Who stabbed Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel?

Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel and several worshipers were attacked in an absurdly vicious and completely over the top manner, guaranteed to outrage people.

And yet the stabbing was strangely ineffectual. It is very easy to kill people. It is not that difficult to do it with bare hands if you can get the upper hand, and with knife of suitable size, trivial. If I made a sucker knife attack on someone with the intent of killing him, it would be entirely undramatic. He would be fatally wounded so fast you would not see it happening. You would just see a whole lot of blood and me fleeing abruptly, followed by him folding up. The Australian government has attempted to ban the video — whether sincerely or in a deliberate effort to Streisand it, I am not sure, but the ban was, predictably, utterly ineffectual and wildly counterproductive. It merely resulted in everyone downloading and uploading the video.

The attacker says “Allahu Akbar” so that everyone will know this is a Mohammedan attack on a Christian. But the odd thing is, Bishop Emmanuel has not said or done anything that would particular piss off Mohammedans, while he had said and done lots of things that outrage the demon worshipers running the west, including calling them demon worshipers. I am pretty sure you could get away with his infrequent mild mannered criticisms of Islam (that Islam and Judaism are false religions) in Dubai, while I routinely say much worse things: That Mohammed’s visions were of a demon — literal or a projection of his own evil, that a Mohammedan that does not murder innocents is a bad Mohammedan, and that Islam is inimical to science and technology because it worships an inconstant God who can change and lie. And no one seems to take offense.

What has outraged people his his criticisms of the demon worshipers ruling us.

I am fairly sympathetic and supportive of Islam. I say Mohammed was right about women, the Taliban are fighting for their freedom and restoring order, peace, and prosperity to a land endlessly ravaged by war, that we need to postpone renewing the crusades until we have dealt with the common enemy of demon worshipers. And, like Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, I say the Jews are attempting to genocide the Palestinians. Muslims generally seem to perceive me as a frenemy, and I am sure that they would similarly perceive Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, who, unlike me, has always preached the human dignity of people of all faiths.

I suppose in a sense I preach the much same thing, in that I say that the Peace of Westphalia should be applied to all faiths, but I also say it will need to be imposed on Dar al-Islam with a big stick, and that Cortes had the right answer for demon worship. We can worry about Mohammedanism after we and the Mohammedans have dealt with the big problem: Demon worship ruling the west — a topic Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel has addressed frequently with vigor.

Since the attack, an army of shills, most of them with Tel Aviv network addresses, have been vigorously using it to promote war between based Christians and based Muslims — a position that, of course, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel is vigorously opposing right now, and that I also oppose.

I post this in support of the wonderfully based and outstandingly Christian Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. He is not as based as I am — I have not seen him preaching that for a faith, a people, a nation, or an empire to successfully reproduce it has to have families, and that to have families, men need to impose stable monogamy on women with a stick, lest Miss Average waste her youth, her beauty, and her fertility banging Mister One-in-thirty. But he is certainly more Christian than I am. I have a bit of difficulty forgiving my enemies.

Part of the horror of this attack is that he failed to take any effectual action to protect himself, while I am still mostly killer ape, and wear civilization like an ill fitting suit. But there is a place in Christianity for men of violence, without which it could not have survived and won. I am a big fan of Saint Theodore the Varangian. Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel says he fears nothing and no one, and observing the attack, he speaks the truth. But sometimes, a more forceful method of dealing with evil is appropriate. Sometimes, fearlessness needs to manifest more in the style of Saint Theodore the Varangian.

330 Responses to “Who stabbed Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel?”

  1. Oog and Hand says:


    What would Saint Theodore the Varangian do to Churchians? Are there sources in Old Church Slavonic about Saint Theodore?

  2. […] Interesting! At https://blog.reaction.la/uncategorized/who-stabbed-bishop-mar-mari-emmanuel/ there is an argument between a real Christian, the blog host, and a real Muslim, someone calling […]

  3. Anonymous Fake says:


    Methodists support queer preachers in a 692-51 vote. And about 90% of Republicans just voted to ban the Bible.

    Popes who condemned democracy and protestantism from centuries ago are now clearly prophets too. How did they know, if they were not inspired? [*payload deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Did they prophesy a vatican that has sex in a great big pile and worships demons?

      Roman Catholicism is about to self destruct with the rest of Globohomo, and the converged protestant Churches are quietly disappearing, with only the very elderly showing up in the pews, or, as with the Anglicans, no one showing up at all.

      • The Cominator says:

        Doesn’t mention the Jesuits deliberately pozzing Protestant churches (they’ve failed to do this with ultra decentralized baptist churches) we know they did it to the Anglican church via the “Oxford movement”.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        I backed up what I said with a source and you attack the Church with nothing but scandalous rumors. [*deleted*]

      • PatS says:

        You are wrong in description of “self destruct”. This is more of a bomb planted by the enemy – an enemy the Church Identified in the 1700’s and continued to fight, effectively loosing in the outfall of Vatican II.
        Roman Catholicism as the world sees it will be masked by these invading modernists, it’s facilities and operation as a worldly company taken over by (it mostly is already).
        Bergoglio is not Catholic, but he is protected by the hordes that impaired Pau IV, JPII and Benedict… Frankly they have the Church now, it’s plain to see, but what you adn the world do not see are the tens of thousands of hard-core Latin Rite Catholics (Sedevacantists, BeneVacantis, and trads) who know the true faith….

        We, the Catholic “Church Militant”, will soon go underground, abandoning the corrupted Church’s and attached schools that will preach a non-Catholic faith.
        But the Catholic faith that has been taught since the Apostles proceeded forth will remain and proceed forward, but in lesser known numbers.
        The katechon will be removed soon – that’s when the Church goes underground.

        • The Cominator says:

          No Catholic Church before the 1100s. The Jesuits are church militant too (the Catholic Church organizational interest has nothing to do with christianity) and they caused the covid hoax and installed Biden. Why do you continue to cling to an enemy organization.

        • jim says:

          The original schism was because the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the west coveted what was Caesar’s, and in due course claimed to be the Bishop of everything and the Patriarch of everything. If you go underground, which you will, you no longer have the bone of contention between yourselves and orthodoxy. You will necessarily return to the collegial leadership practised by the apostles.

          • Uriel says:

            This hits home. I don’t have much to add, I’m coming around to agree with this wholeheartedly. “TradCath” definitely occupies substantial Meatspace but the real homeboys will tend not to go to Mass anywhere they pray for Bergolgio, which is every Trad society (FSSP, ISK, etc.) plus the SSPX. The sede churches are just fucking kooky.

            I have met a lot of good priests, who are Not Gay, but Celibate, but the whole of the Roman priesthood is (by our own standards) invalidly ordained, gay, evil, whole structure irredeemable since VII and rotting since 11th century. When Bergoglio dies, don’t have much hope for whoever comes next. I don’t need to! It is up to God to move these things and for us to do our duty.

            Can’t take away my rosary, I will continue to pray in Latin and know deep in my soul Peter was given the keys. I will also keep cruising for pussy in the rectory basement until I sire a child or 7 on some salted Polish ham of a woman with a mantilla on her head.

            Don’t think we have to worry about that now. Our great great grandchildren in Jerusalem can figure it out. If we’re lucky they’ll hammer out essence/energy.

            To the young Catholic reading this: be prepared to go into the catacombs if you have not already. Get the girl and get ready. At the beginning of this nation, Catholics, for lack of priests, did not go to Mass, did not go to Confession. They probably went to Heaven. Fittingly, at what is likely to be end of this country (as we know it), no real priests. God has given you the tools you need to live a Christian life. Perhaps leading an individually Christian life will not hasten the Restoration, but no matter what it will be pleasing to God and that is all that matters. Move somewhere safe. Buy a gun. Get friends, or at the very least neighbors.

            When push comes to shove, we’ve got to stick together and no punching to the right, or, ah, East in this case.

    • Jehu says:

      The United Methodists just split recently. The remnant of the denomination is mostly in the Global Methodist church. Thus there’s pretty much nothing left in the UMC but dirty heretics. It’s sad, I remember when the UMC was a respectable denomination of Christianity. That’s why you see that lopsided vote.

  4. SlaveOfAllah says:

    I read some of your other posts, you seem like an honourable and good man. When I stumbled upon your blog I thought it was a typical American Christian neocon trying to convince his audience that Muslims make useful idiots in their current civil war against the left, basically the same idea Jews had when they decided to import Muslims into Europe but in reverse. Now that I have read your blog more I see that I was wrong and my initial anger and irritation were entirely unjustified and misguided. I apologize for the tone of my previous comments. I will no longer comment here either because I disagree with you and your religion but there is no benefit in discussing these disagreements other than hurting the common cause we all have. It is certainly very good news that people like exist in the west.

    • Humungus says:


      Humungus is gravely disappointed at your childish manner. You think you are entitled to respect, but respect must be earned by force. Yet here you are unpacking your heart like a helpless woman before men. You’re monkey-like skull is not even fitting to serve as a hood ornament.

      • someDude says:

        Once upon a time on heartiste’s blog, there used to be a commenter called GBFM or greatBooksForMen

        • Nunya says:


          GBFM had some doozies. Often quite insightful,too. Thanks for the merry memory. Good times…

          • someDude says:

            Great commenters don’t just disappear without a trace. They reincarnated under another avatar. I occassionally wonder about Peppermint and Suones (if he could stop picking fights)

      • Humungus says:

        Slave has defied our host and insulted this blog then follows up with a puny apology. Mediocre at best.

        Be advised Slave, that Humungus never “turns the other butt-cheek” and never forgets. Pray you never meet me in person.

    • someDude says:

      Good and honorable, but still bound for hellfire, right?

      • FrankNorman says:

        Hey, he’s at least trying to make an apology for being so rude, having realized he was way out of line.

        And whether someone else goes to heaven or hell isn’t his choice to make.

        • someDude says:

          There is that

          • Yul Bornhold says:

            No there isn’t. One of the defining characteristics of brownness (imo) is petty tyranny when you think you have the whip hand and grovelling servility when you don’t. In game terms, it’s the type of beta that women call “abusive” (as opposed to white boy happy-wife-happy-life which is merely “boring” or “I love you but I’m not in love with you.”)

            • someDude says:

              Well, he did not get his ass whipped. He was just unspeakably rude and offensive. Had he continued in that vein, he undeniably would have gotten curbstomped. But he stopped before it got there.

    • Tyrone says:

      I thought you were a thought provoking commenter.

      Where else do you typically post? I would be interested to check out a forum of based Muslims. Or even based Hindus. For that matter I am always looking for good reading material, online or in books, if anyone cares to shill something.

      • someDude says:

        Most based Hindus communicate in the vernacular. The Hindus here are an exception in that they are English speaking. England speaking Indians are overwhelmingly progressive. The anglos are aces at propaganda. Gotta give them that.

        • jim says:

          They were aces at propaganda. Until recently, progressivism was led by very smart people.

          • someDude says:

            Jim, in your opinion, what IQ does a personal need to possess in order to be able to see through progressive propaganda after having been saturated in it throughout ones formative years? I’m not talking about now, when the propaganda as you say is so retarded, but let’s say one generation back when it was top of the line or even 10 years back.

            • jim says:

              One generation back, if marinated in it, hard for even a very smart person to see it through it. I had a couple of advantages — being naturally inclined to study the woman question carefully, and not entirely marinated in the official view of female nature, plus when I saw a total abrupt rewrite of the past on Chile (Pinochet coup) and Cambodia (overthrow of the Khmer Rouge), I noticed and became very suspicious of official truth and official history. Suddenly the past changed dramatically under everyone, and no one seemed to notice.

              • someDude says:

                And that’s what is so black pilling. That a smart person can fall and remain in this trap and fail to reproduce, while a dumber one can’t even understand the propaganda and goes on to be fruitful and to multiply. The human intellect appears to have a self destruct mechanism in it.

    • Mandy says:

      [*People whose email addresses and user names are not yet white listed, who and post from the frame that they are Christian, need to affirm that Christ is King, born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Through him all things were created. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.*]

    • Dear @SlaveOfAllah

      Despite my disagreement, I find your viewpoint interesting, because I have seen exactly this phenomenon, both in private life and in history. People from a Christian culture were too patient, too willing to turn the other cheek, did not engage in moderate violence when they were only moderately angry, and waited until they got extremely angry and then they got extremely violent. This is a fair point.

      @Jim maybe make a list of “potential failure modes of being Christian” and this absolutely belongs there.

      I have seen in it private life – trying to be the perfectly patient perfect parent, never raising the voice in anger, never a spank. And when they finally lost their patience, they lost it very badly.

      I have seen this historically. Weimar Germany tolerated every kind of shit the Jews pulled on them, turning the other cheek. Eventually they got extremely angry and Nazi Germany responded with extreme violence.

      But you are overgeneralizing. The classic “outgroup homogenity bias”. We think all Muslims are the same, you think all Christians are the same. Perfectly understandable, everybody does this, still not true.

      Jim is precisely in the early moderate violence camp, his most famous post is https://blog.reaction.la/war/how-to-genocide-inferior-kinds-in-a-properly-christian-manner/

      I have basically one problem with your religion: we want to be God’s children, not God’s slaves. I think the later would set a very bad precedent for our Kings. We do not want to be treated like slaves by our Kings. Which is what Ottoman Sultans precisely did. They also signed their decrees as Slave of God, subtly suggesting everybody else is their slave. Is the Ottoman model how you want your country to be ran? Or you want things like freeholds, private property, inherited, that is inviolable even to Kings?

      Other than that, my beef is not so much with Islamic doctrines, but Muslims themselves, just the usual white racist viewpoint, most of you are a bunch of 80 IQ camel herders, half-niggers, half-zanj. Obviously not personally you, you are clearly intelligent.

      I do not think Al-Ghazali destroyed Islamic science, I don’t think he denied causality, he had some very very theoretical abstract metaphysical nit to pick with Averroes, both accepted God as the ultimate cause of all and had some very abstract disagreements how it works in practice, but he did not deny causality in the everyday and scientific sense, and explicitly praised mathemathicians and scientists. @Pseudo-Chrysostom

      Rather I think your races, yes, races, not religion, never really had the genetic potential for much science. Aside from a small bunch of half-Aryan Persians and Indians, Al-Khowarizmi (algorithm) etc. Of course it did not help either that the Mongols killed all the smart people in Bagdhad. That was a real intellectual and genetic disaster as all the smart Muslims in that period tended to move to Bagdhad. Your races got sort of decapitated at that event, losing very valuable genetics. (But Tamerlane was a Muslim… your greatest disaster was by a Muslim. Contemplate this.)

      Also, ask yourself this question, why did the Muslims rule Spain or Greece for centuries and never managed to convert the high-IQ whites? Albanians might look pale but they are obviously not high-IQ whites, something is obviously inferior in their genetics, and the Bosniaks are not sure whether converts or settlers, colonists. Also they seem stupid, very basic peasant culture.

  5. The Gasman says:


    Anyway, I went to the protest at UCLA, I guess it was an off day. I’ll tell you all what I saw. jews, jews everywhere. All the people inside the encampment were jewish and there were two jewish bodyguards you had to talk your way past to enter the camp (I failed.) I saw jews screaming at jews about gaza on both sides of the fence. I eventually packed out halfway between laughing my ass off and crying. I’m an OG rioter from back in the day.

    I will never forgive boomgroid zogtards from talking me out of protesting #BLM. White girls were fucking dirty niggers left and right, they could have been fucking me instead. I hope these kids burn their skools down. Fucking zogbot commietard professors hanging from lampposts. Sorry, boomers, endowment is cancelled. White men who need to get laid are taking back the streets and you can just cope

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      I still don’t get it, what the big deal is with this Israel-Palestine-Hamas thing. It can’t possibly be about what anyone is saying it’s about.

      Hamas made a brilliant move — maybe with Netanyahu’s help and why not — and now can’t lose. GAE will scoop up and air-drop those savages into Britain and America to live off crime, breeding and voting Democrat, and to then wire money back to weird Qatari venmo accounts. And Netanyahu has no choice but to just keep on going until that happens. “Everybody wins.”

      While Egypt keeps their border closed. So rich.

      Is the point of all this to have a fresh riot movement up and running when the 2024 race heats up? They’ll be air-dropping those savages from sea to shining sea, and any right wing remaining will be objecting to this, and that’s why they need to have their houses burned down on Instagram? For human rights? And that’s why they’ll have to cancel/fake the election, because racism?

      But that’s my Alex Jones hat talking.

      On the ground, I get that this is a left-on-left supremacy battle, a proxy war between Teams A and B. I feel like a Buddhist watching the 30 Years War. “What the hell is with you people?”

      I do relish how hardly anyone cares about crying complaining Jews anymore, but is that just me seeing what I want to see? Probably.

      If you guys could chime in with your takes on what the hell this really is, I’d sure appreciate it. It’s all so fake and gay to me that I can’t even stay interested, but I should be.

      • The Cominator says:

        The big deal is that Biden now gets to import them en masse to America. When I heard that it was clear to me that was the plan the whole time.

      • Your Uncle Bob says:

        I still don’t get it, what the big deal is with this Israel-Palestine-Hamas thing. It can’t possibly be about what anyone is saying it’s about.

        Pulling this out to speak of the right rather than the left.

        A thought I’ve had before is that much of normiecon behavior comes from normal, healthy impulses squeezing out through the only channels allowed to them by their enemies, rather than how they’re meant to be expressed.

        So you see dads posing with shotguns and making threatening statements on facebook to scare off the slightly nerdy white guys with good long term career prospects that they should be locking their daughters in a room alone with, because there not allowed to keep their daughters out of college and dance clubs, much less shoot, shovel and shut up if a football player asks her to prom.

        Or in employment, I’ve seen right wing conservative white men who, when you dragged a gainfully employed black man past them, would fall over themselves trying to mentor them, take them golfing, recommend them for training and promotion. Of the worst two offenders neither was under pressure for quotas, one was pre-DEI, the later was after DEI got rolling but the company wasn’t pozzed yet, so both were apparently voluntary. An unhealthy expression of the normally healthy impulse to mentor someone who looks rather like you, that combination of physiognomy is real and a kind of vague third cousin nepotism.

        Now in the Israeli thing we’re seeing normiecons ranging from governors to bloggers to fox news watchers to bless-Israel churchgoers fall over themselves to send in the cops and crack some heads. Which cracked heads I shed no tears over, but I can’t help thinking the vehemence now is pent up release from taking the knee during BLM. If they had cleared the streets then, their heads might be clearer now.

        But on the left, I think you and Cominator already have it. Left-on-left holiness spiraling for the emotional motivation, and import infinity sandniggers for the master plan.

        The ghost of my expired civic nationalism would almost understand if we got the Palestinian Christians out first, but we all know it will be the opposite. We’ll get the muhammedans out first and the Christians will be genocided in situ.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Fucking idiots!

          The Keffiya Karens (or their handlers rather) are desperate for a Kent State 2.0 so they can stomp-out their pro-Israel co-leftist competition, and also Trump for causing it to happen with his evil MAGA mind rays. Getting hurt is how they win, not how they lose.

          Antifa knows exactly how to do this. They go from “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you…” to sainted innocent victim who must be avenged, in a heartbeat.

          They only need one. It could be anybody. It could be a 65 IQ nigger selling loose cigarettes while shooting at police, Zooming with Kamala Harris on his Obamaphone and raping a tatted-up dreadlocked Jewess in a dumpster. Just anybody!

          • The Cominator says:

            Don’t think anyone outside the far left will care if a few of these landwhales and other leftist trash get shot trying to fight the cops, hippie girls in the 60s (hippie girls are actually mostly genuinely nice girls not like prog leftists, they typically have some kind of drug problem but nice girls still) are more sympathetic than these trigglypuffs.

            I don’t want to fight Israel’s proxy wars and I oppose all foreign aid (that being said I hate Ukraine 1000x more than I will ever hate Israel) but fuck these people.

          • The Cominator says:

            Oh and that’s IF the people shot don’t turn out to be total scumbags like the people Rittenhouse shot and with a violent far left group nowadays its better than even money they are the same kind of types Rittenhouse shot.

          • The Gasman says:

            Far left, far right – I like it as long as it’s violence.
            Yukio Mishima (no homo)

      • Your Uncle Bob says:


        Blacks are relict hominids, women are running millennia old firmware meant to get them abducted and impregnated by the winners, trannies are possessed by demons, lesbians aren’t real they just haven’t met the right man yet, male homosexuals are real and it’s transmitted by child rape, jews did at least the twin towers portion of 9-11 though the Pentagon may have been an inside operation they piggybacked off of, elites and jews both rape children and the FBI are their clean-up crew not the good guys, Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan and George Soros among others are using Ukraine/Russia as a proxy war to dispose of whites on both sides.

