Church seems to have been in considerable peril, because it required another letter, from the Pope of the time (Clement I) , no more than a few decades later, to rebuke the Corinthians for yet another schism among them, which seems to me also related to their enthusiastic or charismatic bent.

    I should note that traditional Protestantism is actually not an example of this tendency, being based on scholarly study of the Bible and the ancient Church; it can be regarded largely as an intellectually less advantageously placed version of Islam, though I'd note that Muslim sects seem to be separated more on jurisprudence than on theology. A better analogy for the Prots is the Sunni-Shia split, likewise largely independent of the typical Muslim berserkergang-type pathology. Interestingly the Middle East seems to be going through a Thirty Years' War-type situation now, with the similar result of considerable and increasing Shia political independence and influence.

    The association of liberalism with Gnosticism and its successors owes much to Vogelin. I've largely forgotten what else I was going to say, which was probably irrelevant anyway, except perhaps to mention that this stuff somewhat bears out our idea of corruptio optimi pessima.

    Erratum: The quote from the Moor, slightly paraphrased (which is okay because I doubt he spoke English), is not from Lunn but from Luis Bolin's Spain: The Vital Years (p. 229), which is a pity because this is generally a less reliable source. Still, I don't see any reason to doubt the particular statement, which is an expression of a natural and obvious sentiment.

    I'm suspicious of your source above which states that Syria (which is multiply-defined; some clarity is needed) was Muslim-majority by 1000; can this point be reasonably proved? Did the Abbasids ever take a census, for instance?

    With respect to geokat, I'd be more curious about when and where his ancestors lived in Greece. It seems unlikely that the Turks would actively discourage the education of the Greeks on whom they relied for much civil-service work. Of course this might be different during the Greek wars of independence, or especially in Anatolia under the Young Turks.

    With respect to geokat, I’d be more curious about when and where his ancestors lived in Greece.

    My ancestors originate from the foothills of Mt. Olympus. How far back is impossible to tell as records were not kept under the Ottoman occupation.

    Your query prompted me to investigate a little further on the topic of Secret School (or Krifo Scholio). It appears there is some controversy over their existence, something I was unaware of:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krifo_scholio

    I am grateful to you for bringing this to my attention.

    Read More
  139. @Anon

    This has partially started
     
    It hasn't started exactly, we've been doing this sort of thing since well before the middle ages. Franco got criticized for his treatment of Protestants, mostly from outside Spain, but he wasn't radically departing even from the traditions of his own country. As "moral and reasonable" goes, this is pretty simple stuff. It's not necessarily connected to the threat of conversion to the proselytizing religion (hence why synagogue height was often limited) but to the definition of the cultural space, the equivalent of the blasphemy laws in British and post-British India, or, in a different context, the sumptuary laws which forbid people to dress up like kings (or, nowadays, like army officers).

    In the current American context I don't see such laws as being necessary or desirable. They may well be so in France (I really don't know much about conditions there), and the French have no particular reason not to enforce such, either from a Catholic perspective or a perspective of laïcité; ditto Switzerland and the Swiss.

    violent cross-purposes
     
    I'm at fault here for using "violent" in two different senses; I added the parenthetical about fanatic jihadis as an afterthought. "Violent" above doesn't mean blood-and-iron necessarily, it's just an intensifier of "at cross-purposes".

    I thought the belief you describe was what the Cathars believed in.
     
    It is.

    All religions have pathologies: ways believers go wrong often and predictably. "Enthusiasm" is a useful term here, more on which soon. Muslims have the berserkergang thing, Christian "enthusiasts" have their own temptations, one of the most common of which is to elevate the spiritual above the material or natural world; this leads in the spiritually diseased believer to a contempt for nature, then for nature's laws, which leads to the belief either hypocritical or outright that all things are permissible to the elect. Msgr. Ronald Knox wrote an excellent and exhaustively-researched book, Enthusiasm, about this sort of thing, the title referring to the contemptuous 18th-century term for the beliefs of people considered fanatics. It's telling that this is now a term of approbation. Msgr. Knox traces this tendency back to the Church at Corinth, to which St. Paul wrote. Incidentally this Church seems to have been in considerable peril, because it required another letter, from the Pope of the time (Clement I) , no more than a few decades later, to rebuke the Corinthians for yet another schism among them, which seems to me also related to their enthusiastic or charismatic bent.

    I should note that traditional Protestantism is actually not an example of this tendency, being based on scholarly study of the Bible and the ancient Church; it can be regarded largely as an intellectually less advantageously placed version of Islam, though I'd note that Muslim sects seem to be separated more on jurisprudence than on theology. A better analogy for the Prots is the Sunni-Shia split, likewise largely independent of the typical Muslim berserkergang-type pathology. Interestingly the Middle East seems to be going through a Thirty Years' War-type situation now, with the similar result of considerable and increasing Shia political independence and influence.

    The association of liberalism with Gnosticism and its successors owes much to Vogelin. I've largely forgotten what else I was going to say, which was probably irrelevant anyway, except perhaps to mention that this stuff somewhat bears out our idea of corruptio optimi pessima.