        Jesus Christ is my lord and savior, born in Bethlehem to a virgin, came in the flesh, fully God and fully man, died and was resurrected before being taken up to Heaven where he sits at the right hand of God.

        • jim says:

          You are white listed, yet your comments keep going into the moderation queue. I am not sure what is wrong, but this is not my intention.

  6. The Gasman says:


    Women are wild animals who need the firm hand of a man early, young, and often. They start chimping out about sex way earlier than anyone would ever be comfortable with. Women should not participate in public politics (juries, voting, serving in office) in any capacity. I don’t want to go as far as the muslims do, with their niqab, but I think mormon or amish type dress is the basic standard for modesty in women, and if they go to a religious function, they should wear a shawl over their hair.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        One of us! One of us!

        • FrankNorman says:

          One does not need to agree with Jim’s positions to be able to pass the tests, just be able to describe them.

          This is because to the OpFor, those ideas are not considered to be error, they are considered as thoughtcrime. To them it does not matter if black people really got off the evolution bus a few stops too early, for example – it’s simply forbidden to raise the topic.

  7. SlaveOfAllah says:

    I doubt this comment will be published but I’ll post it anyway.

    No such thing as a based Christian. Christianity is a false religion and the source of all the major evils in this world, Feminism, LGBTQ rights, Fascism, Liberalism, Communism, Capitalism and Jewry are all the results of the excesses and shortcomings of Christianity, they were all birthed in the west, and they are all different manifestations of the vileness inherently found within that ridiculous faith. As this is an undeniable fact of history(Muslim, Indian, Chinese or Aztec civilizations did not produce these abominations, Christian civilization did), various coping mechanisms have been adopted by right-wing westerners to excuse the central role that this evil cult and its corrupted followers have played in the modernity project and its disastrous consequences. Some of you blame the Jews, who had no role to play in the first 100 years of the Anglo-Frankish experiment of modernity, when all these vile ideas were conceived and developed. In fact, these Ashkenazi Jews themselves are another monstrosity created by the extreme intolerance and the rabid viciousness of the Christian religion and its followers: every nation gets the Jews it deserves! All the excesses in the Ashkenazism could easily be seen as a by-product of the severe and unjust persecution they had to suffer at the hands of radical, brainwashed Christians for centuries, who are very prone to uncontrollable bouts of insane violence because normally they deny the necessary and natural and moral violence of an for an eye until they are rabid by rage. This insane violence of the Christian itself is a reflection of the shortcomings of the Christian moral system, which does not act as if its subjects are human beings, but angels, and does not provide them with an adequate code of conduct to regulate their behaviour in places where the limits of one’s morality are tested, such as the heat of battle or in justified revenge.

    Therefore we see a sharp disparity between the practice of Christianity and its preached doctrine, which Christian apologists often excuse by attributing these very unique failings to man’s nature, but we see no equivalent in the supposedly more violent religion of Islam, where even the most extremist elements such as ISIS still conduct themselevs according to the very sensible laws and rules ordained in the faith, such as offering protection deals with the people of the book in their territories in exchange for money, which both protects their right to their faith and keeps them away from positions of power and influence so that they never turn into a monstrous creature such as the Ashkenazim. There are videos of ISIS during its caliphate on YouTube providing Chirstians with protection in exchange for a 2% tax! That’s a better deal than the one offered by the US to Christians in America!

    Where Islam understands the necessity for violence to create and maintain civilization and codifies and regulates it to an extreme degree to prevent excesses on either side, Christianity condemns and rejects all violence doctrinally, but ends up committing a far greater level of violence in much more destructive fashion, that is how it became the dominant global faith, another undeniable and uncomfortable historical fact. But falsehood can never remain on top for long, it self destructs once the falsehoods run into the concrete wall of reality.

    Now by what little I have read of the author of this blog, he seems to be an interesting breed of radical Christian, who does not shy away from the blood stained history of his satanic religion, but instead glorifies and celebrates it as a great achievement that got them the world, and so it must be cherished and recreated. This is indeed a most welcome breath of fresh air in the suffocating putrid air of global Christian hypocrisy and historical amnesia, so credit where credit is due. But it is still delusional and wrong. The excessive violence and dogmatism of Christianity render it prone to extremisms in all directions, and the later “leftist” extremism which he views as a corruption of the core message of his faith, is nothing but a rational conclusion and an expected consequence of the doctrine itself.

    The extremist rejection of necessary violence in the west today even in self-defense, is a reaction to the extreme offensive violence committed by Christians in centuries prior. A people cannot dwell upon falsehood with a clean conscience, the guilt of your crimes will eventually catch on witb you, and the children of conquerors tear down the statues of their grandfathers. Feminism, as another example, was birthed in the west because Christianity is extremely hostile to true female nature, which the author of this blog claims to understand, but I doubt it very much. Christianity, if followed to the letter, creates a repulsive, weak beta male whom women reject with utter disgust. Go on, try it with your girlfriend or wife, go hassle some dude on the street in front her for being upon utter falsehood until he gets annoyed and slaps you across the face, then in reaction, turn the other cheek towards him. See how long your relationship with her lasts after that.

    In hypocritical Christian societies, we have two opppsing extremes existing at the same time. A tiny subset of the male population are those aforementioned violent radicals, going nation to nation, killing women and children. The vast majority of men however, are living in the safety of civilization, and as such take the preached nonesense from the pulpit too seriously, and become the saddest simpiest, sappiest cucks this world has ever seen, grown men who go around and turn the other cheek and forgive their enemies and wash male feet. All of these, nay, even one of these is enough to render a man unfuckable in the eyes of any woman for all eternity. So extreme, central pressure was necessary to keep women in check. There is a reason why the catholic church had to burn tens of thousands of innocent women constantly and the moment it stopped everything went to hell. The Christian religion is an incel’s religion, a beta, jewish incel named Paul’s, to be more precise. Women need the right to divorce a shitty husband who might betray his promises to her at a later time down the road. Women need the right to own property after their husbands die to feel safe in the world. Women need to see their men assert themselves and protect themselves instead of turning the other butt cheek. Christian cucks do not provide women with any of these basic necessities of life. In doing so they create a state of absolute hostility between the sexes which always inevitably ends in Feminism, of one sort or another. “Islam is right about women”, yes, Islam is right to give women the rights it gives them and it’s right to take away from them the rights it takes away from them. Christianity was wrong about women for 1800 years when it deprived them of those rights, and it’s wrong now for giving them in the last 200 years the ones that it has granted them, such as them murdering their babies or divorcing their dutiful husbands for no reason at all. Islam is right in telling women to cover up and asking for four witnesses for rape, because attractive female bodies hijack the male frontal lobe and women lie about rape all the time, it is also right in stoning to death actual rapists and holding husbands to their domestic duties. If a muslim woman marries a hunk of a man who later on decides he wants to wear a dress instead of performing his husbandry duties, she goes to the Ghazi and gets a divorce. If a Christian woman falls into the same trap, the catholic church ties her to a tree and burns her to death for witchcraft.

    There is no alliance between falsehood and the truth, between light and darkness. Your religion is false. Your god is one in three and three in one, like a rectangular circle, he’s both fully man and fully god, just like a tranny is a woman in a man’s body. Your theology violates logic, your morality violates common sense and human nature, your civilizations are fragile and inconsistent, and your history is filled with movement from one extreme to the opposite to compensate for all of these problems. The Jews are right about Christians, but unfortunately, we will never wake up to this reality.

    Muslims look at Christians as a parent faith, and have worked tirelessly for your approval, the same way Christians simp for and view Jews. I guess new religions need the approval of the most immediate older religion and are psychologically predisposed to appeal to them endlessly for an approval that will never be given. Christians have tried to convert the Jews to their false religion for 2000 years enthusiastically and whenever they have failed they have lashed out with the anger and hatred of a disappointed bratty child who felt entitled to this approval. Muslims have acted the same way with Christians, whereas they hate the Jews for rejecting Muhammad peace be upon him when they can clearly see the similarities and commonalities of the religions which in Muslim minds must convince the jews of the truth, they pity the Christian and excuse his violent rejection of the truth as a result of his misguidance, irrationality and indoctirnation. Time and again the Christian lashes out in rabid anger and kills women and children, and time and again Muslims refuse to return the favor. This is the conclusion that I have come to after a careful study of these religions and their histories, the Jews are right about Christians and Christianity. Where they see Muslims as misguided imbeciles LARPing as Jews and a minor hindrance to their global domination, they see Christianity as the purest and most radical manifestation of evil on this earth that can never be reformed negotiated with, or fixed. It can only be destroyed. And I agree with them. Christianity is a plague, it is radical Satanism, an inversion of all goodness and decency combined with a pursuit of indulging in the lowest most base, bestial instincts while preaching a most pristine and on-the-surface rosey doctrine to misdirect and fool. It won’t matter if we defeat Feminism, socialism, secularism or any other of Christianity’s bastard children if the parent still lives. Even if all these vile ideologies are defeated tomorrow, but Christianity survives, at some point in the future all of this will make a comeback. And no, it won’t because these are inseparable parts of man’s fallen nature, but because these are natural reactions to the vileness that is Christianity. If we had any wisdom we would have joined the Jews in their holy struggle against this enemy of all men, instead of fighting them over that tiny and insignificant piece of land. But we are not wise. We are beset by sentimentalism and a deep need for approval when it comes to the Christian. Even if our extended hand of friendship is slapped away violently a thousand times, we’ll still give it one more try. And for this, we too deserve whatever fate will bring us. Anyone who is kind to a Christian even for a moment even once, deserves the same fate as the Christian.

    The jews made the mistake of conflating Christianity with white people, white people could be fixed if they convert to anything other than Christianity, even these toilet-dodging Pajeets in your comment section who can never stop seething about Muslims are still better than Christians they seem to have some human pride, prejudice and assertiveness, even though such emotions from a hindpoo are totally unjustifiable, they are still signs of life, and signal some vigor under all that filth and poop! Christianity is so vile that even when they are preaching an alliance with Muslims against the Jews who are killing Muslim children, should be rejected and opposed. White people are victims of Christianity, but maybe the Jews are right to think that once infected, there is no cure for this disease. I don’t know. I still pray for Christians, but I find it harder and harder each day. The Christian is the ultimate enemy of mankind, but white people are good and beautiful, the few eastern european white muslims that I have known were such good people, and I don’t want to see them destroyed, I wish we had the power to force convert all of you out of this vile cult, but we don’t, so we will all be destroyed. If not now, then at some point in the future, destruction is the nature of falsehood, it is the only rational consequence of it.

    • jim says:

      You failed to take the shill test, and your next post is going to be deleted unless you lead with a thought crime, regardless of content. It is going to be deleted for what is not in it, not for what is in it.

      Indeed I never delete posts for what is in them, except posts deleted for repetition. Only for what is not in them. Please take the shill test described in the moderation policy and get white listed.

      Commenters who are not white listed may have their comments unkindly edited or silently and arbitrarily deleted

      White listed commenters can say anything they like, and it will immediately appear as is. There is no censorship on this blog, just spam prevention.

      But this seems to be actual Old type Islam, which I have not seen any shills shilling, yet, and if you are a shill, I let through new shill content in the hope of learning what is going on.

      The proposition that Mohammedans “have worked tirelessly for Christian approval” is a bit much. You are the religion of war, we are the religion of peace. You have endlessly made war on us, and endlessly made war on each other. Every Islamic war tends to be a five cornered event with various groups switching sides for momentary advantage. During the Lebanese civil war there were more armed groups than I can shake a stick at, and each group was at one time at war with each of the others, and and at one time allied with each of the others. You are always betraying, and always betrayed.

      But if you are a genuine old type Muslim, rather the Chat GPT following FBI instructions, you should be able to tell us in what Mohammed was right about women. In your rant you somehow neglected to comment about the collapse of family and marriage in the West, which seems to me an odd omission for an old type Mohammedan.

      There are plenty of times when Christians crushed Mohammedans with extreme harshness, as with the French in Barbary Coast. But reflect upon centuries of bloodshed leading up to that bloody repression. The Babary coast Muslims would attack Christians unprovoked, Christians would defeat them, grant them a generous peace, which was instantly broken. Rinse and repeat times without number. How many times did the Barbary coast attack Christians far away, lose, surrender, then promptly unsurrender and attack again? Sooner or later someone was bound to do something about it. The French made a good start on genocide, should have finished the job.

      • SlaveOfAllah says:

        I don’t know what is a shill test, you have asked me a question after publishing my comment which has earned you some respect with me and as such I will assume it was asked in good faith and respond in kind, although I strongly suspect my response will trigger your inner feminist as westerners have deep ties to their indoctrination even long after they think they have left it behind.

        Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was right about women’s sexual instincts requiring violent suppression, he was right about designating cuckoldry as the male equivalent of rape and punising it with death, he was right about women maturing sexually at a very young age anmareying off his own daughters before the age of 9, something vile Christians never mention when they discuss his marriage to Aisha at the same age, he was right to limit female participation in all male created and dominated spaces as the mere presence of a woman is enough to destroy the male uniy in those spaces, he was right that a subset of women are naturally inclined towards sexual slavery ad must be permitted to be taken as slaves if society is to manage itself effectively, he was right to grant them the right own property because without its emotional security they never stop feeling anxious about a hypothetical future and stop having kids, he was right to grant them the ight to divorce their husbands for faults because men ten to decay and become perverts and betray their promises at an alarming rate, he was right to allow and in fact encourage beatings that do not result in bodily harm to keep a woman in line, he was right to demand four witnesses for rape accusations because women routinely lie about it, and he was right to tell men to cherish and love their wives, as that’s what women need from men, and tell women to respect and obey their husbands, as that’s what men need from women, even though neither of us might actually want it. But of course it wasn’t him that was prescribing these laws. It was God almighty. Women aren’t the only thing Islam is right about, Islam is right about Slavery, it’s right about usury, it’s right about the rules of war, it’s right about dogs and pigs, it’s right about the disbelievers and everything else too.

        As for the rest of your comment perhaps I will respond to it later if you decide to publish this.

        • jim says:

          OK. Genuine Muslim, white listed. Chat GPT under FBI or Mossad instruction to create trouble between old type Muslims and Old Type Christians could not write that, neither could a shill with HR and a supervisor checking his output. Your next comment should appear immediately without passing through moderation. If it does not, you mistyped your email address or username, or I bungled, or wordpress bungled.

          If you don’t know what the shill test is, please read the moderation policy. https://blog.reaction.la/uncategorized/moderation-policy/ When you first submitted a comment to moderation, the web page should have nagged you to read it

        • jim says:

          Wrong about dogs and pigs:

          Pigs that are allowed to forage are a problem, because they pick up parasites and diseases, and pig parasites are strangely biocompatible with humans. But civilised people raise pigs in pens, because foraging pigs create problems and cause damage.

          Dogs are inclined to get dirty, but can be taught to be clean if their masters insist.

          Muslim laws on cleanliness were rational in the particular environment that Mohammed lived, but cleanliness necessarily depends on the particular environment, so one should follow the spirit, not the letter, of the law on cleanliness. Mohammedan approach to cleanliness, like the Jewish and Brahman approach, results in lack of cleanliness, which is, among other things, disobedience to the will of God.

          Interpreting God’s word legalistically leads to a bunch of priests engaging in far too much too clever by half lawyering. Christians are observably cleanlier than Orthodox Jews or Muslims, and way cleaner than Indians, therefore obeying the word of God better.

          Wrong about war and treaties:

          Islam prescribes breaking treaties as soon as convenient, or as soon as possible, even if inconvenient. In this, it is very wrong, both wicked and foolish, and this conduct has given Christians just cause and necessity for crushing Islam in terrible ways.

          Wrong about God and reality itself:

          Islam’s God can change and lie, which undermines science, technology, the scientific method, and the scientific community. Notice that any Mohammedan engineer who is any good does not take Islam too seriously.

          • SlaveOfAllah says:

            The Kaffir said: “You are the religion of war, we are the religion of peace. You have endlessly made war on us, and endlessly made war on each other.”

            Christianity is not and has never been a religion of peace. The moment Constantine had a vision and heard under this sign you will conquer, it stopped being a religion of peace. But that is not an issue as no true religion can ever be a religion of peace, God has made this world in such a way as for conflict to be inevitable, and absolutely necessary for survival. Therefore war is good, but it needs to be just war. What makes war just? No honest man who genuinely believes he has come to possess an eternal truth that sets man free from his state of natural depravity can ever sit idly by while his fellow man is lost to eternal perdition and destruction. This is why the Jews have always been hated and will always be hated, they don’t proselytize. They act as if they have found an eternal and liberating truth but keep it to their own as an ethnic thing. This bewilders and repulses honorable men, it certainly disgusted the Romans on an ontological level!

            If you truly believe that one would be lost to eternal torment if he denies this absolute truth of yours, then you have a moral obligation to save them. If you love your neighbor, you don’t let him destroy himself. There is a hadith attributed to the prophet peace be upon him that after a battle he points to the prisoners in chains and says “behold how I must bring some of you to paradise in chains”.

            The problem with Christians is not that they wage war, it’s how they do it. Because doctrinally they are deprived, and spiritually they are confused, they think themselves peacemakers until the very moment when they begin killing women and children. Turn the other cheek, and when it fails, kill everything that moves. This is irrational. It’s satanic! Muslims instead would engage and kill the armed men. Then they would take some of the wives of these armed men as sex slaves. Then they would give the rest of the people clemency and the chance to live unmolested as second-class citizens. This is better. This is the way, because many of these conquered peoples became Muslims and were saved, none of the infidels the Christians killed in their rabid blood lust ever made it out of hell, according to Christian doctrine itself. How can you truly believe in God and kill a disbeliever who cannot make war upon you while there is still a chance that they might one day be saved? You don’t actually believe in God, that’s how.

            Muslims have proven time and again that we are beholden to our own laws. We never transgress. When we retook Jerusalem we didn’t massacre the women and children like the Christians. When the Christians were killing Muslims in Spain, Suleyman the Magnificent wanted to return the favor by killing the Christians living in his territories, but the mufti of Istanbul threatened to excommunicate him. You make war upon the kuffar until they are no longer, but you do not kill a single soul that you absolutely don’t have to, because they are Allah’s creations and until they draw breath they might utter the Shahada and be saved from the hellfire. This is what it means to wage just war, this is what it means to live by sound principles.

            You talk of an alliance, or mere cooperation in the face of a common enemy. How can I forget the facts mentioned before? Christianity created these enemies, these enemies still dwell within the Christian community, within the faith, within its teachings. If Christianity is implemented a thousand times over, it will recreate Feminism, tolerance of all, communism and capitalism a thousand times too. These resulted from internal conflicts and contradictions, from the false teachings and the false beliefs mentioned above. You mistreat women, “mistreat” not according to some feminist dogma, but according to the true nature of women, as in forcing them to submit to the will of weak men, you create feminism, or something identical to it. You do this a million times, you get this a million times. You allow usury, you create oppressive capitalism where an entire civilization is liquidated and sold to the highest bidder, and honor and decency are sold at the local market. You ban men from marrying and reproducing and becoming fathers, you get buggery and homosexuality. If you make humans properties of other humans instead of treating them as the property of God, you get communism.

            The Kaffir Said “Islam is wrong about pigs”, there is no way to keep a pig clean, they are filthy animals and will regularly devour their own feces, even today it’s very difficult to keep their meat clean from parasites, their meat is also far more estrogenic and full of fat than beef or lamb. Just give up on your sausages and bacon oh Kaffir, Christ, peace be upon him, never ate swine(may God forgive me for uttering such words!), imitate the man you claim to follow!

            The Kaffir said “Islam is wrong about dogs”, Islam is perfectly correct about dogs, dog is an honorable and noble animal created by God to serve man and aid him in guarding and shepherding, the insolent kuffar instead turn him into a house pet! They dishonor the beast and insult its creator by making it small, flat-faced, stupid, wild, vicious, sickly and fat. These animals suffer greatly because of kuffar and their hubris. They have been turned into toys, instruments for the kuffar to feel better about their own miserable lives, replacing the children they may never have. Allah knew the hearts of men to be weak when he forbade playing and cuddling and touching dogs, He knew we would dishonor the beast. Look at a bulldog or french bulldog or a pug, were they created by Muslims? Did the dog-hating Muslims abuse this powerful creature and turn it into a woman’s plaything? Or was it the noblest of Christian kings? Look instead to the dogs of Muslims, the Caucasian Shepherd, the kangal, the sarabi, the afghan hound, smart, powerful and majestic creatures capable of fighting off wolves and thieves.

            The Kaffir said “Muslim approach to cleanliness is wrong because it is legalistic”.

            This is a potent argument that I have not heard elsewhere, indeed it is clever! What you say however is only correct for now, today the western Christians are cleaner than most, but that was not true historically, as the frequency and intensity of various disease outbreaks suggest, and therein lies the point: you assume the current rate of upper class western Christian is sustainable or generalizable. It is neither. Will you be honest and admit that in a remote African village the Muslims who wash their hands, feet and faces five times a day, wash when they urinate or defecate, fully immerse in clean water when they bleed or discharge semen, are cleaner than their Christian counterparts? You are comparing the highest point of your people’s cleanliness to the average of Muslim’s.

            Even today there are places in America that I have seen on YouTube that are dirtier than the dirtiest slums of India, with people rotting in their own filth. That is what must be considered as well. A bare minimum must be imposed by the Shariah, as it will be the lowest effort required. Nothing is preventing a Muslim from being more clean than the most absolute basic level ordained by God if he wishes to and is able to, just as billions of Muslims today use soap and shampoo, now that it is available. But you strip this outermost layer of modernity and the Christians go back to running away from bathing so much that they have to invent perfume!

            The Kaffir said: “Islam’s rules of war are bad”

            There are no pacts between truth and falsehood, between evil and goodness, between darkness and light. We have a duty before God, and the clock is ticking, you’ll be dead soon, and you’ll burn eternally. There are souls to be saved. The hellfire beckons. You disbelieve and in your disbelief, you find a lack of strategizing on the part of Muslims bewildering, just as all vulgar, materialistic men do, you don’t understand that the only strategy that has proven to be effective in the long term is genuine faith in God’s plans. We have our commands, and we shall see them to their conclusions. If we die, God will greet us as a friend. If we win, life and afterlife will be secured.

            The Kaffir said: “Allah changes”
            Unbelievable coming from a Christian! Allah is perfect and perfection cannot change, as something cannot become more perfect, or by definition it wouldn’t have been perfect. That which is absolutely perfecf is called God, and if there is anything in the scripture that you mistake as imperfection being attributed to Him then it cannot be true. What changes in state is not God. It is your god who gets hungry after fasting for forty days in the desert. It is your god who is tempted on the cross. The true God is beyond any change in state. He is unlike the creation.

            The Kaffir said: “Allah lies”
            It is impossible for God to lie as it would blemish his absolute perfection. He does however plot against and mocks His enemies, as that is an attribute of perfection. He does not do this by lying, but by wisdom.

            • jim says:

              > The Kaffir said: “You are the religion of war, we are the religion of peace. You have endlessly made war on us, and endlessly made war on each other.”

              > Christianity is not and has never been a religion of peace

              Christian position has from the beginning been “Peace on Earth to all men of good will“. Which allows Christians to apply Old Testament solutions when genuinely necessary, but only when genuinely necessary. And, with some horrifying exceptions, we have mostly followed that policy.

              Mohammed’s position, and Mohammedan position, has been war on everyone and betrayal of everyone. Muslims have persistently demonstrated bad will, both to Christians and each other.

              Today, Old Type Muslims and Old Type Christians should unite against the common enemy of demon worshipers in power. Trouble is, we know you are going to betray us, and probably betray each other.

              • SlaveOfAllah says:

                The Kaffir said: “Your position has been war on everyone”

                There is no betrayal in Muslim history without a greater counterpart in Christian history, name a single incident similar to the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders. There is in fact the example of the first fitna where the Roman emperor offered to aid Muawiyah against Ali and he responded by humiliating him and rejecting him. Compare this to how eager Christians have been to stab one another in the back to get a leg up in their competition with each other, not with Muslims or Jews or non-Christians, but with each other, since 1000 AD.

                But you will ignore these unfortunate truths, from the 100 years war to the 30 years war to the wars of modern times, the Christian’s body count of his own brethren, is ten times that of Islam, but if God can be man and one can be three then I’m sure war and betrayal can be peace and loyalty too. You go ahead and lie to yourself some more.

                • jim says:

                  The abbasids came to power by support of the arabs, who expected a return to the system where the ruler was appointed by consultation within the elite. The arabs immediately got screwed in favor of the persians, eventually resulting in a long complicated bunch of coups, revolts, multi cornered wars, and counter coups and innumerable wars within Islam, then power fell into the hands the Mablucks who disliked persians and arabs equally, which eventually ended in the Abbasids being reduced to figureheads.

                  (I have foreshortend centuries of war and anarchy in this brief summary. Bottom line is that Caliph betrayed his subjects, the great men among his subjects, and they betrayed him.)

                  True, we lost Byzantium due to wicked conduct by Franks, Popes, and Byzantines — but how many times has the capital of Islam moved because of much worse conduct.

                  The basic problem is that Mohammed told you to break peace treaties as soon as possible, and, surprise surprise, that is what you do.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  “There is no betrayal in Muslim history without a greater counterpart in Christian history”….

                  Does that matter here? No one is claiming that Christians have always and everywhere perfectly lived up to Christian principles.

                  But what we do not do, is rewrite our morality every time to declare breaking those principles okay.

                  But once you admit that betrayal is something wrong, you cannot then claim it was okay when Mohammad and following did it. Not to us.
                  And if you tell us you think it’s okay for a Muslim to lie to non-Muslims… then we are going to remember that you, a Muslim, could be lying to us at anytime.

                  Simply put, we cannot trust you.

            • jim says:

              > The Kaffir said: “Allah lies”
              > It is impossible for God to lie

              “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?”

              “Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.”

              That is a God who can change and lie.

              Christians addressed this sort of problem by saying that mortals expressed the will of God in a particular situation, and we need to look at the spirit and intent of what was expressed, rather than taking the words legalistically. Muslims, since Mohammed claimed to directly voice the words of God, wound up with a God that can change and lie.

              When God speaks to me, does not use words. So I must translate. Poorly. Demons however do use words. To lie, and speak the truth only when it is a part of the truth likely to deceive. It is obvious to me that Mohammed was not getting revelation from God as actual Arabic words. Does not sound like the God that speaks to me.

              Mohammed says:

              “When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals,- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.”

              Yes, forger. A son of the father of lies. God does not speak in Arabic. Nor in King James English for that matter. If he did, that would create the problems that legalistic faiths encounter. He speaks through his creation, and speaks directly to some men. Maybe all of them, but not all hear.

              • SlaveOfAllah says:

                The Kaffir said: “That is a God who can change and lie”.

                That is your delusional and bizarro world interpretation of the verses. The first one is meant to respond to the Jews who were claiming there are differences between the Quran and their earlier scriptures, and how can the word of God be forgotten, which God responds by saying He has absolute power over all things and he can do these things if He wills them so. This does not then translate into Allah changing His commands after Islam’s full revelation, therefore a Muslim will not believe and act as if God changes His will, therefore your statement is invalid.

                The second verse is, again, understood in the same manner by Muslims. Since you’re trying to attack Islamic beliefs and get at the consequences they may have socially instead of attacking their validity as standalone teachings, you should demonstrate how where and when Muslims have ascribed these interpretations to these verses. What Muslim scholar or group in history has understood Allah’s will as revealed in the Quran not to be absolute and permanent?

                If we look at this from the perspective of Kuffar as well, this is an ad hoc attempt by the prophet peace be upon him to justify past changes, and is never, not even once in 14 centuries, has been generalized to the Quran and its revelations by any Muslim. And this is why modernists of various backgrounds sometimes claim that Islam is impossible to reform, because it doesn’t consider any change to be possible to the absolute perfection that is the word of God. It appears to me that you have read the Quran and then interpreted it with your own limited knowledge, which has led you to these uncanny interpretations held by no Muslim ever.

                If a belief is supposed to have some real world effects on Muslims, shouldn’t it be first held by them?

                • jim says:

                  > > “That is a God who can change and lie”.

                  > That is your delusional and bizarro world interpretation of the verses.

                  The failure of Islamic science demonstrates that Mohammedans interpret them the same way I do. You just use more respectful language.

                  And the bloody history of Islam demonstrates that Mohammedans interpret Mohammed’s directive on breaking treaties the same way I do.

                • skippy says:

                  SlaveOfAllah reads like a typical progressive skin-suiter, in that he is unable to understand the positions he is purporting to defend as anything but disgusting, despicable, and stupid.

                  That there is literally no cause and effect is the explicitly stated position of the most impeccably credentialed Islamic philosophy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali#Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers

                  Any Muslim who thinks on such matters would know of Al-Ghazali, and even if he disagreed with Al-Ghazali he would recognize that he cannot simply pretend that Al-Ghazali does not exist, or that no Muslims have followed Al-Ghazali.

                  Not only does SlaveOfAllah not follow Al-Ghazali, but he seems to find it incomprehensible that anyone would or could think like Al-Ghazali. Literally unimaginable. To represent such a view as an Islamic view, according to him, can only be motivated by a desire to attack Islam.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              The debate between Averroes and Al-Ghazali has already happened. Between Al-Ghazali’s voluntarist god who can do anything including change his mind, making all matter of Creation a contingency with no thing more essential than any other thing; and Averroes ordered god whose mind can appreciated ahead of time, and by extension the motions of its creation appreciated ahead of time.

              And the debate was settled decicively in favor of Al-Ghazali. There’s no point in knowing what’s on mohammed’s god’s mind today, because it can just as easily be different tomorrow. Your efforts are meaningless and the fact that you make the effort anyways proves you don’t actually believe it in your heart of hearts, only deployed as convenient to rationalize degenerate impulses of such people’s spiritual character that came before hand.

              • SlaveOfAllah says:

                The Kaffir said: “Ghazali…”

                Firstly, Ghazali is not the Quran nor is he the prophet peace be upon him, and his philosophical debates with other philosophers are of no relevance to the faith as understood and practiced by the bulk of Muslims, just as no Christian consults Anselm or Aquinas to learn, understand and practice his faith.

                Secondly, you misunderstand the debates between Muslims, as Christians and non-Muslims often do, I have Ghazali’s book opened in front of me, and here is a direct quote : “God is free of change and movement. Events do not occur within Him, He is always in absolute perfection and free from any decay, and in His perfection, He is free of the need for greater perfection” This is from his book “Me’eyarul Ilm” page 95.

                The debate has nothing to do with a change in God’s will for mankind. He refuted Sina’s claim that God’s knowledge of particulars requires a change in His state, he didn’t accept that part of Ibn Sina’s argument and then claimed that God still has knowledge of particulars even if it means a change in His state, he said it is possible, rationally, for an all-knowing God to know the changes that occur in particulars while remaining constant in His state.

                Thirdly, this has nothing to do with God’s will for mankind has been revealed and has been consistent since the beginning of creation.

                Fourthly, all these debates between various Muslim scholars reveal the ridiculousness of a god bound within a body with specifications in need of specifying, which is at the centre of the Christian heresy and delusion. What’s a Christian’s response to this “problem”? Oh wait, your god gets hungry! his “perfection” is to split into three and become a body and die on a stick and feel doubt and not know what the father knows and so on.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  I notice that every time someone makes an argument against Islam, you try to deflect by an attack on Christians and Christianity.

                  In fact, attacking Christian belief seems to be what you came here to do.

                  It occurs to me to wonder at what age you were circumcised… just saying..

                  Also.. why do you keep saying “Kaffir” at anyone who debates you? Do you think you are speaking with Atheists or Hindus?

                • jim says:

                  Government shills lie because they are shills and betray because entryists. SlaveOfAllah lies because he follows in the steps of his God and his prophet, who lie and betray.

                • skippy says:

                  Whether Allah ordained his fluctuating whims ahead of time or comes to them moment-to-moment is a distinction without a difference. The conclusion is the same: nothing we know about the world now can give us any dependable knowledge about the future. Allah himself does not have to know why he later contradicts himself, the faithful arguing only that it is not a “lie” in the sense that Allah had ordained himself ahead of time to be inconsistent with his past behavior.

                  Ghazali’s position has one immense power which is that it makes Islam immune to outsiders coming in and lawyering them into believing that Islam is something that it’s not, or lawyering them into believing that Islam tells them to kill themselves, both of which Christianity is susceptible to. On the other hand, no laws of physics.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  And yet, skippy, we do see Muslims being convinced to kill themselves – with explosives.

                • skippy says:

                  Convinced to kill others with themselves as collateral damage. They go to heaven for killing, not for dying.

                  Although I would not be surprised if this method of warfare has been injected into Islam by entryists.

                • TheDividualist says:


                  >just as no Christian consults Anselm or Aquinas to learn, understand and practice his faith.

                  Clears throat in (um, mostly cultural…) Catholic… yes we do. Please do not assume all Christianity is the most simplistic kind of US Neoprotestantism.

                  Eric Voegelin said Calvin wrote a Protestant Quran – the Institutions. This might be interpreted as saying from a Catholic perspective Protestants and Muslims are equally lacking in intellectualism.

            • Humungus says:

              Greetings Jim’s Blog


              Humungus has read your words. Know that Humungus respects only strength. When your people have captured Jerusalem, you can speak with authority. Until then, you are subjugated.

              Jews exist at the pleasure of Christian goodwill. Without which, they would have been annihilated.

              • someDude says:

                Once upon a time on this blog, there used to be a commenter called peopermint

              • SlaveOfAllah says:

                The contemptible Kaffir said : “When your people have captured Jerusalem, you can speak with authority. Until then, you are subjugated”

                You are the subjugated one, whose industries, culture, laws, economy and religion are all decided for and controlled by the Jews. Not even in secret or in hiding. Not even after losing a war! We lost the wars. We lost them to white men, whom God has decided to favour above His creation, there is no shame in losing to a superior enemy. We still kept fighting long after losing. We still fight today. You and your people spat upon God’s favour, and now you’re being punished by humiliations the likes of which no Muslim has ever suffered! If the Jews kill our children, they corrupt and mutilate and infect yours with a thousand curses! It is better for a child to die under rubble than live to become transgender, homosexual, abortionist, porn star and many other everyday outcomes prepared by the Jews for your kids. Meanwhile, I am raising my son to hate the Jew. To reject the Jew and his Christian minioins. To prepare for war when it comes and to embrace a noble end over a miserable life if the need ever comes my way. You are a slave to the Jews and the worst part is they despise their slaves, as they are weak and weak men cannot rule fairly, just as women despise the men they can dominate and control, the jews despise those weak enough to fall for their trickery and filth.

                The insane, mental patient of a kaffir continued: “Jews exist at the pleasure of Christian goodwill. Without which, they would have been annihilated”

                All the evidence to the contrary, last night an institution that has spread anti-white propaganda as part of its curriculum for the last 50 years was invaded by armed men to arrest people denouncing a tiny, radical subset of foreign Jews and their genocidal conduct. “Kill all whites” is the official dogma being injected into your kids in these colleges with the full support and participation of all staff and faculty, but “Free Palestine” gets you beaten, arrested, tear gassed, expelled, deported and imprisoned. You live in a Jewish supremacist state, and the only difference between you and a Palestinian is that the latter is fighting against it, while you sit and rot in a pool of your own delusions and hubris.

                • Humungus says:

                  Humungus senses your fear and desperation, but feels no pity for the weak. Only the strong can survive. It is the way of things. If your people are strong, they will prevail. Not by words, but by their deeds.

          • Tyrone says:

            My own family would be at least 50% bigger if it weren’t for everyone loving their dogs so much.

            These are the kinds of warning we need from God. This thing that feels so right? Cuddly loyal miniature wolves to keep you company? That is actually bad for you, for reasons you can’t understand and would never figure out for yourself until it’s too late.

            But is this really what the Koran says? Dogs are fine but not as pets? Or does it ignorantly say that they are dirty and leave it at that?

            What about cats? If muslims just end up doting over birds or some other animal instead of human babies then it defeats the purpose of forbidding dogs as pets.

            • Tyrone says:

              Come to think of it, banning pets would be a great way to raise birth rates.

              The problem is that such a law would be seen as tyranny, unless it came from God.

              Maybe allow pets as a reward once you’ve already had 4 kids?

              I can think of a dozen people off the top of my head who would certainly have had more kids if they hadn’t had pets. I am probably one of them to be honest.

              • A2 says:

                I find terms like ‘fur babies’ cloying and generally depressing.

                In his essay “HOW THE SOULE DISCHARGETH HER PASSIONS UPON FALSE OBJECTS, WHEN THE TRUE FAILE IT” (Book I, Ch. IV), Michel de Montaigne, the original blogger, attributes to Plutarch the following.

                So seemes it that the soule moved and tossed, if she have not some hold to take, loseth it selfe in it selfe, and must ever be stored with some object, on which it light and worke.

                Plutarch saith fitly of those affectionate themselves to Monkies and little Dogges, that the loving part which is in us, for want of a lawful hold, rather than it will be idle, doth forge a false and frivolous hold unto itselfe. And wee see that the soule in her passions doth rather deceive itselfe, by framing a false and fantasticall subject unto itselfe, yea against her owne conceit, than not to worke upon something.

                (There are more recent translations.)

              • The Cominator says:

                Banning dogs wouldnt work and fuck you Jim has been clear only restricting womens rights works and anything else is a shill position.

                • Tyrone says:

                  I bring the subject up in a theological spirit.

                  I like pet dogs but Gnon does not. A ban on dogs sounds divinely inspired in that it is something a human would never make, but that a benevolent messenger of Gnon would deliver as a hard truth.

                  So that’s a point in favor of Islam.

                  However I’m not so sure that the Koran really bans them as pets. It sounds like the anti dog stuff is just odd ball hadiths added by fussy dog haters who were right for the wrong reasons. In the long run that makes you simply wrong, as people will look at the poor reasoning and ignore you. At best they’ll just have pet monkeys or something instead, defeating the point.

              • Fidelis says:

                More state boots on necks will not work. Banning substitute children will work as well as banning porn and prosties; zero effect.

                • Tyrone says:

                  Zero, really?
                  I do believe that a world without pets would be a world with at least a few more babies, maybe a lot more babies. I would have more cousins and maybe a brother.

                  But of course if such a law came from an earthly authority it would be tyrannical, I’m not proposing it.

                  My point is that if such a law came from a supposed prophet, I would be curious what else that prophet had to say, because it seems like a good law, but the kind of law that could only come from God or gnon Himself.

                  But did Mohammed really preach this? Or did the spiritual being who dictated the Koran actually say this? Maybe Slave of Allah can clarify?

                • The Cominator says:

                  No it wouldn’t. Only a world without women’s rights.

      • Karl says:

        SlaveOfAllah wrote (6th paragraph):

        Women need the right to divorce a shitty husband who might betray his promises to her at a later time down the road.

        Jim, how did you get the impression the poster is an adherent of old time Islam? He writtes rather pregressive content.

        • Anon says:

          there is something about him , i cant put my finger on it , like his writing was specifically designed for this blog.
          wall text was always a red flag for me because either it is copied from somewhere
          or are for hidding something in it .

          we shall see

          • jim says:

            He is like a shill, but not the same thing.

            The common factor is that we are dealing with a faith that intends to dominate all others by any means necessary. Our Dharma bros are kind of pissed that Christianity intends to dominate all others, but undeniably Christianity has shown a decent restraint about the means, unlike Woke and Islam. Woke was a little bit embarrassed about using naked violence, due to its inheritance from Christianity, but over recent decades that inhibition has been rapidly fading, with the result that it becomes more and more similar to Islam.

            • SlaveOfAllah says:

              And where, pray tell, was this restraint demonstrated, you lying, miserable kaffir? how many non-Catholics were allowed to live in Catholic lands traditionally? which religion allowed the continued existence of older, local faiths under its rule? how many pagans survived Islamic rule vs Catholic rule?

              You speak of alliances of convenience, no alliances can be reached with the cross worshippers, they are ruled over by women and Jews, and can never be trusted to act honorably, as they never have in history. Only when you feel the cold edge of my blade on the back of your neck you begin to act like a human person.

              I cannot reply to the other comments you made directly under it as I believe the limits of a comment chain have been reached there, therefore I respond to them here.

              You said: “Muslims break treaties”

              Which has nothing to do with your claim that Muslims betray each other, and do so at a greater rate or to the same degree and extent that Christians do, and have done, and continue to do today. All of which are false. Until very recently, meaning the 19th century, meaning long after Muslim’s military defeat when Napoleon marched into Egypt, it was extremely rare and in fact, I can only think of two examples where Muslims allied with non-Muslims against other Muslims. Whereas Christians couldn’t wait to sell each other out along ethno-national lines, along sectarian lines, along no lines at all! All of Islam and all the other enemies of Christianity combined(except the Jews), have not killed a fraction of how many Christians have killed each other.

              I brought historical examples where two Muslim rulers locked in a battle to the death refused the offer of a Kaffir king for help, whereas your own history is filled with various Christians allying with non-Christians to gain an upper hand over other Christians.

              You pretending that the in-fighting of Muslims over political power which has resulted in dynastic shifts, something that has also happened and continues to happen all over Christendom, is as bad as allying with foreign hostile elements against domestic rivals, is amusing to say the least, but I guess you have to say something or else you’d look even more ridiculous.

              Historical fact: Christians have been and continue to be far less honourable towards one another, towards non-Christians and towards God. As an example, there wouldn’t be a single Muslim anywhere in western europe if some Christians had not betrayed their own subjects and attempted to replace them.

              As for the Abbasids and their politics, this had little to do with religion and was mostly political, before Islam, the Persians had several princes defect to Rome and aid Romans to invade Sassanid Persia, were they Muslims also? Political defection in a giant and wealthy empire is both natural and inevitable, again, Christians are guilty of much worse. God-fearing devoted Christian catholic king Philip the sixth took over France and began a bloody conflict with the other God-fearing devoted Christian catholic king of England Edward the third that lasted for several generations and killed countless god-fearing devoted catholic Christians. So what? I don’t blame the Christian doctirne for this, human beings are like this. Internal conflicts among the believers over power are natural and inevitable, in fact they’re good as they replace the old and decrepit with the new and vigorous. Christianity reduces such conflicts no more than Islam does, history shows.

              The miserable Kaffir headed straight to hellfire known as Jim also continued: “The basic problem is that Mohammed told you to break peace treaties as soon as possible, and, surprise surprise, that is what you do.”

              The basic problem is that you don’t understand the difference between a secession of hostilities vs a pact of friendship. No Muslim can or should ever make a pact of friendship with the forces of darkness known as Judaism and Christianity, we can however make treaties to cease hostilities temporarily to achieve greater goals, improve our position, break up the plans and the unity of our enemies etc. Once these goals have been achieved, why should we not return to fixing this broken world one dead kaffir at a time? Does it offend your fake moral sensibilities?

              There have been pacts between Muslims and Christians lasting centuries, but only when the Christian is removed from the throne, and subjugated, and elevated to the dhimmi status. I say elevated because a Christian’s denial of reality, nature and its demands make Christians terrible rulers, unjust and corrupt and prone to self-destruction. Look upon your civilization now and despair! You are the dhimmis of the Jew, and he treats you a thousand times worse than any Sultan or Khaliph. You would be better off under Shariah. Your children will receive a Christian education, instead of sex ed. Your women will be forced to act with some dignity, instead of becoming porn stars. And your men will be humiliated into staying true to their duties and responsibilities, instead of racing towards destruction just to get an advantage in the short term. That is when we can have pacts and treaties, and we always remain true to these treaties, unless you break them first.

              As a Christian you are condemned to live in humiliation, as your god, you must suffer as he did, or so it is written in your corrupted books. If you submit to Islam, you will be allowed to continue your life in this coveted humiliated state. If you submit to the jew, he will destroy you long before you can gain any satisfaction from your humiliation. Either case, submit you must because that is the nature of your god and religion.

              The kaffir then said: “The failure of Islamic science demonstrates that Mohammedans interpret them the same way I do”

              The material success of the west comes with a price tag. Muslims had equal or superior sciences, arms, architecture, social and military technology with those of the west until the 15th century. After that, the Christians stopped being Christians, sold their souls and began abandoning their traditions, morals, cultures, identities and peoples in favour of worldly gains. The burden of proof is on you to show a civilization capable of advancing beyond that of Muslim’s, can also maintain its cultural and spiritual and moral integrity. Then the Islamic “failure” would constitute a true failure.

              Science is gay, scientists are gay, and scientism is super-gay. We realized this early and shut down the darul hikmah of Baghdad. You didn’t and now the world suffers. Did you take the vaccine too, are you still wearing your mask? Have you become transgender as well?

              But none of this has anything to do with the verses or your misinterpretations of them. If, like the other kaffir dog named skippy, you’re talking about occasionalism, this is then the most Bizarre misinterpretation of it I have ever seen. Firstly occasionalism has nothing to do with those verses and is a purely philosophical concept derived from philosophical reasoning based on conceptual thinking borrowed from the Persians and the Greeks, secondly occasionalism has nothing to do with God changing His will, it has to do with the revelation or occurrence of it in stages vs in a state disconnected from time and space.

              Are you saying that occasionalism results in a rejection or abandonment of the scientific method? Then I will agree with that statement. That has nothing to do with Muslims thinking Allah’s will is subject to changes.

              • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                The golden age of Muslim natural philosophy was Greek natural philosophy, residues running on inertia inherited from the Alexandrian successor kingdoms they squatted in, which inevitably were ejected like grit from a clam, an inmiscible element in the substrate it was suspended in.

                Some muslims, like our good friend Ibn Rushd, tried to plaster glue over the attachment to keep it stuck on, but such efforts, however earnest or well-posed, were futile in the end. Algazelus was channeling the pure spirit of arabica. He gave words to what his semitic bretheren were always and already disposed too. Where persian modes of thought would not prevail, ionian modes of thought most certainly would not prevail either.

                Our hypothetical Ghazali might well object to people saying mean things about his acausal thinking, that any appearance of contradiction is merely a case of lesser beings failing to comprehend the fulsomeness of the supreme being’s plan; but this in itself would be an admission that God is orderly, just with a few steps remoted, undermining his own premise.

                • jim says:

                  A Christian will say “I will do so and such”, and will then do it, or if he does not do it will feel bad about not doing it, and if he fails to do it will know he is being impious.
                  A Mohammedan will say “I will do so and such, God willing”, because he worships a capricious and changeable God, and feel he is being pious in adding “God willing”. And when the time comes, he finds it inconvenient, and conclude that God was not willing.

                • SlaveOfAllah says:

                  Nonsensical verbal diarrhoea! All civilization is the continuation and expansion of previous ones, the Greeks themselves took from the Egyptians, Persians and Babylonians and added some homosexuality to the mix. So what? Ghazali fell for the sophism of the Greeks, which happens to all civilizations once they discover that language is open to endless interpretations. As usual, you have the disgruntled intellectual’s mental illness in attributing what happens as a result of necessities commanded by the outside world to this or that idea that must have been particularly wrong or particularly bad. The woke didn’t take over America because Liberalism had bad ideas enabling such takeovers, a babied population of weak men with seemingly infinite resources to indulge in whatever sins they please will go insane in the pursuit of even more pleasure. Human Nature 101. You could have had the bestest philosophy and system and ideas and it would have still failed to stop Muslims from degenerating in 1000 AD or Westerners in 2000 AD.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Damn what a shock our ‘slave of allah’ subscribes to Historical Materialism. See you at the next progressive stack on campus I suppose I hear the local protest scene is hopping again.

                • SlaveOfAllah says:

                  The kaffir said “historical materialism..”

                  A demonstrable fact about reality is not just gonna go away because you designate it a heresy in your irrelevant, obscure anonymous online cult. I don’t know what’s historical materialism, I haven’t studied western philosophies past Aquinas as I judge trees with the fruits that they bear. Show me a civilization that manages to escape the consequences of its own material success once that success reaches the level of allowing for survival with anything less than absolute effort, and avoids moral corruption unto collapse. If you cannot show this, then attributing this corruption to some obscure idea presented by some philosopher taht 99.9% of the society you’re examining haven’t heard of or read is lunacy. It is an intellectually oriented person putting too much stock in intellectualism.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Trees grow into the sky until they fall over. Trivial to say that a peak forms when a body stops going up and starts going down. Mouthbreathing to say that wet streets cause rain.

                  Your point basically boils down to saying the problem is power, and the solution is weakness. Communism. Moselm paint on a marxist post.

                • SlaveOfAllah says:

                  The problem is worldly power at the expense of spiritual and moral power, kaffir! And there is a point where you cannot acquire any more worldly power without sacrificing your soul and morals. That’s Europe in the 1500s. That’s Muslims before the Mongol invasion.

                  You’re the one who says rain is caused by wet streets. There were and are all sorts of great and wonderful ideas presented by great and wonderful people, in all the examples above, yet people decided to follow the woke and the ash’aris instead, and the good ideas and the good men who thought them fell into obscurity. It wasn’t a lack of good ideas, it was a total lack of any interest in any idea that doesn’t preach immediate gratification of the most base desires.

                • jim says:

                  You fell into decadence after the first Abbasid. Which was not really a very impressive peak of civilisation.

                  Islam has always wielded military power disproportionate to to its affluence and level of civilisation — it was not comfort that caused your decline.

                  Your theory of material causation of decline is just the progressive rationalization for what has been going wrong. Your mind is enemy occupied.

                  Your own culture, of which you are ignorant, produced an excellent account of the cycle of history, and an excellent account of what went wrong with your civilisation: Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah

                  But, your mind is enemy occupied, your thoughts are controlled by globohomo

              • jim says:

                > You said: “Muslims break treaties”

                > Which has nothing to do with your claim that Muslims betray each other

                Mohammedans gain some benefit from a treaty, then immediately attack the party that gave them the benefit — which is conspicuous in all your treaties with Christians, but is also very noticeable in your treaties with each other.

                • SlaveOfAllah says:

                  Christians do the same, except the reward for their treachery is often a loss of power, status, land and influence. A Muslim will make a promise, say Inshallah and only remain true to that promise if it benefits him, AND if it doesn’t harm Islam. No Muslim will put self-interest before the interest of Islam, as that would immediately put him outside of the fold. A Christian will make a promise, and only remain true to it if it benefits him with zero regard for the consequences of Christendom, Christianity or Christians.

                  Betrayal when promises become too costly is human nature, betrayal with no regard for anything but self-interest is Christian nature. Because your morality is fake and was designed to signal righteousness, and nobody outside of Christ is expected to actually follow it.

              • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                >The material success of the west comes with a price tag.

                You honor and abide by the shyster when you believe the lies they tell about themselves.

                There was never a time when the Eternal Whig was for sciences, arms, architecture, social and military technology and all that. The spiritual forefathers of Harvard were as hostile to real Christians appreciating the nature of God’s creation in English civil war as their estrogen poisoned inheritors are today.

                The attempt to arrogate credit for abundance, material or otherwise, while being compulsively hostile to any sort of abundance, material or otherwise – compulsively hostile to that which makes for abundance, material or otherwise – is the oldest form of communist propaganda in the book. Communist before man ever dreamed of a word for communist.

                • SlaveOfAllah says:

                  Genuinely Interesting perspective.

                  But provide an example of a civilization that managed to avoid moral corruption after a comfratable existence with minimum effort became possible for the average citizen. Or my model wins. The price of worldly success beyond a certain point is one’s soul.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  You’d have to find a civilization with comparable levels of success in the first place, first.

                  The history of humanoid species the world over can be uncharitably summarized as an indefinite cycle of monkeys scrabbling in the dirt until they turn to dust – until aryans came along, suffused by faustian spirit, and started rising above the dirt to the stars. Noone else came close.

                • SlaveOfAllah says:

                  Kaffri said: “You’d have to find a civilization..”

                  Nope, I just have to point out to any civilization that reaches a level of advancement that allows for widespread parasitic existence to its core demographics, since every single one of them without exception falls apart at this stage.

                  The rest is nonsense, Gayrians were wild barbarians in caves when people had mega cities in MENA.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Ah yes, ‘WE WUZ KANGS’, we have dismissed such claims.

                • SlaveOfAllah says:

                  I’m sure you have, tell us then? wuz youz pharaohs and shiet? wuz youz Babylonians and shiet? Gayrians ate snow in the stepps before 600 BC. And you have nothing to do with them, norfling! Your people don’t show up in history until the Crusades! But that’s nothing to be ashamed of on your part or proud of on mine, a people who come from nothing and gain everything(but then lose it all)have as much to be proud or ashamed of as a people who had everything but lost it all. History has nothing to teach the proud except the fate of other proud peoples.

                • Fidelis says:

                  Yeah the charioteering redheaded blue eyed ruling class that appeared all at once and spread civilization everywhere was secretly neolithic mudpod colony building bugman.

              • jim says:

                > As for the Abbasids and their politics, this had little to do with religion and was mostly political

                That the Abbasids double crossed everyone and were double crossed by everyone, that the capital kept having to be moved, has everything to do with Islam.

                You claimed that Islam has no example of the treachery and misconduct that led to the fall of Byzantium. Your history is full of it.

                • SlaveOfAllah says:

                  They double-crossed everyone to the top, while your kind double crosses everyone to the bottom: They didn’t help the enemies of Islam while double crossing everyone, while Christians did, eagerly. They didn’t weaken Islam or Muslims by double crossing everyone, they dispatched a decrepit system and denounced irrational extremists who couldn’t be persuaded to cooperate, the Christians weakened themselves and empowered their enemies. They also didn’t do it on religious grounds, Ma’mun moved his capital from Baghdad to Tus because he was the son of Persian whore/slave girl while his half brother Amin was the son of an Arab noble woman. So he thought he could find more support in Iran. Then he realized Persians are a white-adjacent race of ethnos-obsessed retards who go by the one drop rule and will never treat him as a fellow Persian, so he moved back to Baghdad. How is this in any way similar to vile Christians backstabbing each other to their Ancestral enemies, allying with foreign enemies from far away against local rivals? Just look at Christian nations trying to outcompete each other in Japan, backstabbing one another into destroying Christianity altogether there. Look at Christian behaviour in the 19th century while Christians were trying to gain independence from the Ottomans and how eager western States were in backstabbing them. Look into the relationship between the Crusader Kingdom and Jerusalem and the Byzantines. Look at how Cortes’s rivals were trying to shift the alliances of natives and tried to sell him out. This is what you are. This is what you do.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Just look at Christian nations trying to outcompete each other in Japan, backstabbing one another into destroying Christianity altogether there.”

                  Roman Catholics and ESPECIALLY Jesuits are not Christians.

    • Sher Singh says:

      > Women need the right to divorce a shitty husband who might betray his promises to her at a later time down the road. Women need the right to own property after their husbands die to feel safe in the world.

      If a muslim woman marries a hunk of a man who later on decides he wants to wear a dress instead of performing his husbandry duties, she goes to the Ghazi and gets a divorce.

      Ghazi means Islamic warrior.
      You’re a retard

      • SlaveOfAllah says:

        Cow worshipper said: “Ghazi means warrior”

        Perhaps in your language and culture, the subcontinent has many mistranslated and misinterpreted words:

        • someDude says:

          Good, now say that to the Pakis and the Bangladeshis

        • Sher Singh says:

          Qadi is sometimes romanized as Gazi.
          Usually Qazi & the subcontinent uses Persian spellings.
          Except for the last century – Persian and not Arabic is the Islamic high culture.

          Ghazi with an H is a totally different word.

          Which dialect of Arabic did the dinosaurs speak?

      • someDude says:

        I think he meant to say Qazi, who is an islamic judge. But words dont translate exactly between Arabic and Urdu. Note Ramzan and Ramadan. So it might well be that what we call Qazi, they call Ghazi.

        • Sher Singh says:

          Naa, both Ghazi & Qazi are Arabic terms he’s just a retard.
          He’ll let his daughter marry a nigger too.

          He’ll also say a woman who says the shahdah is a born again virgin.
          Sulleh have gotten hella cucked LOL

          >cow worshipper

          The Arab runs on camel urine & pigeon excrement while hungrily chasing after lizards in the desert.


          • SlaveOfAllah says:

            Dung beetle said : “Nigger..”

            A “nigger” is infinitely superior to your kind, as he is at least a mighty beast among the beasts of the Savanah, standing above lions and tigers. You on the other hand are a swirling worm wallowing in excrement, twisted to mock the human form by the demons you worship, your visage an insult to the human eye and your putrid stench an assault upon the senses. Now if you’re finished with your cow dung burger, your Saahib needs his toilet washed. A technology your “people” have yet to master. Run along.

            • jim says:

              Gratuitous insults are not allowed unless entertaining, informative, or relevant to the discussion. You are not entertaining. Nor is this insult informative or relevant.

              • SlaveOfAllah says:

                Yet his insults entertain and inform you, and you let them be expressed with no warnings. Could it possibly be that after so many humiliations, defeats and changes in the goalposts you are now looking for a feasible excuse to censor me without looking like you’re running scared in front of this midwit crowd of cultists you have gathered around you? At any rate, I will not suffer a Hindu acting like a person in front of me without reminding it of its place in the hierarchy of life. Do with it as you please.

                • A2 says:

                  Suggestion on what to do, since the question has been raised: put him back on strict moderation, or just permaban. Bloated holier-than-Jim ego, as exemplified above. Adds nothing but wailing walls of text. Lop off his wanking hand, as sharia directs.

                • Tyrone says:

                  I am in no position to make suggestions but personally I have found the exchange between Slave and Jim to be fascinating even with the egos and insults. Does Slave of Allah post on any other forums?

                  Thank you A2 for the Montaigne above by the way.

              • The Cominator says:

                I think him insulting the subcontinentals by comparing them unfavorably to niggers in the way he did was kinda funny…

  8. Encelad says:

    Found this comment on “Russian with attitude” Telegram channel, which witnesses the abrupt change in the Narrative, the way it has been discussed in this blog several times. A huge white pill if true.

    “For several previous decades Russians had closely followed American trends. Partly, it was our bizzare fascination with blue jeans and 80s Rambo movies that led to the collapse of the USSR.

    Yet in 2022, the US cultural dominance in Russia came to an abrupt end. Now, no one cares about the latest US pop trends, just like no one is arguing about “feminism” or “lgbtq rights” in a serious fashion anymore. US agents of influence have self-destructed. This entire discourse has simply vanished overnight.

    It just shows that this artificial culture which was imposed on you can be turned off like a light switch, and no one will even remember that it happened. Just like in space, Russia will become a pioneer in global de-Americanization.”

    • skippy says:

      Russia, however, has its own Soviet-era feminism. Don’t tell me they didn’t celebrate International Womens’ Day, an Obama-era imposition by the US in the West for sure, but a long established event in the Warsaw Pact? So, I am not quite sure what he means by this. If Russia wants to live, it must act now to start reversing feminism. Subsidies for single mothers to have more children is the opposite of reversing feminism. We will see.

    • jim says:

      Putin failed to purge enemy agents of influence. Yet, as “Russians with an attitude” reports, they purged themselves. They got a plane ticket, packed their bag, stole everything not nailed down, destroyed everything within hand reach that they could get away with destroying, and got on the plane. I conjecture that they were simply ordered to do so as part of the sanctions, because our rulers drink their own koolaide that this operation is a a generous benefit provided to other nations.

      Overnight, there was sudden massive cultural change, like flicking a light switch.

      The Soviet fascination with American culture was spontaneous and genuine, because Soviet goods were shitty, and late soviet movies were shitty, produced by bureaucrats, not artists. Today’s US culture is shitty and its goods are shitty, and its world cultural domination is artificial, soft power that exists only because backed by hard power.

  9. Cloudswrest says:

    Stumbled upon this on Gab today. Way off topic, but interesting and does fit within this blog’s overall zeitgeist. Author speculates the “official” mainstream historian claimed motivations for Henry VIII’s behavior are bullshit.

    “Henry VIII wants to divorce his first wife Catherine of Aragon because he thinks the Habsburgs are going to kill him and take over England using his wife as a Manchurian Queen.”

    “All the other explanations are bullshit.”

    Let’s walk through the competing theories here.

    Henry VIII risked war, ditched his wife, and cleared out the church because:

    A) Horny
    B) Sexist
    C) Born Again
    D) He thinks the Catholic Church has been compromised by the Habsburgs and if he doesn’t they’ll kill him.


    • The Cominator says:

      She couldn’t make a male heir anymore. He was not “afraid” of Katherine. This is outlandish nonsense. The Hapsburgs had a lot more reason to kill him after he disinherited Mary.

      Yes the Pope was under the Emperor’s thumb but that doesn’t in and of itself mean that Charles V was planning to have him killed.

    • jim says:

      D does sound more plausible on the face of it. But E (needed a legitimate son) is more plausible than any of them.

      • Fidelis says:

        This was acknowledged deeper in the thread, he had infant sons that died. The assertion is it was reasonable to be suspicious of malavent action causing their death– of which I lack enough knowledge to comment on.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        Very Jimian description of the purge of the monasteries.

        The structure of the Catholic Church in Tudor England is almost exactly the same as the international university system today. It is an unaccountable international oligarchic bureaucracy. It answers to no master, and is master to all.

        Of course historians hate him! They identify with the church. They hate Henry for FIRING the teachers and Liquidating the universities. They will be naturally inclined to treat his enemies graciously and his allies unfavourably.

      • Alfred says:

        Apparently, she had already given him 2 sons that died under mysterious circumstances in infancy. Perhaps not all that mysterious as infant mortality was much higher in those days, but something to consider.

        • S says:

          From wiki
          Daughter- stillborn 7 months
          Son- died at 2 months
          Son- premature; only lived a few hours
          Son- stillborn 8 months
          Daughter- Bloody Mary
          Daughter- stillborn 8 months

          It doesn’t immediately raise suspicion; but if Henry VIII wasn’t having trouble producing children with his mistresses I can see justified paranoia.

          • Aidan says:

            He did have trouble producing children with his later wives. Either way, France and the English barons would have been likelier suspects than the Habsburgs. France was very scared of a German-English-Spanish alliance surrounding them, and the English barons still remembered the war of the roses and their better claims on the throne than the usurper Tudors.

            The failure of Henry to produce an heir would have caused civil war, not a Habsburg takeover. Charles V desperately wanted Henry to have a son with Catherine, for the same reasons his father wanted Arthur Tudor to marry Catherine

    • FrankNorman says:

      Well, I think the Pope was likely trying to add England to the Habsburg domains. The Latin church was after all the ghost of the Roman Empire, sitting on its grave and attempting, over and over again, to reanimate the corpse.

      • Aidan says:

        The pope and the Roman emperor were constantly at odds since the investiture controversy and the schism, with the pope attempting to build a papal empire under his direct control. This conflict did not end until 1530, when Charles V heroically broke papal secular power in the sack of Rome.

    • Aidan says:

      Bullshit. The dumb wigger doesn’t even know what a “personal union” of crowns is. Henry VIII needed an heir or England would return to civil war. His wife was no longer fertile. It’s not rocket science. The pope refused a routine annulment because the holy Roman emperor was the nephew of Catherine, and imposed on the pope to refuse annulment.

  10. Hesiod says:

    According to this AP article dutifully archived per KD compliance:


    The lad and his pals were going after the Jews next, Allah willing or some such.

  11. Fred says:

    OT: Anatoly Karlin confirmed (again) for shill. Did anyone here actually like the faggot? I knew he was a shill years ago (anyone who shills global warming should be fed into a plastic shredder), but there’s no end of “based”, “trad”, “redpilled” schmucks who either are shills, or religiously follow and promote similarly “based”, trad”, “redpilled” etc shills who shill globohomo bullshit.

  12. dharmicreality says:

    The problem with today’s Christianity is not that it is particularly pacifist (though that is a problem for its believers) but that it is Universalist. God Almighty is a universal God, but human religions cannot be universalist.

    Christianity has an innate seed of Universalism while is Mohammedanism it is very explicit in and a big problem. In the desert cult, it manifests as violence and war and social instability, whereas in Christianity it manifests as accepting that humanity as a whole will be saved by Christ. However, I think if you admit that whites, blacks, browns, yellow and every race on Earth can be Christians and in fact ideally ought to be Christian, you inherently admit that race doesn’t matter and therein lies the issue.

    If the black man, brown man and yellow man is more Christian than thou, then the white man has a problem.

    When you convert a non-Christian of another race into a Christian you are innately admitting him into your brotherhood, which leads to equality, inclusivity and all that shit.

    • dharmicreality says:

      Meant to add, Jim’s take on Christianity is the least Universalist Christianity I have found amidst the alt-right. But most of the alt-righters don’t seem to have very Jimian ideas and subscribe to the more Universalist take on Christianity.

      Jimian Christianity for the traditionally Christian nations (National Churches) + Westphalian Peace extending to all countries of goodwill (including non-Christian nations) seems to be the ideal solution.

      • someDude says:

        I second this. From the perspective of the Hindu Normie, Christians will no know peace and no rest until everyone in the world becomes a Christian.

        That being said, Jimian Christianity is something that Evangelical Indian Christians will denounce as a dangerous heresy that arises from the lust of the intellect

        • dharmicreality says:

          And this strain of Christianity that afflicts most of Bharat is the globohomo-backed Christianity which has always followed Empire and imposed the State Religion of the Empire.

          The East India Company did not want Empire initially but the attempts of the British to bring Empire to India led directly to the events of 1857.

          • someDude says:

            From this point on, I too will refer to the Homeland as Bharat. Much as the Japanese refer to theirs as Nippon.

    • S says:

      Christianity developed the social technology for this; having saints for each corporate group (including nations) gives concentric circles of care. Of course saints filling in the social role of patron gods screams ‘unprincipled exception’ and it gets demolished by protestantism or any movement seeking to return to original christianity.

      • someDude says:

        All civilization structures are inherently fragile and have multiple vulnerabilities. Hence the draconian punishments meted out to heretics. Punishments that seemed cruel and unusual at one time, but seem justified now in hindsight.

    • Karl says:

      I see your point, but brothers of faith are not the same as my people. Anyway, Orthodoxy has a solution in that every nation can have its own orthodox church

      • someDude says:

        Agreed, the Syriac Christians have been living in Kerala for 2 millenia now. They kept to themselves and like the Malabar Jews, were seen by the Hindus as another caste. I understand they have their own church and their own independent interpretation of Christian scripture. They don’t look for guidance towards any other church outside of India.

        Still, it is not an option for all of India to become orthodox Christian. We have to make the best of Hinduism or whatever is left of it.

      • i says:

        I don’t think that is quite true. All Christians drink of the same Spirit. Then they are all a brotherhood. Even with the divisions of Nations which everyone is meant to be altruistic to first before others of that brotherhood.

        • jim says:

          Christians are a synthetic tribe, nations are always ruled by synthetic tribe, and attempt, not very successfully, to be one big synthetic tribe.

          This leads to problems when Christians of one nation’s faith are inside a nation of a different faith. Naturally the authorities of that nation like evangelizing the dissident Christians, and don’t like the dissident Christians evangelizing them.

          Peace of Westphalia says that the nation of their home faith should not butt in, and the Orthodox tradition of National Churches says that national priesthood of their home faith should not butt in.

          • i says:

            Makes sense. In what way can Churches mutual support of each other globally not violate the Peace of Westphalia?

            Christians are a synthetic tribe, nations are always ruled by synthetic tribe, and attempt, not very successfully, to be one big synthetic tribe.

            Since Christianity is the Imperium of Christ. Every Nation under its umbrella is a synthetic tribe with requisite divisions between Nations and so forth.

            It shouldn’t need a singular Hierarchy but would likely be working in Parallel because of the Holy Spirit and hence working under the Direction of Christ.

            • jim says:

              The Peace of Westphalia is that if the state of a nation of faith B is internally oppressing religion C in favour of its own official faith B, it is none of the business of state C. That is is legitimate for a nation to favour its own state religion, and give other religions a hard time — especially the religion of states that it perceives as a threat, and which are giving it a hard time.

              That states are allowed to favour their state religion internally, but using state power to promote it externally is an act of aggression. Separation of state and Church in external affairs.

              On the one hand, you don’t want states using believers in their state religion in other states as pry bar into those other states. On the other hand, you want, and should have, comity between believers.

              The tension between these two in the Christian faith is typically a result of Christians not being very Christian. I have frequently remarked on the Roman Catholic Church adopting one heresy after another due to the momentary and passing needs of war and politics.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      Every being is implicitly universalist, in the sense that they believe there is a certain order to Creation, that they have certain desires, and take certain actions in order to accomplish those desires. Those actions, and not other actions. Where there are those who speak otherwise, their deeds of hand put the deeds of word to lie; the act of lie itself proving the point.

      Of course, since no one being within Being is encompassing of Being, by parenthetical necessity if nothing else, their participation in the Almighty is likewise necessarily contingent, to one degree or another. In other words, the proper expressions of universal principles can look a whole lot like particular expressions; when I need a pot, the right use of technique to make the right form of pot naturally depend on what kind of clay i am working with; the proceeding of a teleology naturally dependent on the mesh of proceeding teleologies. Even within Christendom itself there is a long adaptive tradition of this sort of particularity, the idea of Cuius Regio, Eius Religio; or, no bishop, no king.

      Many late 19th and early 20th century esotericists, most of the last genuinely interesting cultural researchers, historiographers, and intellectual movements till late, saw in the vedas the shape of universalism in this sense as well.

      • someDude says:

        Okay, a fine tuning of the argument is in order. The problem is not Christ’s universal injunction to walk the extra mile (but not 10) for peace, or to turn one cheek (but not 2) or to be a good neighbor (physically lives next door) or to be harmless as a dove but wise as a serpent or peace on earth to all men of Good will. No Hindu has an issue with any of that. Infact, we’ll i corporate that into Hinduism in case it is not already there in another form.

        The issue is the evangelical belief that everyone in the world must become a Christian and accept Christ’s payment for all sins or else they will all be dispatched to hell come Judgement day regardless of all the virtues they practice or the moral commandments they follow.

        • jim says:

          That becomes a problem only when a power that adheres to one faith want to “protect” its cobelievers inside a nation of another faith. Peace of Westphalia is that you don’t do that, and peace of Westphalia should be extended to all men of good will.

          It is reasonable for ethnic state to protect its coethnics. But when we are speaking not of coethnics, but of fellow believers in an evangelical faith, there is an obvious problem.

          • dharmicreality says:

            You are absolutely right. Right now the American Evangelicals, being a derivative of Globohomo are more worried about their brown “bretheren” being “subjugated and marginalized” by Modi and the BJP rather than fellow Christian Nationalists in America.

            Hence, the Christian flavour of globohomo is a threat in India, while globohomo takes a distinctive anti-Christian flavour in Western Christian nations.

            • i says:


              While in accordance with Westphalian Tradition Christians being marginal is fine in India.

              I don’t find the argument about “forced conversions” factual.

              But the point is True. Certainly dealing with the subversion at home should be more pressing.

    • Zorost says:

      Great points.
      If a society adheres to the tenets of Christianity, then its people will be fruitful and multiply. Where does one get the land to expand except from non-Christians? If there is nothing but Christians and many are of a different race who may breed faster due to being inferior, where do we expand to? How does a White Christian nation say to those colored Christians, “we love you like brothers, but stay the fuck out of our nations” and still remain good Christians?

      This has always been the problem with Christianity for the Alt-Right, or White-Right, whatever you want to call it. Where does your first loyalty lie, your religion or your race? If race, then you don’t really have a religion, just a hobby. If religion, then you don’t really have a race, just some people that look like you.

      Until race and religion are combined, it simply isn’t feasible in the long term to try to have both.

      -isms always end up dividing us.

      • jim says:

        For nearly two millennia, the problem you describe obviously did not occur — Jimian Christianity is the original edition, as Christians interpreted Christianity for near two millennia:

        See my post “How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner

        Hippy Pacifist Jesus the Jewish community organizer is Post Christianity trying to rationalize its capitulation to demon worship.

      • Jimian The Heretic says:

        [*your comment was deleted because you claimed to be more Christian than the person you were addressing.

        I am sick of gays, Jews, demon worshippers, and gay Jewish demon worshippers telling Christians what Christianity is.

        If you want such comments to get through, start by affirming that Christ is King, born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Through him all things were created. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.

        And pass the shill test described in the moderation policy and get white listed.
        Commenters who have not passed the shill test may have their comments unkindly edited or silently and arbitrarily deleted*]

      • jim says:

        > -isms always end up dividing us

        Recollect the concert of Europe. A Europe united by Christianity.

      • someDude says:

        Hence ethnoreligions. Your race defines your religious identity. You can’t be Shinto if you are not Japanese.

      • FrankNorman says:

        Are you assuming the supply of land to live on is finite? The Dutch would disagree.

        Remember also, that the Earth is not the whole universe… some of us look up at the sky, and see the stars as there for the taking, once we have the technology.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Judeo-Islam. Judeo-Islamic values. Judeo-Islamic principles The Judeo-Islamic tradition. I’m waiting.

  13. Calvin says:

    Forgiving of one’s enemies is, imo, one of the single biggest problems of Christianity. The fact that you acknowledge him as being holier than you for doing so is representative of that fact. Someone who stabs a random old man should not be forgiven even if he begs on his hands and knees for it, let alone without any prompting. Such an offender should be publicly stabbed to death himself, and the man who did it should have a place of pride in the community.

    • jim says:

      > Forgiving of one’s enemies is, imo, one of the single biggest problems of Christianity.

      “Peace on earth to all men of good will”, allows Old Testament solutions when men of bad will cause problems.

      Reviewing the past two millenia of wars, it is obvious that Christians have been able to act more cohesively and with better logistics than their enemies. Willingness to bury the hatchet is undoubtedly a large part of that.

      If one forgives one’s enemies, and they do it again, or are likely to do it again, if they exhibit bad will, a Christian is allowed to be as wise as a serpent.

      • Calvin says:

        The attacker evidences no good will. Therefore, by your own logic, forgiving him is an unholy thing to do and the bishop is wrong to proclaim his forgiveness. He is, himself, holiness spiraling.

        And, frankly, your attitude towards it isn’t actually the historical attitude evidenced by most of the people held up by Christianity as exemplars. See for example Seraphim of Serov and how he handled being beaten half to death by some robbers. It’s a totally dysfunctional attitude papered over by some generous unprincipled exceptions.

        • Fidelis says:

          We’re expecting self appointed priests to be wise. Problem is the self appointed priests are not next to kings and warriors, nothing offering empirical ground to root them. I would expect a different reaction if this man was traveling with a group of soldiers, if not from him than from the soldiers themselves. This sort of public forgiveness game seems closer to coping with losing status and safety by self righteousness. No one is perfect.

          Anyway it’s in bad taste to continue making these sorts of nitpicking attacks over and over. Either start working on a real alternative or shut up, no one fucking cares, everyone else is also fucking tired of clown world, and your bitching helps exactly no one.

          • Hesiod says:

            Also, the priest was wounded, not slain, during religious service, not on the battlefield. Most likely, he’s privy to more information concerning the attack than any of us are, and thus can judge the inept boy whose convictions, motives, and ultimate masters are still obscure.

            However, allegedly the bishop’s congregation went down the “riot” route and damaged some government vehicles and minions. This gave the MSM opportunity to wring hankies over the safety of the attacker and his kin.

            • Calvin says:

              The congregation’s response was far more appropriate, I think.

              • Hesiod says:

                The two responses are not exclusive or even contradictory within Christianity. Unfortunately, Hippy Jesus has held primacy in collective Western imagination for lamentably too long. History, however, tells a much bolder and bloodier tale as Jim so aptly illustrates for our edification.

        • jim says:

          > It’s a totally dysfunctional attitude

          The attitude of Saint Justinian the Emperor and Saint Theodore the Varangian seems mighty functional.

          And, in fact, the pacific conduct of the Bishop was functional under the circumstances. (Which were very different from the circumstances faced by Saint Justinian and Saint Theodore, which required a more forceful and confrontational approach to evil) It made the attack more blatantly evil, and he knew the attacker was going to restrained regardless. The attacker is still under restraint, and forgiving him might well shame him and cause him to change his attitude. And if it fails to accomplish this, no harm done, because it is not going to make the attacker any less likely to remain under forcible restraint. Indeed, the pacific response of the Bishop makes the attacker more likely to remain under restraint, not less likely.

          Christians have never had any problem dealing with evil in a more forceful manner. Christians are required to do their best to find other solutions, but old testament solutions are available when unavoidable, and lots of Christians have applied them, and been deemed saints.

          • Calvin says:

            Christians have never had any problem dealing with evil in a more forceful manner.

            Quite the contrary, their failure to do so is an immense part of the reason we are where we are now. Children would not now be castrated at the whims of insane women if Christians had proven willing to deal with evil in a more forceful manner a long time ago.

            • jim says:

              Christians in power have never hesitated to deal with evil in a forceful manner when that was in their job description. All this stuff happened because Christians have been out of power since 1830.

              Christians in power had and applied the death penalty for just about everything.

              • Calvin says:

                One does not lose power if one is doing a good job of rooting out evil and subversive elements. They don’t just walk in one day and become the government.

                • jim says:

                  Christianity did not lose power to overtly hostile elements like Muslims, did not lose power to people like the kid who attacked the Bishop or whichever organisation sent him in. It lost power to the Socinians — to postChristian elements who claimed superior holiness.

                  It failed to suppress heresy, not obvious evil. Forgiveness had nothing to do with its loss of power. In almost every direct open violent angry confrontation, from the 305th year of our Lord to 1840 Christianity won by the cheerful application of superior organised violence. Frontal attacks have been applied against Christianity with great regularity, and from 305 AD to 1840 AD usually ended badly for the attacker. History gives us an overwhelming lesson that overt frontal attacks on Christianity in power are apt to result in swift dispatch to divine judgment. And Christians have slept like babies after justly dispatching their enemies.

                • Calvin says:

                  You don’t seem to be getting it. Why did Christians find these claims to superior holiness so plausible they willingly handed over their entire civilization to such people?

                • jim says:

                  Your original claim was that Christian pacifism led to the debacle.

                  Now you are changing your claim without acknowledging that you are retreating.

                  In answer to your new argument. The problem was late virgin marriage. Late virgin marriage requires alarmingly and disturbingly harsh and drastic measures against women, and they rightly felt bad about it. So when the post Christians told them that they were insufficiently holy on the woman question, they were pushing on a weak and vulnerable spot.

                  Obviously late virgin marriage builds a better civilization than marrying daughters off at twelve to fourteen, but it also builds a civilization more vulnerable to hostile entryists. I am not in favor of trying it again.

                  The enemy tactic was to deny that these disturbingly drastic measures were necessary, and then deny the ensuing debacle, on the grounds that noticing female immorality was a plot by demonic evil males to maliciously ravage weak and vulnerable women. In 1905-1910 they switched from “female immorality is not happening and anyone who notices it happening is a bad person” to their new payload “consenting adults”.

                  “Victorianism” was the enemy payload “It is not happening and could never happen”, which in 1910 or so became, as usual, “It is happening, and that is a good thing”

                  In order to make late virgin marriage work, you have to monitor women 24/7 to prevent them from being exposed to temptation, and if they evade monitoring for five minutes, destroy their lives. They have to instantly become incapable of being raped, due to lack of chastity. So have to immediately get married to whomever will have them, and whomever will have them gets carte-blanche to ensure no repetition by any means necessary.

                  Or we could combine both approaches. Early marriage for some, late virgin marriage for those under paternal authority and subject to 24/7 monitoring, and marriage by abduction for those of obviously fertile age and not under 24/7 monitoring or not under paternal authority.

                • Calvin says:

                  Your original claim was that Christian pacifism led to the debacle.

                  Now you are changing your claim without acknowledging that you are retreating.

                  Actually no, I said from the very first word that the problem was a culture of forgiveness towards enemies. Not strictly pacifism, per se. What you just described is exactly that, a culture wherein forgiving loose women was considered morally superior to punishing loose women, and therefore got easily holiness spiraled into our current madness. Could not happen in a context wherein punishment was considered a holy duty worthy of praise and status and failure to punish itself considered culpable.

                • jim says:

                  But the argument I responded to implicitly acknowledged that forgiveness of enemies had nothing to do with it.

                  So you backed away from your original claim, and when I called you out on backing away from it, you are now backing away from backing away.

                  Stop slithering all over the place!

                  When Christianity is in power, people who openly front up against it as adversaries usually get killed or enslaved, so the culture of forgiveness has objectively never been a significant problem.. They had to sneak around as supposedly not enemies, merely Christians who were more Christian than thou and wanted everyone to be as very Christian as their very Christian selves.

                  Against which attack, forgiveness of enemies is not a vulnerability, but a strength.

                  The attack did not succeed because of a culture of forgiveness, but because the people that they sought to destroy had a guilty conscience about the extremely harsh treatment of women necessary to sustain late virgin marriage. Of course letting women loose had catastrophic consequences for women (women, like chickens and sheep, are maladapted to independence) to which their solution was to replace fathers by the welfare state. (Yes, welfare state got going under Queen Victoria)

                • someDude says:

                  Jim, why is it that late virgin marriage leads to a better civilization than marrying off girls at 12-14?

                  Is it because it leads the men to be more cohesive in subduing female misbehavior?

                  Is it that it causes dads to invest more in their daughter’s upbringing, i.e. higher IQ women who in turn can raise higher IQ boys?

                • jim says:

                  I don’t know. But it is an observed outcome. Maybe causation is the other way around. Maybe greater male solidarity and a high trust civilization make late virgin marriage workable. No idea.

                  That the causation the other way around is consistent with my gut feeling that it would be a whole lot easier to enforce early, very early, virgin marriage in today’s America than late virgin marriage.

                  If we provide both options, then perhaps if we succeed in rebuilding a high trust, high cooperation society, late virgin marriage will expand relative to very early virgin marriage. We have insufficient data to reliably know how the causation works.

                • someDude says:

                  Thats why I love this blog. There is great rigor in analyses. Commenters here, following Jim’s example, say they don’t know or they have insufficient data when they feel their argument is not rigorous enough. It is a great virtue to resist the temptation to speculate in the absence of a rigorous argument or insufficient data.

                  This is a very high IQ, high virtue blog.

                • Mayflower Sperg says:

                  Late virgin marriage allows men to observe females through more of their life cycle before choosing wives, thus selecting for more pro-civilizational qualities.

                  This may also explain how western civ survived several generations of feminism instead of collapsing immediately. Women were selected for good behavior.

                • RedBible says:

                  On the topic of Age and Marriage and the history of it I know a fair bit, but I really don’t have the time right now for a proper effort post.

                  But the one thing I think is worth Highlighting is that the elite class during much of Europe’s history has had their daughters on average married by 14 and with 2 kids by 18. I don’t think that holding off marriage probably helps all that much, but being able to hold it off via cooperation and social technology probably does.

                • Aidan says:

                  Mayflower Sperg is right. Gives women a chance to show off their genetic quality and maximize the quality of their suitors. Marrying women off at 13 happens in very dangerous and uncertain social conditions. Need to get breeding as soon as fertile because you could be dead tomorrow.

                  In low trust societies, like Viking Norway giving a man your daughter makes him your friend, and you want to do that ASAP. So early virgin marriage. In high trust societies, the need to make friends with dangerous men is less pressing.

                • jim says:

                  This is a case for marrying off women at their hottest: Late virgin marriage. Thirteen is not hot. Seventeen is before maximum hotness, but it is mighty close to maximum hotness. The longer you delay, the greater the difficulty, and more stressful and oppressive the control of women needs to be, to maintain virginity.

                  If a society practices virgin marriage, the closer to maxium hotness, the greater the cost.

                  Then there is the transition problem. When you are trying to transition society back to virgin marriage, the only virgins around are going to be ridiculously young.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Late virgin marriage will be almost impossible to implement and sustain and it opens the door to feminism in various ways. If it selects for good behavior well… that opens the door even more for feminism down the road.

                  A girl should be married off the second she seems to be uncontrollable and women become very very difficult for their parents around 13-14 generally.

        • Alfred says:

          I’d leave it to Jim to put it better, but I think the statement “Love your enemies” doesn’t mean “have no enemies”.

          I’d argue you can have some metaphysical “love” for your enemies while still treating them in an adversarial, manner, and probably even killing them.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            There’s no need to commit such philosophical abuse. Hostis and inimicus are two different things. As is often observed, the original greek had different words meaning different things when talking about different contexts that were each and all translated with the same word in english – setting up hundreds of years of mistakenly tortuous impressions, unfortunately.

          • jim says:

            From 305 AD to 1840 AD, Christianity demonstrated superior effectiveness in killing open and overt enemies. It fell to the holier than thou. Anti slavery, anti colonialism, prohibition. “Lips that touch liquor will never touch mine”

            • Karl says:

              East Rome fell to overt enemies.

            • Contaminated NEET says:

              >From 305 AD to 1840 AD, Christianity demonstrated superior effectiveness in killing open and overt enemies. It fell to the holier than thou. Anti slavery, anti colonialism, prohibition.

              I couldn’t agree more. The problem is, the Progressive made a good case that he is a better Christian than the Christian. Sure, you can argue that it’s wrong, but it was persuasive to enough Christians that they stepped aside and gave the Progs all their former power. This is a real problem with Christianity. The Church used to control it by shipping the overly holy to monasteries for a life of prayer and seclusion where they couldn’t do much damage, but Gutenberg took the cork out of that bottle and nobody will ever be able to put it back.

              Old time Christianity was great, but its critical weakpoints are well mapped and well publicized, like the radiator on the back of a Helldivers tank. Hit them for massive damage. There’s no going back. Paganism is a bad joke in the West (good luck, Dharmabros; you might just have a chance and I’m rooting for you). Maybe Islam could do what we need. It’s evil and anti-human, but it’s a damn sight better than total demon victory.

              • jim says:

                > the Progressive made a good case that he is a better Christian than the Christian.

                Yes the Progressive did. But that is not the problem of forgiveness of enemies. Christianity in power has never had hesitation in appropriately dealing with enemies who front up as enemies. You are required to love your enemies, but allowed to smash their skulls in with a mace.

                Don’t bring in other arguments until the original argument is dead and buried. When you switch arguments, you are conceding the original claim while refusing to admit you are conceding the original claim.

                First, admit you concede the original claim, then we can move on to the next claim.

                Observe how I argue when I lose a point “Yes, you are right about that, contrary to what I said, but …” and then I raise the next issue.

                I want rational debate on my blog, and you are slithering like a worm.

                If you won’t concede the original point, I am not going to move on to the next point, and the argument will devolve into repetition, at which point I will silence it on the grounds that we have both repeated ourselves far too many times.

                Debate the original claim, or concede it, or this argument will forever run in circles pointlessly.

                And then we will discuss your next stupid claim: “its critical weakpoints are well mapped ”

                To which I reply that is as absurd as the first claim, but if you will not defend nor concede the first claim, no point in discussing the new claim.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  Fair enough. I can’t speak for Calvin, but I’ll concede that Christianity in power did not have trouble dealing with open enemies who were openly violent. There are some weird offshoot mutations like the Amish that might go Moriori if they were openly attacked, but that’s really not the problem.

                  Tell me please, what’s stupid about the claim that Christianity’s weakpoints are well known? Everyone can see how the Progs took over, and it would be easy to repeat if necessary. Exaggerate the communistic, egalitarian, universalist, world-denying elements present in Christianity to claim superior holiness, and existing Christian churches, organizations, and populations fall into your hands. I love the far the way that you, small-souled selfish spiritual weaklings that you are, can only love the near. I love the sinner the way that you can only love the saint, and aren’t we all sinners after all? It’s been happening from the Munster Rebellion through to Jim Jones. Better communication methods and better understanding of Christianity just make the process easier and faster, if anything.

                • jim says:

                  > Everyone can see how the Progs took over, and it would be easy to repeat if necessary.

                  If it was such a well known and obvious weak point, would have been used a thousand years ago. It was not.

                  Every takeover has used a different weak point. It is not easy to repeat because Christians read their history. Every attack uses a new vector, and something often gets added to the creeds to keep them out next time around.

                  The original Brownist attack vector was “Pure” Christianity. Christianity purified of its “pagan additions”. Such as Christmas and sacral marriage. Which is to say, Jewish Christianity. But Jesus spoke Greek, and synthesized both Jewish and Greek elements. The purifiers wound up purifying Paul as insufficiently pure, and were in fact purifying Jesus though they did not admit to doing so.

                  This, as it became ever more extreme pissed off Cromwell, who came down on them like a ton of bricks. He agreed with crushing Christmas and desecrating marriage, but then they just kept on purifying, and he saw that ever more holy was starting to look distinctly heretical. They kept on trying that one for near a century, and then gave up on it and then the same people and groups tried this new vector, starting in around 1770 or so. So, not such an obvious vector.

                  The same people and groups who had been saying that marriage was not sacred, and they therefore wanted to take the Church and faith out of it, suddenly started saying they wanted to morally improve marriage by making it less oppressive to women, a switch that revealed cynical motives, but also reflected the fact that the purification program was dead in the water. If such an obvious attack vector and obvious vulnerability, would have switched a lot earlier.

                  Christianity is appallingly vulnerable to holier than thou, but the direction of superior holiness is different each time — the only common factor being that it seldom involves any great effort or cost to the more holy -seldom involves actual this worldly good conduct. That it always represents a serious break with Saint Paul’s list of virtues that candidates for the clergy should display.

                  King and high priest should direct the extremely holy into activities that are costly to them, and render them far from the corrupting temptations of power and wealth. Such as prayer in a remote poorly heated monastery in the outer Hebrides. Those who exhibit superior holiness in this manner should be honored, while King and high priest are able to get on with business. By giving appropriate honor to such people, you can neutralize those who are apt to exhibit their superior holiness in a more comfortable and convenient manner dangerously closer to the corridors of power.

    • Karl says:

      Christian societies used to have the death penalty for such crimes and executions were usually public.

      The victim of a crime might forgive the attacker, but that did not prevent the execution of the attacker. The victim of a crime did not judge. That was the job of the king or his magistrate.

      So what is your point? Do you deny that these societies were Christian? If not, where is the problem?

      • Calvin says:

        My point is that Christianity fosters an attitude in which the man who forgives a random goon who stabbed him is holier than the judge who sentences that goon to be stabbed to death, let alone a vigilante who does it when a justice system fails to. This is a terrible, anti-civilizational attitude and it is a major contributing factor to why each and every Christian society succumbed to the exact same disease within a very short period of time. No one in any other society has ever come up with comparable ideas.

        • Jamesthe1st says:

          Forgiving someone doesn’t mean you still cannot meet out the just punishment.

          • jim says:

            I keep repeating. From 305 AD to 1840 AD Christian societies applied the death penalty frequently and vigorously, and fought terrible wars, for the most part successfully, against non Christian societies, nations, and governments. They for the most part honestly sought to bury the hatchet, but when genuinely necessary, applied horrifyingly bloody Old Testament solutions, and had no qualms in doing so.

            It is completely obvious that the conventional and usual interpretation of Christianity when it was in power, was the Christ that applied the whip and overturned the tables in the temple, not Jesus the hippy pacifist Jewish community organiser.

            Millenia of history show that Christians have never had a problem going Old Testament when needful. Yes, the priest who submits to violence is holier than the King who prevents violence, but somehow the violent guy who attacks the priest winds up copping it, and the priest enables the authority of the King to do it.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          Christ forgave the repentant thief and promised him a place in Heaven for his faith. He did not free him from crucifixion, and the thief died as Christ did, in agony.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            And the Progressive doesn’t just forgive, but takes the thief down off the cross and gives him subsidized housing and preferential hiring to help him get back on his feet so he’ll never have to steal again. Therefore the Proggie is more Christian than Christ. He’s certainly holier than you or me, and should have power over us force us to behave more like he does.

            Yes, I know, they’re misinterpreting Christianity. I know it, you know it, Jim knows it, and yet, most Christians demonstrably don’t know it, because the Progs conquered Christianity with that claim.

            • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

              They conquered, sure. Last time, that worked. Next time someone tries it, we will know that Chist has perfect mercy, and the appropriate mercy to the condemned is to forgive him while you justly punish him. Pulling someone off the Cross is not Christlike behavior and gets you put on a stake to burn next to the wicked.

        • alf says:

          Christianity fosters an attitude in which the man who forgives a random goon who stabbed him is holier than the judge who sentences that goon to be stabbed to death

          As a fairly recent Christian convert crossing over from the Dark Enlightenment, obviously I have selfish expectations that Christianity works for me and works for civilisation. So far working out pretty good for me.

          You misunderstand the part about forgival. Firstly of course, the major point of Christianity which I now understand is that we are sinful creatures. Each and every one of us. The natural state of mankind is good mixed with sins, and those sins prevent civilisation from being built, and will make a built civilisation collapse.

          In Christ’s cruxifixion, God makes a major point in forgiving us for our sins. That does not mean that a goon who is forgiven is holy or anything crazy like that. It means he too, despite living in more sin than the average person, is also accepted as a fellow human being, as a child of God, thereby making it easier to carry out the death sentence, not harder, should he so deserve it.

          The biggest troubles are caused by people who fight over the same sins. If two greedy men have to work together, one will always feel like the other is giving him the short end of the stick. However, if a Christian works together with a greedy man, the Christian will forgive the greedy man for his avarice and make the best of the situation. Not only is this better for the Christian, this, at-large, is how civilisation is built.

        • Karl says:

          My point is that Christianity fosters an attitude in which the man who forgives a random goon who stabbed him is holier than the judge who sentences that goon to be stabbed to death

          Does it? I had been taught that forgiving requires repentance. Forgiving an attacker who repents is very different from forgiving an attacker who does not.

          Anyway, law in Christian societies was that the magistrate had to judge according to the law. Even if the judge would want to forgive, he was not allowed to do so. His job was to judge the accused according to the deed. The judge was a servant of the king and he was bound in his service to the king.

          The king had the right to forgive the crime and grant a pardon. The fact that supreme rulers could give pardons is not limited to Christian societies. My impression is that this right of rulers is rather common. So you can’t base a critic of Christianity on it.

          I very much doubt that a man forgiving his attacker was seen as more holy than a loyal servant of the king acting with limited powers according to the king’s just law

          • Calvin says:

            I very much doubt that a man forgiving his attacker was seen as more holy than a loyal servant of the king acting with limited powers according to the king’s just law</blockquote

            Between Seraphim of Sarov and the judge who was doing the right thing, which of these two do you think the Russian Orthodox Church (Jim's go-to example of a live Christian sect) made a saint?

            While living in this little hermitage of his, St. Seraphim once suffered greatly at the hands of robbers. Although he was physically very strong and was holding an axe at the time, St. Seraphim did not resist them. In answer to their threats and their demands for money, he lay his axe down on the ground, crossed his arms on his chest and obediently gave himself up to them. They began to beat him on the head with the handle of his own axe. Blood began to pour out of his mouth and ears, and he fell unconscious. After that they began to hit him with a log, trampled him under foot, and dragged him along the ground. They stopped beating him only when they had decided that he had died. The only treasure which the robbers found in his cell was the icon of the Mother of God of Deep Emotion (Ymileniye), before which he always prayed. When, after some time, the robbers were caught and brought to justice, the holy monk interceded on their behalf before the judge.


            • Karl says:

              Al right. Your example shows that it is indeed one of the points where holyness spiraling can attack and indeed has attacked in the past.

  14. The followers of the false prophet muhammad are a global terrorist group. They need to be treated as one.

  15. Reziac says:

    The bishop pissed off the Muslim by being a Christian. Islam mandates that all infidels shall be either subjugated or killed; killing an infidel is the Muslim’s surefire ticket to heaven. It’s that simple.

    Quran 8:12 – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

    Quran 9:29 – “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”

    [“People of the Book” means Jews and Christians. “Willing submission” means you are to be be beaten and humiliated while you are paying the extortion tax so you can keep breathing.]

    Being infested with demons is not a good reason to embrace the world’s biggest demon, just because the world’s biggest demon says some agreeable things. It is wise to remember that before Islam, all of its current domain was Christian; what is now Turkey was the epicenter of the classical Christian world. It will never again be Christian.

    Also, note the overlap of Islam with the IQ map. The sweet spot for Islam is IQ85, same as for career criiminals (smart enough to be criminal; not smart enough to see consequences, or even to invent the wheel). Islam tends to enforce both low intelligence and a high incidence of mental illness (by mandating both inbreeding and the killing of anyone who questions Islam), perhaps because that maximizes violence against anyone who is not a Muslim.

    Welcoming the demon of Islam because it will kill some of our demons will not improve our society (it certainly has done nothing for the Middle East; and if you think it has, consider that sodomy of boys is the leading sexual practice in Muslim-fundamentalist Afghanistan and Iraq), but it will most certainly destroy what is left of our Christian culture. Ejecting Islam’s piles-of-skulls occupation took Spain 700 years of blood and death, and to date it is the only country that has ever shed the Muslim yoke.

    I would suggest becoming familiar with the scholarship of Raymond Ibrahim (who is a Coptic Christian), or more accessibly, Robert Spencer (Greek Orthodox, not a Jew as some accuse). And for those who believe Islamic Spain was a golden age, The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise by Dario Fernández-Morera.

    • DH says:

      Being infested with demons is not a good reason to embrace the world’s biggest demon […] Welcoming the demon of Islam because it will kill some of our demons will not improve our society

      The post you are responding to does not welcome the demon of Islam into the West. Jim’s argument here and elsewhere is that it is not yet time for war with Islam, because Progressivism is a bigger problem, and it is currently preferable to cooperate with (not really “embrace”) Islam against Cthulhu Xirself. If you think that he is wrong about that, then present your argument against his actual position; “welcoming the demon of Islam” is kind of a strawman.

      • Reziac says:

        Progressivism comes and goes. We need merely stop tolerating it, return to shaming and punishing it, essentially revert to the social mores of a couple generations back, and it would be if not gone, at least stuffed back into the closet where it would not much affect the rest of society. I am old enough to remember how things were, when moms stayed home and perverts feared to be known.

        Conversely, history informs us that once you have Islam, you are stuck with it, probably forever. And it lies about everything. It is not a good ally, even in the short term; it is like allying with Satan to be rid of a djinn. Consider too that a great deal of campus idiocy is funded by Qatar, and wonder how much progressive BS depends on Muslim money.

        And because Islam is preferentially a harem society, where most men cannot get pussy without violence against other men (hence the common substitute, sodomy with boys), it destroys the male social cohesion that is the soul of Christian culture. Muslims hate each other almost as much as they hate us. (Witness that not only is most terrorism committed by Muslims, the majority of it is committed against other Muslims… unless there are Christians present, then they are the primary target. I am also old enough to remember when Lebanon and Ethiopia were Christian countries.)

        • Karl says:

          Progressivism comes and goes.

          When did progressivism ever go away by itself? Shaming it is not enough. Punishing progressivises for their progressivism works, but what you get then is that progressivism is driven away, usually with a significant amount of bloodshed.

          If you think that progressivism comes and goes, Islam also comes and goes. Examples for Islam coming and going would then be Spain and Sicily.

        • Zorost says:

          Progressivism is a tactic used by cynical elites to accomplish goals. They wont let it go until it has accomplished its goals. At which point we’ll wish for progressivism back, as the elites will have achieved global USSR.

          Progressivism/ Wokeism not going away without fire and blood.


    • Hans says:


      • jim says:

        Reziac has passed the shill test. You have not.

        And you are swerving his material into Jewish left critiques of Islam, rather than reactionary critiques of Islam.

  16. notglowing says:


    This is a mostly solid take except that if you look at it, 1968 may have been an *electoral* victory for the right with Nixon but ultimately that was the date of the ascension of the post-New Deal New Left regime – a soft “left on left” coup of the post Revolutionary order

    The same type of process is going on now

    The left might make an unprincipled exception […] in the long run the left irons those out and the people who bulldoze the old exceptions get power in the left machine

    Seems correct. At least in the short term, I welcome leftists burning down Harvard. Unfortunately, however, he’s right, it can only make things worse in the long run. We know how the left works.

    That said, this situation is rather special because it puts the young left at odds with jews, who comprise a huge portion of the managerial apparatus.
    It doesn’t seem to me like that can just be swept away. Will they really give in on Israel?

    Moreover, my personal opinion is that perhaps this is overblowing the importance of something that might prove inconsequential in a year or two. Hamas will likely be suppressed soon. Israel isn’t pulling any punches due to some protests in the US.
    When that happens, we return to a frozen conflict and the students will protest for something else. Does this still mean the crazier faction that is rioting now will gain more power within the left as a result of these protests? Who knows.

    • notglowing says:


      Poor analogy. It’s more like a Trotskyites versus Stalinists sort of situation. It would be poor strategy for the exiled Whites to try to come in and pick a side of the already triumphant Reds.

      Logically then, we should want the Stalinists (ie, the pro-Israel unprincipled leftists) to win. If the perpetual revolution fails to continue in its holiness spiral, then the religion of leftism eventually dies.

      • DH says:

        Logically then, we should want the Stalinists (ie, the pro-Israel unprincipled leftists) to win.

        But what if the pro-Hamas side are the Stalinists, or rather, useful pawns of the Stalinists behind the curtain? This looks like a reaction against the overstretched and imploding Empire by a faction that is willing to ditch Israel and purge the Jews in order to, perhaps, steer away from hot conflict with the geopolitical rivals.

        GAE loves frozen conflicts; but the pronouncedly Jewish faction, broadly speaking the neocons, is rapidly pushing towards a world war with China, Russia, and Iran. Someone in the Cathedral, someone not as high on delusion and insanity as the warmongers, must be seriously weighing the prospects of a nuclear holocaust and how to deescalate from it. This anti-war faction is not yet fully in power, hence Biden’s Aid Package to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, but it seems to be making a move against the pro-war faction (which is a bunch of Jewish neocons, not very young and not very relevant) and in the direction of ditching the Empire.

        Jews are falling out of favor with both the Democrats and the Trumpists, although they still exert outsized influence on both political parties. For how long, though?