    Erratum: The quote from the Moor, slightly paraphrased (which is okay because I doubt he spoke English), is not from Lunn but from Luis Bolin's Spain: The Vital Years (p. 229), which is a pity because this is generally a less reliable source. Still, I don't see any reason to doubt the particular statement, which is an expression of a natural and obvious sentiment.

    I'm suspicious of your source above which states that Syria (which is multiply-defined; some clarity is needed) was Muslim-majority by 1000; can this point be reasonably proved? Did the Abbasids ever take a census, for instance?

    With respect to geokat, I'd be more curious about when and where his ancestors lived in Greece. It seems unlikely that the Turks would actively discourage the education of the Greeks on whom they relied for much civil-service work. Of course this might be different during the Greek wars of independence, or especially in Anatolia under the Young Turks.

    First off – it is a pleasure to engage with someone that has a good grasp of Christian history and its nuances. I sometimes find myself schooling Christians about aspects of their own history, of which some have a boy scout-like knowledge.

    It hasn’t started exactly, we’ve been doing this sort of thing since well before the middle ages.

    Bingo! You are absolutely correct about this – I was more referring to the realm of the recent era, in the post-Modern, post-Christian time frame, when it seemed that liberalism was ascendant.

    As “moral and reasonable” goes, this is pretty simple stuff…but to the definition of the cultural space

    Agreed and agreed. There are a lot of parallels with the Shariah rules on dhimmis here.

    They may well be so in France

    I’ve often thought that perhaps a way for the French to deal with the situation is to have semi-autonomous regions for Muslims a bit like the millet system of the Ottomans, but if they step out of that area, they must give deference to the normative French law. Of course, a lot of these issues are really just about demographics – if ethnic French can’t get that back on track, then the writing is on the wall and the rest is details.

    All religions have pathologies: ways believers go wrong often and predictably.

    Agree completely. As I’ve said to others, the only reason this seems to happen more often among Muslims these days is that they still take their religion seriously. When others did as well, they resulted in their own occasional extremist strains – it’s practically inescapable unless you completely de-claw religion or make it into a hobby as post-Modern man has.

    Thanks for that great exposition on the idea of fanaticism from a Christian perspective – we actually have practically that same issue. The Early Khawarij were known for their outward piety, but slaughtered innocent people like sheep.

    I’d note that Muslim sects seem to be separated more on jurisprudence than on theology

    The splits on jurisprudence are not considered sectarian differences – one of the things that we consider a miracle in our religion – we consider these differences of opinion a mercy. There used to be many, many schools of jurisprudence in Sunnni Orthodoxy and there are now generally believed to be only four surviving ones (others having been discarded or absorbed). In theology, occurs what we consider another miracle; the consensus upon the acceptability of the three creeds (Athari, Ash’ari and Maturidi) which basically only differ in semantic senses or in whether they answer a specific question or keep silent about it. The Ummah (at least the Sunnis which are 85-90% from Senegal to Malaysia) came to this consensus without any historical synods or councils (sure, there was public debate with the Mu’tazilites, Jabriyyah, etc.) – it really is quite extraordinary. The Zaydis are also practically Sunni if you know the details.

    A better analogy for the Prots is the Sunni-Shia split

    The Ibadis and the Shiah are further away in doctrines which we feel are incorrect, but pray they are forgiven any errors of judgement. But the better analogy in my view is actually the recent Salafi/Wahhabi split from within the Sunnis – they represent the ethos of the Protestant Reformation far better.

    Interestingly the Middle East seems to be going through a Thirty Years’ War-type situation now

    Agreed, but most of the catalysts are Salafi-Wahhabi extremists. Basically, it’s them against all. Look at my post #47 – they don’t care much for traditional Sunnis either.

    I’m suspicious of your source above which states that Syria (which is multiply-defined; some clarity is needed) was Muslim-majority by 1000

    I agree, Muslim scholars and historians wrote about a non-Muslim majority in that area at least into the 1300′s – if I recall correctly. But my source is Prof. Jonathan Brown who is an expert in this field of history and references some of the best works on the subject – my guess is that he did not necessarily mean Syria as we currently consider it.

    Did the Abbasids ever take a census

    Almost definitely for the purposes of collecting jizya. There were taxes involved – no way were they going to screw things up with that. Whether we have accurate records, I have no clue – very, very little survived the sack of their capital city by the Mongols in the 13th century.

    Of course this might be different during the Greek wars of independence, or especially in Anatolia under the Young Turks.

    To me, this also seems like something the ultra-nationalist secular Turkish state would undertake more so than the Ottomans – or at least in the waning years of the Caliphate when the Turkish nationalists started taking over. For the record, this change in attitude in the Turks also helped kick off the various revolts by Muslims that previously didn’t mind their suzerainty much.

    Much thanks for all your insights and your demeanor in this exchange.

    Peace – and I ask that you not deprive me and my family of your prayers.

    Read More
  140. @Verymuchalive
    All very rich coming from a guy like you Fred who lives in a gated community in a failed Narco-state.