        Thermidor can play both sides, too. The Stalinists would much rather focus on the domestic woke agenda (DEI, deindustrializstion, trannies, etc.) than get themselves wiped out in a big mushroom cloud when the nukes start flying across the ocean. It’s the Jews who are the Trotskyites in this analogy, and like the original ones, they may be about to be purged by the Antifa/BLM/Pro-Hamas side, low-IQ and mentally ill degenerates whose strings are pulled by some Stalinists in the regime.

        Thermidor, coming from the left, is planning to swerve the shark away from swimming towards WWIII and nuclear holocaust and instead proceed on the path to stabilizing the Regime as Orwell’s Oceania, with increased focus on instilling woke at home. With stockpiles empty, military escalation to WWIII hinders the stability (and survival) of the regime, which may be blown up in a great nuclear conflagration. The Jewish pro-war faction is endangering the future of the regime, and someone must’ve noticed and acted accordingly to purge them.

        The Jewish Trotskyite faction may attempt to pivot to the normiecon right, is seemingly pivoting to the normiecon right, and in a last-ditch effort may try to recruit the right in support of the maintenance of GAE hegemony. The jury is still out on the feasibility of that strategy: on the one hand, normies are increasingly disillusioned (normality bias is cracking up), and nobody wants WWIII except the Trotskyite neocons who never cease beating the war drums; on the other hand, normies also dislike rampaging mobs of agitated thugs, and if pro-Hamas has positioned itself as the new Antifa/BLM, then it will be as unpopular as Antifa/BLM, which has always been a tool of the elite against the populace. Same energy, same organizers.

        Either way, the Jewish faction will likely be out of power by the end of this decade. If they somehow latch on to power, then WWIII is pretty much guaranteed.

        • jim says:

          > The Jewish Trotskyite faction may attempt to pivot to the normiecon right, is seemingly pivoting to the normiecon right, and in a last-ditch effort may try to recruit the right in support of the maintenance of GAE hegemony.

          The may explain all the shilling I have been getting about Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. And may explain why he was stabbed.

          My feeling, which is not necessarily well founded, is that if my meatspace identity gets linked to my internet identity, I am a lot safer in certain Muslim countries than in the US, despite my propensity for saying things about Mohammedanism far more critical than anything the Bishop has said.

          • DH says:

            But what if the pro-Hamas side are the Stalinists, or rather, useful pawns of the Stalinists behind the curtain?

            What if your grandmother was a bicycle?

            Okay, establishing the argument: the NGO-Foundations-Mob class, aka the full-on demon possessed class of Keffiyeh Karens, Queers for Palestine, and a hodgepodge of Mystery Meats originally from the Global South, is doing the bidding of someone in power, probably higher-ups in the State Department and the CIA who have, under threat of nuclear annihilation, come to their senses. You can tell what the State Department wants you to think, by observing what Soros wants you to think.


            That Soros is funding, organizing, and directing pro-Hamas, as he was funding, organizing, and directing Antifa/BLM, tells you what TPTB are up to. Note that Soros is not an independent actor; he is a pawn of State/CIA. They are now seriously trying to Color Revolution Bibi, because they need loyal puppets to deescalate, and Bibi is shrewdly maneuvering them out of deescalation. Frustrated by their inability to oust Bibi, they are now preparing to throw the Jews entirely under the bus. Still have not thrown the Jews entirely under the bus, but it’s on the horizon.

            • DH says:

              (Sorry, meant to address the comment to P-C below)

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              When it comes to demon worship, the tail usually ends up wagging the dog.

              Soros, being congenitally leftist like many jews, hates his neighbors, hates other jews, and has always worked on making Israel HIV positive. His latest actions, far from being a novelty, are yet another point on a graph that lines up perfectly with the string of actions that already has long gone before.

              People can come to their senses, but State Department has not come to its senses, the CIA has not come to its senses, and people who can come to their senses don’t get employment in places like the CIA or State Department.

              It is common error to assume that everything incumbent rulership does must be serving some sort of rational 4d chess plan. Factional Washington support for Hamas is perfectly understandable as a more consistent application of the logic of thirdworldism. And since earnest belief in leftisms confer social advantage over tepid grifters and ‘realists’ alike, allowing the former to shame the ‘moderates’ in the committee meetings for insufficient piety and drive the agenda, the results are what we see.

              Bibi is getting colour revolutioned because that is his reward for breaking bread with the great satan. They find his lack of faith in the latest phantasmagoricalisms of whigism disturbing, and none dare say anything against it, most especially Bibi himself.

              Some might even honestly think that their submissions to the logic of a leftism is for the sake of some pragmatic ulterior motive; but like the rest of their peers, they have come up with a rationalization for bowing in line with the winds of validation all the same.

              • jim says:

                It is fascinating to see that on some campuses, the Soros boys are being crushed. And on some they are not. Jewish left versus Jewish purer left.

                I was expecting disputes within the left to escalate far faster and far more brutally, but they are drifting in the expected direction. I was on Musk time, but Musk gets there eventually.

          • Reziac says:

            If some Muslim decides you have “insulted” (criticized) Islam or its prophet, you are likely to be killed, as this is also mandated.


            Witness also those regarded as detractors whose identity was known, eg. Salman Rushdie, subject of several death fatwahs and attacks.

            • jim says:

              But the relevant question is: Did Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel insult Islam? As far as I know, he did not. It does not seem like the kind of thing he would do. Doubtless many Muslims have a very broad definition of what constitutes insulting Islam, but then a whole lot of insulters of Islam, among them myself, come out far, far ahead of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel.

            • Karl says:

              Is there a fatwah for Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel?

              As far as I know there is not. No fatwah, no Muslim motive, but plenty Antifa motive

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          >But what if the pro-Hamas side are the Stalinists, or rather, useful pawns of the Stalinists behind the curtain?

          What if your grandmother was a bicycle?

          Rhetorical questions by themselves are not a substitute for an argument, though shills often like to pretend that they are. You ask a rhetorical question, then carry on as if it was answered without ever getting around to actually establishing the premise.

          The pro-war faction and the pro-empire faction are not necessarily the same faction; and likewise, the Team A activist class, nominally represented by Biden’s handlers, has significant pro-war representation, on account of both their hubris and their ignorance.

          The trotskyites were all about carrying their leftism to its logical conclusions. For our later day trots, the logic of thirdworldism provides a clear answer in this and any other scenario; the browner and dumber and more dysfunctional palestinians are the obvious holy totems to support against the hebrews, who are clearly privileged by relatively superior civilizational capability. It doesn’t get any more cut and dry.

          Pro-hamas sentiment is archetypical of the GAE activist set. As seen by its ivy league scions fearlessly othering their eskimo neighbors. The GAE imperialists are more interested in spreading wokism to other countries, to weaken them for conquest, in the vein of the old anglo-judaic round table set. They are tentative in edging their toes near the line of opposing the war faction, since the war faction, which has substantial overlap with the activist faction, is driving the machine into catastrophes it can’t handle.

          The neocons – who in this case are literal trotskyites rather than a metaphorical analogy – are basically the leftovers of the people who wanted to take revenge on the Soviet Union for insufficient communism. Whereas the old anglo imperialists had no principled defense against subversion by the same meme weapons they used against others, leftism here, there, now and forever and everywhere, was always the idea for the khazar transplants. Where they differed from other ‘fellow travelers’ is simply the tactical contingency of desiring to create a golem to do the dirty work of crushing all earthly resistance first.

          The Soviet Union ending up collapsing of course not only did not dissuade them, but filled them with even more enthusiasm than ever. Clouds of skype carry-on baggers descended on the Ukraine and other peripheral provinces (https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/how-the-ussrs-fall-unleashed-a-neocon) like a plague of locusts before the flag had hardly even finished rolling down the Kremlin.

          In substantial terms, the war of 2022 was their war. Unlike their imperialist peers who wish to maintain the gravy train to skim off of, they are selflessly concerned only with getting as many human beings killed as humanly possible – and most especially with getting european men and women killed.

          The younger and dumber and browner activist set don’t really share their mindset though. Of course they are all for killing ypipo, but in sentimental terms they just don’t like the neocon’s faces. They’re ypipo too in their eyes. Hence the huge schism that was caused between Biden’s handlers over the Israel-Hamas issue.

          The true believing daemonhosts support the GAE’s war in ukraine since Putler, as a 20th century liberal, is intolerably reactionary by comparison.

          While it may make ‘logical’ sense for a cynically pragmatic worshiper of demons to preserve the faith via retrenchment and turning inwards to suppress internal opposition, letting go of all the calamitous international entanglements that are dragging the beast underwater, the matter is that basically everybody who wants one doesn’t want the other. The grifters, activists, and neocons are all committed to the self-destructive effort towards global whig empire, for one reason or another. And at the same rate, the thermidoreans who want to trouble-shoot the beast to a sustainably frozen degree of demon-worship find that their implicit concessions to Divine Law for the sake of pragmatism inevitably brings them into conflict with the animating faith of the presently regnant imperium altogether.

        • Zorost says:

          DH: “This anti-war faction is not yet fully in power, hence Biden’s Aid Package to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, but it seems to be making a move against the pro-war faction…”

          The anti-war faction might have more influence than you think as the Aid Package to Ukraine seems to follow the standard rule for interpreting federal legislation: it does the opposite of whatever the name is. Even government sources and pro-UA accounts have admitted little will get to Ukraine for years, which will be years too late. Much of the bill is actually about rebuilding US stockpiles and productive capacity, supposedly to help Ukraine in the long run. Of course, Ukraine doesn’t have a long run.

          Making the US less of a laughing-stock militarily would tend to decrease the odds of WW3, as right now it would likely be foolish of Putin not to roll back NATO to the borders of whichever nation has nukes to stop him. France? Do Euro nukes even work any more, as some recent tests seem to indicate they put a bit too much diversity into their nuclear programs.

    • jim says:

      > Hamas will likely be suppressed soon.

      No nation with a gay parade has ever won a war. I do not expect Israel to be the first.

      • Calvin says:

        All they have to do is stay on the course on famine-caused genocide. Not that difficult in a place so small. Don’t actually have to defeat that many people on the battlefield.

        • S says:

          Unless Hamas smuggles in food from Egypt or has enough stockpiled in which case Israel starving the civilian population doesn’t affect Hamas.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          The GAE has already been stretching its preciously limited logistical capacity to feed brown bodies. You can bet that, if or when deaths from starvation start to tell significantly, GAE obstreperousness will intensify accordingly.

  17. DH says:

    But why did the post-WASP (“non-Jewish white leftist”) Cathedral suddenly sicc the pro-Hamas mobs against the Jews? Who’d think that the officially unofficial — soon to be the official — Cathedral position would become “gas the kikes, even the tykes” all out of a sudden?

    Like, what event really triggered it? Is it the sinking understanding that Empire is over? Is this another sign of the incoming Thermidor intended to avoid WWIII?

    • S says:

      There might be a deeper reason, but it is probably competition. More people competing for fewer slots to loot America and Jews hold a disproportionate share of college and middle man jobs. Knock them out of the way and it can be yours.

      • Hans says:

        Follow the money if you want to know who just rolled
        up against the last 200 years of old guard from
        “All wars are bankers wars.”
        Many are tired of the old guard / status quo.
        They’re willing to throw them out for new ones (themselves).
        Strange mix they’re hiring for their t-shirt brigades
        to do it though… allying green-haired Demoncrat trannies
        in the streets with Muslims.

        My guess, the new Data CBDC Life-Lockdown and Climate-Utopia-Gaia
        overlord Elites trying to knock the old guard off their totem.

        If you figure it out, you can head it off for something different.

        • Vendat Tunicam says:

          “All wars are bankers wars.”

          This is a shill meme. You are a shill, shitting up the comment section. The reactionary position is that all wars are religious wars. At the very least this has been the case since the America Civil War if not the English Civil War.

          • jim says:

            I know he is a shill — just dangling him long enough to get confidence that I know what his shilling organisation is up to, and to confirm my intuitive shill sense.

            Of course he could surprise me and take the shill test described in the moderation policy, but this becomes obviously less and less probable.

          • FrankNorman says:

            “All wars are…”
            Whatever it is you want to put there, actually not all wars are that.

            Some wars are definitely religious wars, but not all.
            Bankers might make profit from wars – as will arms dealers. But that does not mean they get to decide on the wars.

            Most wars in history, under all the talk, were fought for motives that boiled down to “we want those other people’s land!”
            Or their women.
            Or their trade-routes.
            Or whatever.

            • jim says:

              I don’t think so.

              Name a recent war fought for pragmatic reasons, such as land or women.

              Hitler claimed the land motivation for his invasion of Russia, but nonetheless that was two socialisms and two leftisms fighting ideologically. As for the rest of them, what were they about?

              The Syrian war was primarily that the alawites went along with globohomo making men and women mathematically equal in numbers and roles in the educational system, but while adhering to the letter of globohomo, violated the spirit of globohomo by not giving dominance to single females with ties to harvard. What is the war in the Ukraine about.

              • FrankNorman says:

                Jim, wars are about whatever the people actually fighting in them, and the people making the decisions about it, themselves see the war as being about. So typically any war is really “about” a bundle of things.

                I think that for the Russians, the war in Ukraine is about defending the Russian Motherland from an enemy that wants to rule the world, is non-agreement capable, and is trying to surround Russia with forward military positions.

                If someone attacks you and is trying to kill you, you defend yourself and fight not to be killed, regardless of whether the person attacking you just wants your wallet, or believes that Cthulhu commanded him to shed blood as an act of worship.

                For the people who rule the West, underneath all the moralistic screaming and posturing, it’s about extending their global hegemony, and if you ask why they want that so badly, they would not all be able to give a lucid or consistent answer, even if they sincerely wanted to. These people do not always operate from consciously thought-out premises.
                For the great host of their followers, it’s just about showing their support of The Current Thing.
                And for some of the Neo-Cons, maybe it really is deep down all about “blood for the blood god” or suchlike.

                But the wars involving the GAE in the post WWII era are not the only sort of war around, nor even necessarily typical of war in general.

                Take the Falklands War for example. We all know what it was about: which country got control of those islands. Why it mattered enough for them to go to war over it is different for each side. But it was not a religious war, those tend to be total wars, which don’t stop until one side or the other is wiped out. The UK just took the islands back – they did not try to invade Argentina and regime-change it, or remake its culture on Anglosphere lines. Shitty little Latino third-world republics can stay shitty little Latino third-world republics – they just mustn’t try to take over the colonial possessions of the World Powers.
                Imagine how different it would have been with Neocons in power in the UK rather than the Thatcher people.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  Now regarding Syria, I’m going to opine that the majority of actual people fighting in it didn’t give a hoot about the GAE wanting the country to be ruled by single women with ties to Harvard.
                  They just wanted to not themselves be ruled by Assad’s tribe.

                  Just as a Croatian who fought for the independence of his nation from Serbian hegemony in the breakup of Yugoslavia was not fighting to support Albanian Muslims taking over Kosovo.

                • jim says:

                  > For the people who rule the West, underneath all the moralistic screaming and posturing, it’s about extending their global hegemony, and if you ask why they want that so badly, they would not all be able to give a lucid or consistent answer,

                  Sure they do. They want “democracy”.

                  Rather obviously, what the public actually wants in a democracy is not what they actually get. What they actually get is what globohomo wants. So what does globohomo want? To loot the provinces? Well, there is quite a bit of looting, but mostly what Globohomo wants is to install the gay parade, eradicate whiteness and all that. So all these wars for democracy have somehow turned out to be wars for abortion, the gay parade, and all that. In other words, Wars for the demoness Ishtar, the Titan Gaia, and the demon Moloch. Holy wars.

                  Did lots of people in Syria not want to be ruled by Alawites. Probably, but they would not have done anything about it except armed and funded by Globohomo. And globohomo armed and funded them to emancipate women. Similarly, war in Afghanistan. Recall all the rhetoric about why their muppet Afghan government would continue to fight after Biden withdrew US troops. Female emancipation, gay rights, and all that.

                  They gave perfectly lucid and consistent answers. Answers severely detached from reality, but perfectly lucid and consistent. What they want is to impose their faith on Afghanistan, Syria, and Russia.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  Jim, I don’t disagree with you at all there – they are crazy people. And you are stating their position more clearly than they could probably be induced to do themselves.

                  But my point remains that those lunatics are not the only people making wars.

                  Take Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. It actually was about oil – the Kuwaitis had been drilling into Iraqi oil deposits. Iraq had a legit causus belli. Not that globohomo will ever admit that.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  “Blood for the blood god” implies a khornate enthusiasm for fighting. Neocons in thruth aren’t actually enthusiastic about fighting, they are enthusiastic about getting people (europoids) killed – which they rationalize via their enthusiasim for crypto-hegelianism; them causing conflict helped the World Spirit along to manifesting the eschaton via creating anti-theses for more synthesis to happen – a subtle but crucial distinction. People who are interested in fighting are interested in fighting well; neocons aren’t interested in fighting well. Their motivations, or ‘ethic of concern’ as it were, ultimately lies elsewhere.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Neocons in reality follow Tzeentch not Khorne.

          • Kumar says:

            [*deleted*] All wars are JEW wars. [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Blinken, Nuland, and Kagan are indeed Jews, but are not bankers, and the sanctions programs has been enormously harmful to and destructive of bankers.

              Please take the shill test described in the moderation policy and get white listed.

              Commenters who are not white listed may have their comments unkindly edited or silently and arbitrarily deleted

              White listed commenters can say anything they like, and it will immediately appear as is. There is no censorship on this blog, just spam prevention.

              And since you are so bugged out about Jews, tell us the real story of how Soros made his money, and/or what he did to bring about the brother war in the Ukraine. If all wars are Jew wars, tell us what the particular specific Jews did to bring about this particular specific current war. Name the Jew! Or are you strangely and mysteriously reluctant to name certain particular Jews.

              One can make a pretty good case for the claim that all wars are Jew wars, but strangely, just about anyone who says “all wars are Jew wars” turns out to be an employee of Soros.

  18. Whodunit says:

    Do you want to know who stabbed the Bishop?

    Ok, here is exactly what stabbed the Bishop…

    A *Muslim* strictly following the *Sharia Law* and tradition of *Islam*


    • jim says:

      I doubt it because cui bono. We have absolutely no evidence that the kid was was following Sharia, or even attending a Mosque. The Bishop was not pissing off Muslims. He was pissing off Antifa. All he said is that Islam and Judaism are false, which every Christian says, and he criticized Islam’s depiction of Jesus, which every Christian interacting with Mohammedans on matters of faith does. No one noticed, no one paid attention, no one cared about what he said about Islam. They cared about his vigorous and passionate attacks on Globohomo.

      The Bishop did not have a big profile and following over Islam, but a big profile and following over Globohomo.

      • Karl says:

        Moreover, the Bishop is still alive. The attack was done so incompetently that I doubt there was intent to kill.

        Antifa often uses non-lethal violence for intimidation, Muslims less so.

      • Hans says:


        • jim says:

          Your inability to take the shill test tells me the same thing as all those Tel Aviv network addresses tell me.

          You, or rather your organisation, stabbed Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel.

          The knife the kid was using had to be opened. If you open a knife, you do not open it half way. Half open has to be intentional.

      • Ex says:

        A handler would also benefit, but isn’t necessary to explain a 16-year-old getting violently angry and doing something stupid. So I remain skeptical about the applicability of ‘cui bono’. God knows 16-year-olds do many things that don’t benefit anyone.

        In related news, the Australian state tried ordering Xtwitter to take down the videos of the stabbing, Musk responded with a concession of hiding them in Australia, and the Australian state threw a tantrum trying to order the videos deleted all around the world.

        Fucking muppet state, seems to have internalized the idea that Australia is an arm of the world government and dissent is misinformation.

        • jim says:

          Cui Bono explains the choice of target. Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel just is not going to make anyone except antifa types violently angry. And it explains the extraordinary non lethality of the attack. Muslims know how to kill people. It is not hard if you do not care about covering your tracks. And a massive and obvious internet shilling operation run from Tel Aviv picks up the incident instantly. I have observed that these organisations take a considerable time to develop a meme in response to events. The memes have to work their way through a vast bureaucracy, so this event they knew in advance. Obviously the Jews think that Old Type Muslims are getting too pally with Old Type Christians, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel being a prominent old type Christian.

          • Markan says:

            [*deleted*] the Bishop was saying stuff about Muhammad, and that stuff served to discredit Muhammad [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Please take the shill test described in the moderation policy and get white listed.

              Commenters who are not white listed may have their comments unkindly edited or silently and arbitrarily deleted

              White listed commenters can say anything they like, and it will immediately appear as is. There is no censorship on this blog, just spam prevention.

              If a commenter comments under a handle and fake email that has not been white listed, I assume it is spam, because it usually is, and do not necessarily read it very carefully. Or at all.

              > the Bishop was saying stuff about Muhammad, and that stuff served to discredit Muhammad

              Was he? What did he say. Link please.

              • Hans says:

                >> the Bishop was saying stuff about Muhammad, and that stuff served to discredit Muhammad

                > Was he? What did he say. Link please.

                I don’t know about Marko because you censored him unfairly, but I already posted a few video links for everyone here to see… videos of Mari “saying stuff… that served to discredit Muhammad”.

                • jim says:

                  > you censored him unfairly

                  I have never censored anyone. I suppress spam. Anyone who is not being paid to comment and posting from a script written for him by his supervisor’s supervisor can pass the shill test, and anyone who passes the shill test can say what he likes. I suppress repetition resulting from unresponsiveness, but only after it has first been repeated too many times, so that is not censorship either, because it still gets said.

                  Censorship is suppressing inconvenient facts, ideas, and arguments. Obviously I don’t censor. I suppress spammers, not ideas.

                  > I already posted a few video links … of Mari “saying stuff… that served to discredit Muhammad”.

                  I don’t think you have.

                  And if you have, tell us what he said in which video link. What did Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel say about Mohammed?

                • Hans says:

                  [*deleted*] if people expect me to transcribe what they can watch themselves.[*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  In other words, you have no idea what Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel said to offend Muslims.

                  I have been watching His videos at considerable length, probably vastly more than you have, because I find him inspiring.

                  And I have no idea what he said to offend Muslims and neither does anyone else, other than to preach Christian doctrine that contradicts Muslim doctrine.

                  It was your organisation that stabbed Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. When I asked what he said to offend Muslims I was asking you for your cover story, and you do not have a cover story.

                  If the Muslims did it because they are so very easily offended, should you not be a little bit curious about what they took offense at?

                • Hans says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for posting from the “Hail fellow white Christian” frame. You are obviously not a Christian, and I do not believe you are white. Pretty sure you are Jewish. Seeing a whole lot of Tel Aviv ips posting your script, though your IP is different in each comment, the last two being Hong Kong and Geneva.

                  Your script that we should be fighting Mohammedans, not globohomo, is coming from the same people who are flooding in Mohammedans for us to fight.

                  I don’t have a record of older IPs, because I have a script that purges IP addresses every night, but maybe I should download them before purging them, because they are showing some interesting patterns.

                • Hans says:

                  > you have no idea what Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel said to offend Muslims.

                  I watched the words and know what he said that Islam and Muslims find offensive.


                • jim says:

                  If you know, tell us, because I do not know.

                  Your argument is that Christianity itself is offensive to Muslims. Doubtless it is, but why target this particular preacher?

                  He stands out from other preachers by being conspicuously offensive to Antifa — not Islam.

  19. The Cominator says:

    Jim always said if we go to war they might kill feminism at least if they have an ounce of sense…

    Well they are springing Weinstein… thoughts

    Weinstein is guilty of supporting Democrats but those women were whores (and his movies were better than the shit they make today he was involved in making True Romance I can’t say it was my favorite movie ever but its in my top three). Meryl Streep and Lana Del Rey were the only ones to look good out of this in that they refused to join in with this crap and defended the ugly jew up until the end.

    • jim says:

      In order to goto to war, have to totally eradicate DEI and anti discrimination law. The American war machine is running on the fumes of what white Christian straight males built.

      And it is obvious that some in the elite are thinking about this, but currently DEI is running strong. If we see a total reversal in Hollywood, then it is happening. Weinstein just got Jew Democrat privilege.

    • Pete says:

      I believe Weinstein was also convicted of “hitting on women while ugly” in California, so even if his New York sentence is overturned he will just have to go to prison in CA.

  20. Ash says:

    netflix has their new shogun garbage.. based on a half brit half Dutch originally around 6″3.. red hair blue eyes (my hair is almost black)

    great the netflix represents a bloke same height as Japanese (5″3) with black eyes and black hair… America so good at reading history haha

    • Ash says:

      he arrived as 2nd command on the Erasmus.. captain passed of scurvies or similar disease

    • Hesiod says:

      The original TV miniseries was quite the experience as a wee lad. The sailor being boiled alive supplied plenty of nightmare fuel.

      • Ash says:

        the main character in the movie is a dark complexion short Jewish man
        . the Brit/Dutch that was given status of warlord was a redheaded 6foot 3 giant back in the 1600s

        • Hesiod says:

          In the Current Year, that’s practically reactionary casting. My Anji-San would be an obese negress lesbian in a wheelchair for max Wokemon points.

          • Ash says:

            I am reactionary to what ? speak 5 languages and I must be reactionary?

          • Ash says:

            let’s upset you some.. this English Dutch man double any jew height, spoke Dutch, German, french, Latin, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and some Arabic… a bit more than you Jews in America are capable of

            • Hesiod says:

              Peace, fren, I merely jest over the Shlomo-San casting. In comparison to Asgardian negroes and further atrocities now decades old in Western media, the lead casting in the new Shogun seems a tad tame. Forgive if I trespass on text held dear to you. The novel Shogun is rather engaging in character and plot.

              • Ash says:

                how was the Boer war… struggled so badly with 20 to 1 kill ratios you English speakers enjoyed slaughtering unarmed children…

                how goes Russia ?

        • Ash says:

          have to keep in mind.. Erasmus was one of around 1000 ships that warred with the Spaniards… back in 1598, Erasmus was the only ship that survived… poorly

          • Ash says:

            am I aware of Erasmus ?

            am I aware of what? the main character is 12 inches shorter than the Brit/Dutch man in the netflix story… everything smells of garbage..

            12 inches shorter than the Japanese warlord from Netherlands England (father is English and mother was from the Netherlands)

            • Handi says:

              Either I’ve just developed a sudden-onset language aphasia, or trying to read this gibberish is actively punching holes in my brain. I demand that all word salad posters learn to write in proper English sentences or gtfo.

              • Ash says:

                jibberish ? from an American ? lost every war and push for war with china and Russia..hey let’s count how well you did against Germany… you needed every nation in the world to kill as many Europeans as possible, because 1v1, you can’t fight for shit

                you got it man 🤣 you win

                • Ash says:

                  am I mistaken? did you Americans not make sure every nation in the world killed as many Germans as possible ?

              • Ash says:

                all because my mother’s side of the family determined gold should be pegged to currency… great grandfather a general.. won on field, but most of his family killed off by Brits during the end of the Boer war..

                ja ja, you English speakers so strong… killing unarmed children

              • Zorost says:

                It’s especially annoying when multiple ESL people are going ooga-booga at each other.

        • The Cominator says:

          They made the Adams character in the new Shogun as black looking as possible without being black… figures.

          The Jesuits in Shogun (I’ve only watched the old series) are not nearly as bad as the real Jesuits were.

      • Ash says:

        who are you? I am guessing at max you are 6 foot.. quite short compared to my family

    • A2 says:

      The main character of Clavell’s book, John Blackthorne, was based on William Adams. An interesting life.


      • Ash says:


      • Ash says:

        can you grow up… according to historical texts he’s supposed to be. 6 foot 2 red head..

        Disney + netflix has turned him into a 5 foot 2 wog with black hair and an oddly Jewish nose

  21. Humungus says:

    “But there is a place in Christianity for men of violence, without which it could not have survived and won.”

    Humungus approves.

    Organized violence is an essential element of any movement. The weak must understand who is in charge and they will respect your strength.

    Therefore, Humungus encourages you to develop your body through strength training and your mind through meditation.

    The day for violence is approaching.

    • MuskFan says:

      Hail The Humungus! Lord Humungus!

    • Woody says:

      The violence issue with islam is polygamy, dudes with no wife and no chance of one destabilize society. If one guy has four wives, three guys get none, so they either burn down their society or go to war with the neighbours and steal a woman or ten. If you have four wives you have to police then constantly and have no time for useful pursuits.
      Monogamy solves all this. Almost everyone gets a wife and a shot at having a family. Instead of policing your women all the time and seeing all other men as potential enemies, you can invent the steam engine, cooperate with other men and build an advanced society. Cads can be dealt with by duelling or killed off in other ways so they don’t mess up cohesion and cooperation.

      • Hans says:


        • jim says:

          I will allow your stuff through if you address it to an audience that does not want to be part of an Israeli led crusade to impose Globohomo on the middle east — if you do not argue in a way that presupposes universal enthusiastic acceptance on the right of a globohomo crusade to make the whole world, starting with Russia, Globohomo.

          You argue that Islam is evil because insufficiently progressive. Which presupposes that Christianity is more progressive. And that we agree that Christianity is more progressive. Argument from fake consensus.

          I am happy to debate it if you don’t start off from the presupposition that your audience accepts that Islam’s insufficient progressivism is a bad thing.

          Mohamed was right about women. He took slavery, patriarchy, and all that for granted, but so does authentic Christianity. And both of them are right to do so. Coverture constrains women more severely than Sharia. Rightly so.

          The big evils of Islam is its doctrine that treaties are made to be broken, that Muslims should make war on everyone, polygamy that creates a large underclass of frustrated angry young men, and that its God can change and lie, which undermines science and technology.

          • Hans says:

            Mideast should not be GloboHomo’d or Prog’d or Democrat’d,
            nobody said that, and I challenge you to [*deleted*]


            People should organize and decide soon, because
            even false Islam appears to be winning the “acceptance”
            category, over everything else that is far too prog,
            today’s twerk-flavored Christianity included.

            • jim says:

              My blog. I get to make the challenges. If you want your stuff to pass through unmolested rather than suffering unkind moderation, unkind editing, and arbitrary deletion, pass the shill test described in the moderation policy and get white listed.

              Commenters who are not white listed may have their comments unkindly edited or silently and arbitrarily deleted

              White listed commenters can say anything they like, and it will immediately appear as is. There is no censorship on this blog, just spam prevention.

              If a commenter comments under a handle and fake email that has not been white listed, I assume it is spam, because it usually is, and do not necessarily read it very carefully. Or at all.

              That is why I ask commenters who are not yet white listed to lead with a thought crime. If you follow with a thought crime that should have gotten you white listed, I am apt to hit delete on the first sentence,

            • jim says:

              Twerk flavored Christianity obviously cannot beat Islam. But Islam is a future worry. Our present urgent and immediate problem is that twerk flavored Christianity cannot beat globohomo. The converged Churches are dying on their feet.

      • Fidelis says:

        Perhaps more importantly, it concentrates good genes at the top. They guy with more wives is going to be less selective when it comes to breeding.

  22. dharmicreality says:

    In the midst of the Elections, India’s Left is reverting to Marxism – interesting.


    Why revive this dead debate about wealth redistribution and so on? (inheritance tax was abolished long back in India)

    This also seems to indicate that modern Western style “Wokism” still doesn’t actually have much traction in India (except among the elite city types) and that the Left has to revert to economic Communism to appeal to the larger majority of proles.

    • dharmicreality says:

      The BJP is also figuratively accusing the West, particularly the Western media of trying to engineer a Color Revolution in India:


      Of course, Foreign Minister Jaishankar has previously called out Soros before of trying to engineer political change in India through his organizations.

  23. Samourai Wallet FED RAID says:


    A lot of the crypto space should have moved to anon devops and anon overlay networks long ago.

    • jim says:

      The problem was they had a centralized mixer, and profited off it.

      You need a decentralized protocol. But though information wants to be free, programmers want to be paid. The solution to providing decentralized software is the DAO, organised as a sovereign corporation, with pseudonymous corporate officers, and no employees, just people doing gigs made possible by the protocol on their own initiative.

      If you are profiting from something that has a physical location, government is going to show up at that physical location.

    • Tyrone says:

      I wonder how much money they made, and if they were enjoying themselves before their arrests.

      The article says they started building in 2015. If they had decided to buy extra bitcoin back then instead of building the app, they probably would have made more money and would obviously still be free.

      As a centralized operation they must have had numerous chances to scam people who wouldn’t have been in a position to complain.

      So it wasn’t just about the money for them.

      But far from appreciating the need for deep anonymity, they were shitposting on twitter. Normalcy bias? Arrogance?

      I hope the bitcoin community helps them beat the case if possible. These guys were reckless, but even well structured DAOs are at risk.

      • Hans says:

        They made a fuckton, much of that will come out in court later,
        and then be stolen from them by the Govt Pols.

        Look at all the CEX exchanges… their fees, and then their volumes, do the math.

        CEX are the best moneymaking business to be in right now.
        All you need is secure coding, and a favorable jurisdiction.

        DAO’s will continue to proliferate and grow forever onward.
        Main problem with DAO’s right now are the trust models,
        but those are evolving. ZK protocols will solve a lot of those
        remaining issues by allowing both you and the network and
        any other bits to prove themselves and their fairness and
        holdings and access and influence, without putting
        oneself or any of those bits at risk. ZK makes an interesting
        truth machine.

        CEX will even become opensource software,
        with a hundred people deploying their own
        instances on Tor’s Onions soon.

        • jim says:

          I don’t trust Tor’s onions, most of which are operated by the NSA. Particl and BasicSwap have a plan and software to replace them, but the plan is incompletely implemented, and the software sucks. They still rely on Tor for some things.

          • Hans says:

            I don’t trust Tor’s Onions services either,
            far too easy to find with hobby level investment.
            The Tor Network doesn’t use fulltime chaff fill,
            and they’re Sybil’d all to hell and back,
            they kill 100++ fake nodes a month,
            but they’re totally blind to the slow poisoners,
            Tor’s designed by lifelong GovMil employees,
            they make donor bank, and lie to them and the
            users about Tor’s real risks,
            and it’s coded and socialed and run by GAE Trannies,
            it’s a fucking turkey-shoot for NSA/GCHQ,
            and FISA and DOJ allow FBI/DEA/etc to
            parallel reconstruct from there.

            But still, as soon as an opensource CEX hits Github,
            the Onion CEX’s will come, bigly, ten at a time,
            just like the drug markets are out there,
            the profit incentive is too big for them to resist.

            And in most cases, using Tor is better than not,
            unless you think your dick is impervious to raw gaids.

            Same as you wouldn’t prefer to use a DEX without Tor either.

            And there are a couple competitors to Tor now.

            Defense in depth.

            • jim says:

              > Same as you wouldn’t prefer to use a DEX without Tor either.

              The original design, and to some extent the implementation, of BasicSwap and Particl was a Dex that used something far better than Tor. They are right to attempt it, wrong to release something that is a bit unready and half assed.

            • Tyrone says:

              I may be out of my depth but my expectation is that rather than Onion CEXes the solution will be DEXes sitting on privacy preserving L1s or L2s.

              If it was easy to spin up dozens of CEXes from copying code from github wouldn’t you expect lots of them to be honey pots? And if it is impossible to steal user funds, presumably because everything is determined by smart contracts or whatever zk tech, wouldn’t you call that a DEX rather than CEX?

      • Tyrone says:

        Keonne Rodriguez has a twitter account. He posted against the vax and the stolen election, most recent tweet calling some thot a whore.

        The kind of guy you’d expect to fit in here and take opsec seriously.

        Hill might be this financial advisor from Philadelphia. Worked for some big banks, raised money for heart disease.

        Not the kind of guy you’d expect to get into such risky stuff, but if he did he’d want to take precautions.

        The particle basicswap guys seem comfortable doxing themselves, they made a bunch of youtube videos I believe. They looked like Indians or Pakistanis with British accents but I didn’t watch thoroughly.

        Not sure what would draw them to work on obscure privacy solutions, you might expect them to get into scammier stuff or ride the DEI gravy train in a comfortable job.

        • Tyrone says:

          If it wasn’t clear Rodriguez and Hill were the two guys arrested for Samourai.

          Particl was announced early in 2017 as an atomic swap and P2P marketplace. Their altcoin is down 99% from 2018 highs but they are still actively developing basicswap.

          Last I checked I didn’t see basic swap’s volume figures but it must be orders of magnitude less than samourai’s 2B and 4.5M fees.

          In theory users should have preferred to basicswap over samourai. Basic swap is more decentralized and gives the option to swap into seven currencies including monero.

          But samourai let you deposit hundreds of bitcoin at a time whereas with particl you would struggle to swap even a fraction of a bitcoin. Liquidity drives so much of user behavior, not just whales.

          Even 2B for samourai is a small figure over 8 or 9 years of trustworthy operation.

  24. Mister Grumpus says:

    I can’t forget how “Islamic” terror in the states dried up the minute Donald Trump was elected. Stabby, shooty and explodey Uzbeks, Afganis, Chechens, Bangladeshis, running around doing whatever, and then 2017 came and boom, nothing, like a switch.

    The Pulse Nightclub. Something to do with a “community center” in LA. That Turkish security guard who shot the Russian ambassador. Some Bangladeshi blowing himself up in New York City. All that. And then this horrible racist Islam-hating orange guy becomes the President and that was it, all over, and no one on TV says nothing. What the hell.

    And this was a guy who the media had been calling the devil incarnate for saying the words “radical Islamic terror”. What was even supposed to be so wrong about that anyway? Seriously what?

    That’s when I knew something was going on.

    • The Cominator says:

      Part of that was the new crown prince of Saudi Arabia Bin Salman who stopped funding Islamic terrorism and arrested the people in Saudi Arabia who were doing it.

    • Hesiod says:

      Initial Western MSM articles focused far more on the injuries of the attacker than the bishop’s. While further related arrests have been reported, no mention of any Mohammedan motive. Given the victim blaming via copious examples of the bishop’s intolerable Christianity, this seemed at first to potentially be another wind-up troon.

      • Vendat Tunicam says:

        I’ll never hate journalists enough, there aren’t words strong enough for these swine.

  25. The Cominator says:

    “Attempting to genocide the Palestinians”
    Nah c’mon genocide is easy if you have people cooped up, just don’t feed them.

    • MuskFan says:

      Yeah saying Israel is genociding the Palestinians is a lame left wing talking point. If they really wanted to genocide them it could be done in a weekend.

      • FrankNorman says:

        Not if they were slow-rolling it to make it deniable.

        • The Cominator says:

          Can’t really make a successful or even partially successful genocide deniable which is why the “Hitler should have done it but didn’t” people always sound stupid. While there were a lot of lies by professional holocaust deniers and the gas chamber use is probably at least greatly exageratted compared to the amount of Jews the Reich killed via starvation and exposure its undeniable that millions of Jews who were alive when the war started just weren’t when the war ended.

          • jim says:

            It is clear that the Nazis killed a whole lot of Jews, but I am pretty sure the gas chambers and all that are totally fictitious.

            The number six million was pulled out of someones ass, but it was a lot of Jews, probably most of them.

          • The Cominator says:

            Correction i meant lies by professional holocaust survivors.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            Whether it can succeed or not is less pertinent than whether it fits ashkenazim modes of thought or not.

            One part of themselves doing something while an other part of themselves claims they are not doing something is a basic khazar behavioral pattern. Which is not without metaphysical tradeoffs of course (the problem is schizophrenia, and the solution protective stupidity). But it is a pattern that survives because it has worked.

            The elites don’t want you to know this, but you can just say anything, and normies will believe it.

            (Which is also why it is so important to control what you expose yourself too and what people you swim around; you are influenced by things even if there are parts you intellectually disagree with at first.)

            There was much discussion here in the early days of the brouhaha about how the IDF should have pre-staged holding camps, declare an evacuation of everyone in Gaza, and put to siege anyone who remains (since obviously if they weren’t bad guys, they would have come out, see?).

            The incumbent Israeli rulership are products of the kali yuga though, and that kind of forthrightness is simply impossible for them at an institutional scale. The result is what we see.

            I don’t doubt there are more than a few likudniks thinking – hoping – that if they can drop enough bombs while the debate plods along, that The Palestinian Question will become a moot point instead. And so all the protestation to the contrary is basically timer scam, until either attention wanders, or the deed is done, either way.

            Given the mounting difficulties they’ve been running afoul of, the age old blunder of sending troops into defended built-up areas and getting nothing but casualties for the trouble, to say nothing of Iranian proxy forces increasingly entering the fray, this idea actually working out in reality is another question. But you can see the shape of how they are thinking about it.

      • The Cominator says:

        Takes longer than that because shooting them all (the way it theoretically could be done quick) is hard most soldiers don’t want to do stuff like that you need fanatics and psychopaths (and the fanatics will be psychologically fucked up alcoholics for life) you need to organize them and organize it etc. But starving people is easy and you just need to keep them in one concentrated place with not much edible and block supplies.

  26. Cloudswrest says:

    yet the stabbing was strangely ineffectual.

    The story I read said the attacker used some sort of collapsible knife that, in the excitement, he failed to open properly. Commenters say you can see him realizing it too late into the attack.

Leave a Reply