    But then, how did Mexico get to be a “failed naro-state”? Perhaps due to the actions of the same groups that are making the US into a failed state?

    No: No Wall Could Hurt Mexico as Much as NAFTA Has

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/no-no-wall-could-hurt-mexico-as-much-as-nafta-has/5574960

    … While it is finally widely recognized that so-called free trade agreements have harmed millions of U.S. workers, thought leaders from both sides of the political spectrum continue to assume NAFTA has been good for Mexico. This assumption is forcefully contradicted by the facts.

    If we look at the most basic measure of economic progress, the growth of gross domestic product, or income per person, Mexico, which signed on to NAFTA in 1994, has performed the 15th-best out of 20 Latin American countries.

    Other measures show an even sadder picture. The poverty rate in 2014 was 55.1 percent, an increase from the 52.4 percent measurement in 1994.

    Wages tell a similar story: There’s been almost no growth in real inflation-adjusted wages since 1994 – just about 4.1 percent over 21 years.

    Why has Mexico fared so poorly under NAFTA?

    Well, it must be understood that NAFTA marked a continuation of policies that began in the 1980s under pressure from Washington and the International Monetary Fund, when Mexico had been left particularly vulnerable from a debt crisis and world recession.

    These policies included the deregulation and liberalization of manufacturing, foreign investment and ownership – 70 percent of Mexico’s banking system is now foreign-owned……

    Read More
  141. NO, NO. NO, NO, NO, FRED, Trump did not make a menstrual jibe. That came from the stupid, dirty-minded creeps in the news media. That is not anymore true than the claim he mocked a disabled reporter. HE DID NOT. Again, that came from the vocally farting news media.

    Read More
  142. @Anon
    HM Queen Elizabeth kneels to no one on Earth. She wouldn't be able to get up again.

    She ever kneel before Prince Phillip? Nudge nudge,say no more…

    Read More
  143. @john cronk
    Fred, I agree with your assessment about the two Americas, but not with that about Trump.
    I think your critical remarks about him are unwarranted, and that he's doing a terrific job. He's intelligent, nimble and an amazingly hard worker doing his best for America and its citizens. You're severely underestimating him.

    https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Brass_Pole_in_Bangkok.html?id=UgF_AAAACAAJ

    Fred looks like a member of the Village People. Members of the Village People wouldn’t normally be big Trump fans.

    Read More
  144. In the souls of most of the Left and LGBTQ, they wish to destroy anything that is good in America.

    This deep-seated hatred and self-loathing of America, patriotism, and being White has been insufficiently explored.

    We are dealing with American Bolsheviks.

    I hope I am not the only one who sees this.

    Read More
  145. ” I hope I am not the only one who sees this”

    You most certainly are not the only one, myself I have been aware of this dilema for decades, and there are millions of others who are have been simply lacking the courage to speak up, but things are changing now thanks to DT, and the left knows it, and they are terrified of the effects of being exposed as the dirtbag opportunists and grifters that they are.

    First step is the dealing with leftist “Professors”, as they are the ones who are subverting our youth and fomenting hatred and devisiveness within the young brains of mush.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
  146. The author’s world is upside down.

    He apparently missed a few Trump rallies, which were something south of polite. The January 21st rallies brought out millions for day-long protests that were as peaceful and orderly as they were well-attended.

    He is mistaken if he think the divide is the country is between the well-mannered and the ill-bred from the ghetto. The divide is between those who embrace diversity and believe society has a responsibility to its disadvantaged & those who prefer homogeneity and what they would likely call “self-reliance.” The former is clean, bright and peaceful. The latter makes up considerably less than half the population and often resorts to characterizations intended to provoke hate.

    Read More
  147. @Diversity Heretic
    During her coronation ceremony Queen Elizabeth II removed all of her royal regalia, knelt and took communion. (Elizabeth is slightly unusual as a monarch in that she is also Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith). When I visited Hagia Sophia there was a spot where the Byzantine Emperor prostrated himself before entering the church. I expect that Roman Catholic monarchs often kneel before priests when they receive communion, although being neither Roman Catholic nor the subject of a monarch, I'm not inclined to research the matter. And a Hapsburg is admitted by the monk to the crypt for burial as a poor sinner--nothing else.

    A subject of a monarch who bows or curtseys before that monarch in no way degrades him- or herself. Hierarachy is part of of the natural order of humanity; the French and Russian Revolutions tried to eliminate it and look how they turned out.

    What utter bollocks. Liz III removed nothing during her coronation ceremony. Princess Elizabeth did.

    You do understand the difference don’t you?

    Read More
  148. @Diversity Heretic
    If you are the genuine subject of a monarch (Obama isn't) it is a mark of respect to bow (or curtsy) to that monarch. It's not degrading at all. And a monarch kneels before a priest as God's representative. Context matters.

    In Japan, only people of low rank bow deeply to another. Even though he’s not Japanese Obama bowed to the Japanese fellow, I forget who, like a gardener bows to his employer. Among equals the bow is much more restrained. Obama wanted to abase himself and heap shame on his own country by acting like a servant.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave