The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim

If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he is a bad Muslim.

Over the last thirteen hundred years numerous Kingdoms, religions, cultures, empires, nations, tribes, and peoples have sought to coexist with Islam. None have succeeded. We shall not be the first.

We shall capitulate, or we will suppress and expel them.

A short while ago, some Muslims detonated some nail bombs at an English concert, targeting mostly children and young girls, killing twenty two and severely wounding many more. I guarantee that the English response will be that there is not enough affirmative action for Muslims, not enough Muslim immigration, and we are being too hard on Muslims that rape English girls, and the big important tragedy that makes this event so sad is that it undermines Muslim immigration and affirmative action for Muslims.

96 Responses to “The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim”

  1. […] The bombing in Manchester was the big event this week, and Jim let the left’s tired apologies have it with both barrels. First, he reminded everyone of the basic fact that the only good Muslims is a bad Muslim. […]

  2. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    If people can afford to make bad decisions, they will.

  3. Robert says:

    I am a Christian and I say kick every single Muslim out of our countries. That is easy to say, but how do we do it?

    Legally: The US gov. no longer recognizes Islam as a religion, instead it would have to be reclassified as some kind of criminal organization. All mosques shut down, all Muslims thrown in Jail, or deported.

    Illegally: Americans have enough, form enormous mobs, burn mosques, kill Muslims.

    • lalit says:

      If it comes to that, they will not stop at killing Muslims. Once a mob gets going …….

      • Cavalier says:

        Everyone who matters has physical security.

        Everyone else has a full belly, a warm hearth, and a roof over their head.

        Furthermore, 1/3 of the population is overweight, 1/3 is obese, and the fitness of the other 1/3 leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps 10% of the population falls among the age range capable of fighting, half that population is male (5%), and half that population has a triple-digit IQ (2.5%). Also, multiply by 2/3, because 1/3 of the gen. pop. is nonwhite.

        Look at the best the US Military can get, with a guaranteed stable paycheck and the possibility of shooting some dune coon and being lauded for it by your government and your family.

        There’s also the slight little problems that most of America is built for cars, meaning that you can’t get a decent collective mob mind going, and that in the cities all the important people are laughing at you from their offices 20 or more stories in the air.

        Good luck, Chuck.

        • jim says:

          Cronulla riots worked fine. If Australians can deliver a good anti Muslim pogrom, so can Americans.

          The Government and Muslim response to the riot was interesting. Suddenly both government and Muslims were trying to appease white people. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

          • Hidden Author says:

            But I thought the government appeases rioters because it agrees with them. You assumed me this was so. Damnit it Jim how many times must you construct reductio ad absurdum caricatures and then gratuitously knock them down to suit the argument of the moment?

            • Hidden Author says:

              *”assumed” was meant to read “assured”

            • pdimov says:

              Sometimes the government agrees with the rioters, sometimes it doesn’t. This of course makes reality hypocritical. You should shame her more thoroughly until she stops being such.

            • jim says:

              You keep inventing silly positions and ascribing them to me.

              The government institutes riots that it agrees with, for example Black Lives Matter, which it turned on and off like a tap. It does not indulge them because it agrees with them. It pays and organizes them because it agrees with them. On the rare occasions a riot happens that they did not institute, they are shocked and terrified, and are shocked and terrified regardless of the cause of the rioters. What shocks and terrifies them is loss of control.

              The government is as alarmed by a real riot as it is alarmed by real democracy.

          • Cavalier says:

            The areas in which that singular riot happened, 12 years ago, have since changed radically, if you know what I mean.

          • pdimov says:

            The delivery of a good pogrom is entirely within the means of most, if not all, populations. It’s not that physically taxing either.

        • Turtle says:

          >> But now, under orders to reduce the active-duty force from 570,000 to 490,000 by 2017, the Army has ordered commanders to weed out substandard troops. “We will use the drawdown as an opportunity to shape our Army by ensuring that we retain only the very best soldiers,” Army Secretary John M. McHugh wrote in a Feb. 2 memo on retention initiatives.

          Didn’t happen. Who decided to keep the fatties? Obama? I don’t want a fat military. This is sad, just like their rape epidemics, huge suicide rate, debt problems, and lack of education. I am glad Fort Hood kept me from enlisting. Thanks, Obama.

  4. Mister Grumpus says:

    I no longer think about the British “waking up” and “taking action” to help themselves.

    Rather, they’re perfectly happy to be conquered, and will continue to be, for our lifetimes.

    The only question, to me anyway, is whether a faction closer to them genetically/culturally will start conquering them ALSO and (predictably) out-compete the Kebabs at it.

    Ergo the brilliance of “White Sharia”.

    • Cavalier says:

      What is “Britain”?

      Is it an ethnicity? (It isn’t.)

      Is it a nation? (It isn’t.)

      Is it a country? (It isn’t.)

      Is it a sovereign state? (It isn’t.)

      If not these, then what is it?

      If not these, then of what utility is the concept?

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Should I therefore use “English” and “Welsh”, etc?

        • Cavalier says:

          I’m just using your post to make a point.

          I should add: “Britain” was that which was held — and owned, in a sense — by the Crown. The nonexistent authority of the Crown today is reflected by the nonexistence of Britain as a separate, distinct, independent, or sovereign entity.

          The question to ask is why the current landlord, the successor to the Crown, prefers the physical and genetic components of its asset, “Britain”, wasted rather than healthy and dead rather than alive.

  5. JT91 says:

    > I guarantee that the English response will be that there is not enough affirmative action for Muslims, not enough Muslim immigration, and we are being too hard on Muslims that rape English girls, and the big important tragedy that makes this event so sad is that it undermines Muslim immigration and affirmative action for Muslims.

    I’m afraid if that’s the case (it is, obviously) after an attack of this scale then you can probably close the book on Western Europe.

    If the mass murder of innocent children isn’t enough to stir up reaction then nothing, and I cannot stress this enough, NOTHING, will.

  6. Jack Highlands says:

    Judging by the reaction on Twatter>24 hours in, there seems to be something different in the air. Ever so slowly, the tide is turning. Whether we like it or not, violence is what solidifies politics. Muslims are violent to us in these attacks, we have been violent to them in Jew-fomented wars, they were violent to us on the Barbary Coast, we were violent to them in pushing back the Ottomans, they were violent to us at Constantinople and Mohacs, we were violent to them in the Crusades and so on, back into history.

    Violence will come, whether we would or no. Slowly, slowly the Saxon begins to hate. Tragic but true, if I am right more attacks are needed for galvanization. But I think, contra Sadiq Khan and shitlib apologists and contra too, the ‘look what they’re doing to us now’ contingent on the Alt Right, more attacks are not deadening the shock, but rather strengthening the resistance, as more and more normies see that globalists favor destruction of their world, and that the dissident Right is the only voice against that.

  7. Alrenous says:

    The protected fake-noble classes are good as long as they don’t attack the real nobles.

    As long as Ariana Grande doesn’t come to personal harm, it’s great. They’re doing what they were brought in to do.

    The nobles are completely confident their pets will never attack them. The riots will generally be in the rioter’s own neighbourhoods. Nobody is going to drive a truck bomb through the gates of the gated communities.

    If the pets ever prove them wrong, they will turn on their pets as quickly as they turned on the gays.

  8. Antipas says:

    Let’s understand this for what it was. ISIS decided to weigh in on Ariana Grande’s recent rebuke of slut-shaming and take matters into their own hands.

    • Turtle says:

      Then maybe it wasn’t ISIS. Perhaps it was concerned dads and brothers of wannabe sluts.

      • Antipas says:

        In the country that brought us Rotherham? Riiiight.

        • Turtle says:

          While I did not specify it, I meant that Pakis have ‘slutty daughter problems’ too. I didn’t think native Englishmen did this, no. But the long-time immigrants, who have been in England for several generations, have assimilated more, but have later-arrived relatives who are less pozzed. Basically, the imagined story is, aunt A says slutting it up is cool, but uncle B says wear a hijab. And this means there is internal conflict among immigrant populations.

          • Antipas says:

            Thanks for clarification.

            I’m sure there is internal conflict in some cases. I will guess ISIS radicalized the dude who likely came to them with grievances about how the west stages concerts that celebrate a young woman who is proud of dressing like a ho.

            • peppermint says:

              That’s right, it’s about the capitalist music industry, it has nothing to do with race.

              You sound exactly like a feminist. Feminists said that on Twitter before you said it here.

              • Antipas says:

                It’s about the culture, of which the music industry is a reflection. In a way I actually agree with the idiot feminists for once, if only tangentially. Muslims loathe us for our culture. A culture which allows for the unbridled emancipation of women and stages large concerts for young girls to celebrate dressing lile a slut.

                I tend to agree with Islam that the unbridled emancipation of women is vile and degenerate but also agree with Jim that Islam is the solution we do not want.

                • peppermint says:

                  can you say the word sand nigger, or do you agree with I’slam about how women should be treated and support Moslems treating uppity White girls as they should be treated?

      • peppermint says:

        Why can’t they assassinate the pakis that rape their sisters and daughters? Wouldn’t it be easier and more reasonable? If someone raped my sister and the police did nothing, and there wasn’t a Godfather for me to beg, I’d do it myself.

        • lalit says:

          Time to start generating contacts with the local mobsters. This is how parallel governments are formed. By providing some sort of judicial grievance redressal system when the regular government can’t or won’t

        • jim says:

          Pakis have a policy, endorsed by their religious authorities, of not raping women in intact families. Of course, the clear wording of the Koran is that you should rape all infidel women, but this seems to have been re-interpreted. Or maybe they are just worried that if they rape women in intact families, they will be assassinated.

          The trouble is that this does not diminish the incentive women have to break up their families, and may well increase that incentive.

  9. lalit says:

    Look Jim, this is not playing fair. This prediction is a no-brainer. You might have as well said, “I predict that tomorrow the sun will rise in the East”

    I will NOT add this to the list of predictions you have got right.

    • Turtle says:

      Jim said, ” I guarantee that…” not “I predict…” so he’s not playing at soothsayer. He is merely repeating early observations.

  10. StoneMan says:

    There will also be many who say that “religion” is to blame and is holding humanity back. Opposing “religion” is the politically correct way of saying that you are a faithful adherent of Progressivism and you support its war for both global and philosophical domination.

    Those girls were killed by Islam, but they are casualties in the war of Progressivism. Collateral damage.

    Oh well. The road to leftist heaven goes through nail bombed children Hell.

    • Turtle says:

      Blaming religion is not viable in Britain. They’re already as post-christian and atheist as a people can be. There is no perceived benefit for them in blaming religion; it’s like trying to blame junk food- people like it anyway, despite shaming efforts against it.

      Manchester is Beatles central. So, I believe some observers will realize the Beatles were bad, and that will be the end of modern “progress,” because its chief propaganda medium is music.

      “As music lovers, we go to concerts to have a fun time and have a temporary escape from the real world. Some of the most fun I have had and some of the best memories of my life have been at concerts”

      Beatlemania and other modern cults, in general composed of young women,run by old men, and spread by their lustful acolytes, is know admitted to be a lie (temporary escape from the truth). So… I’m thinking fashwave and the like are rising now.

      Finally, here’s how humanism works:
      “My tear-filled prayers go out to everyone that was at this concert”
      which is a claim saying, we are all God, in a universalist way. This is obviously impossible,-evil is not God.So the Beatles cult’s effect just turned against progs’ desires.

    • peppermint says:

      And still, religion it is. Progressivism is puritanism that is holier than God. Progressive interpretations of the Bible win out over non-progressive interpretations – they in face did – and any religion that upholds the Bible will eventually succumb.

      There is a reason the English refuse to see that they’re in a race war – and you as well, blaming Islam instead of dune coons. That reason is Matthew 25.

      • StoneMan says:

        First of all, I’m having trouble nailing down the exact “thesis” of your post. So if my reply is “speaking past you”, well, I tried.

        Progressive interpretations of the Bible won out amongst Low Church denominations. The Catholic Church is degraded in its current iteration, as everything modern has degraded, but let’s be clear about from who to whom the disease was transmitted, and note that progressive Christianity arose in prominence comorbidly with the rise of Progressive political power. I reject the notion that the Bible will inevitably give way to progressive interpretations. It withstood the pull for roughly 1200-1500 years.

        The English refuse to see that they’re in a race war, agreed. Dune coons are to blame, agreed. Did I strike you as a sandnigger apologist? You’re saying, as far as I can tell, that the English can’t see their situation because Progressivism is the bastard mutant offspring of Christianity, and the vestigial Matthew 25 is to blame. Perhaps. I would call it a misinterpretation of Matthew 25, as I would call all of Progessivism a misinterpretation of the Bible.

        Or you’re saying that there are basically two (white) religions in England, Progressivism and Christianity, and Christianity is blinding those few outside the Progressive bubble to the violence at their very doorstep. If that’s the case, I think you’re wrong, frankly. Christianity repelled Islam before. It is a poor craftsmen who blames his tools.

        • peppermint says:

          The problem is Matthew 25. The solution used to be forbidding random people from reading the Bible claiming that the devil will cause them to interpret it as its plain meaning, and only quoting individual verses. That solution stopped working with Luther, who thought the Bible had some magic power to root out corruption in Rome, a notion he was quickly disabused of, and Gutenberg. Today the cat is out of the bag.

          Tell me what Matthew 25 means if not we need to take care of the niggers as individuals in order to avoid going to hell as individuals.

          • StoneMan says:

            Individuals need to treat individuals as individuals.

            You interact with the people you come across as individuals. Everyone does. Everyone always has.

            Demographic considerations are not for the layman. The rulers ought to decide whether or not to allow foreigners in their lands, and how many. And the rulers ought to take into consideration the fact that there are subspecies of humanity which are generally incapable of interacting peacefully, and certainly not as equals.

            If I were a King (and I would be a Christian King) I would not allow Niggers into my people’s land. Christianity does not place a burden on Kings to treat groups as individuals. It places a burden on individuals to treat those individuals around them well and fairly.

            • peppermint says:

              》 Individuals need to treat individuals as individuals


              • StoneMan says:

                I didn’t state an ought. I stated an is. It’s a factual statement about how the world works. Try not to get triggered.

                • peppermint says:

                  You’re an American soldier in WWII, a nominal Christian. You see a Nazi soldier. Do you say hi and offer him a coke, because as a Christian you treat individuals as individuals, or do you get in a fight with him because of his group affiliation?

                  I wish we had today’s Christians in the 40s. The world would be a much nicer place now.

                • StoneMan says:

                  You don’t understand what I meant. I’m not arguing for individualism or egalitarianism. I don’t think Matthew 25 means you can’t make decisions based on group affiliation.

                  I suppose one would be considered morally obligated to deal with any baptized Indian after the 16th century, but there’s no reason at all to think that one will be legally obligated to.

                  And if we’re talking about a post-16th century country that hasn’t been pozzed, then you won’t have to deal with very many Indians or Hottentots, so I doubt you’d really mind anyway.

                • peppermint says:

                  Would you let your daughter marry a hottentot? If an indian rapes her, would you instruct her to abort?

                • StoneMan says:

                  If I had to choose between marrying my daughter to you or a Hottentot I would be in quite the pickle.

                • peppermint says:

                  Right, because you don’t believe in germ-plasm, because ((Jesus)). In The Revolt against Civilization, Lothrop Stoddard says that the Lamarckian based practices of reading books before conceiving were dying out as people started to recognize that the germ-plasm is unaffected by the body-plasm. Mozart in the womb and preschool aren’t Lamarckianism, but they are worthless environmentalist conceits.

                  Stoddard thought people would want to understand evolution in order to have better children.

                  Instead, many people wanted to praise ((Jesus)) and have pickaninnies.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >If I had to choose between marrying my daughter to you or a Hottentot I would be in quite the pickle.

                  A male from a human species so primitive its women have literal steatopygia vs. Peppermint, a man caustic, disparaging of Semitic cults, and of uncertain lineage, but nevertheless quite intelligent and probably disease-free.

                  This is why Semitism has to go.

                • StoneMan says:

                  A Christian insulted someone on the internet therefore Christianity is wrong. – Cavalier 2017

          • glosoli says:

            ‘And the king answering, shall say to them, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did it to one of these my brethren — the least — to me ye did it.’

            My brethren, Original Greek ‘adelphōn’.


            Definition: ‘a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.’

            So, it’s completely clear what the bible says. And as is always the case, the bible is entirely coherent, as one would expect from the word of God himself.

            • StoneMan says:

              You demonstrate hubris in repeating Matthew 25 as though I knew not what we were discussing. I am familiar with it.

              Those who rule and are concerned with good governance will not open up their borders to African hordes. Why do you think the idea that Christians ought to be kind means that rulers must flood their countries with genetically inferior foreigners?

              Both you and peppermint seem to be bothered with Christianity because you see its teachings as an obstacle to RACE WAR NOW.

              • StoneMan says:

                Whoops. Mistook who the comment was directed at and that caused me to misinterpret the tone. Disregard above comment.

            • peppermint says:

              How the Hell can the meaning “a fellow-Christian” mean anything before ((Jesus)) named Peter His first Pope?

              He said “My brethren”, and the only meanings it can have are Jews or all featherless bipeds.

              • StoneMan says:

                Putting the echoes around the guy who permanently BTFO the Jews is redundant at best. More like petulant, or piss-antish.

                • peppermint says:

                  Did Jesus mean Jews or featherless bipeds?

                • peppermint says:

                  Before the last century, he unambiguously meant Christians, meaning after the sixteenth century you would be obligated to feed, clothe, house, treat, and provide legal services to any indian or hottentot who had been baptized by a minister.

              • glosoli says:

                Jesus meant what he said:

                ‘Help your own kith and kind, your brothers’.

                It’s not complicated.

                • peppermint says:

                  No, faggot, he said his brothers. You can’t lie about the plain meaning of “my brothers” in 2017, scumbag. Choose between Christians, Jews, or featherless bipeds. Then marry your daughter to a hottentot, let a somalian rape her, or let the Jews turn her into a porn star.

                • StoneMan says:

                  My name is peppermint and I demonstrate my righteous anger towards Christianity on the internet. I have expert theological understanding of the Bible, and if everyone were bitterly anti-Christian like me and the Satanists the world would be a better place.

                • peppermint says:

                  If every Aryan believed in their biological mission to build civilization and extend our reach to the stars above, instead of worshiping a dead Jew and trying to make the song Imagine come true, the existence of our race would be secure and the world would be a better place for White children.

                • StoneMan says:

                  You’re talking to a Christian Aryan who doesn’t want the song Imagine to come true, doesn’t believe it can come true, doesn’t think it should come true. Besides, Imagine is an anti-Christian song. You have more in common with ((Atheists)) than you think.

                  There’s a phrase for your logical fallacy, I’m trying to remember it, I think it rhymes with shmals shmichotomy.

                • peppermint says:

                  this reminds me of the time holier than ((Jesus)) atheists tried to convince Christians that they are also euphoric.

                  Congratulations on being a Christian and a Nazi, which means that somehow you think “my brethren” in Matthew 25 means Aryans.

                  Who exactly do you think you can convince?

                  How do you intend to convince them? Through textual criticism, historical context, or the traditions of the Chuch?

                  If the traditions of the Church, how do you intend to deal with the fact that Western Christians have accepted mud converts since the beginning?

                • StoneMan says:

                  You think like a Democratist. Fuck the average person’s opinion. You and I happen to agree that the average Christian’s moral intentions are not conducive to good governance, generally. There’s no need to be butthurt that Christians won’t walk into a poll booth and pull the lever labelled “GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW”. Christianity wasn’t progressive for 1200-1500 years. Christian voters weren’t on board with a multiculti hodgepodge until the 20th century.

                  You are angry that Christianity isn’t easy to ply into an ethnonationalist philosophy. Sorry? It isn’t about ethnonationalism. But you are absolutely incorrect in your belief that it is an absolute obstacle to ethnonationalism. It isn’t. Perhaps it is an obstacle in a democracy, but fuck democracy. The Sovereign could expel all races but one, and Christians might not agree but they will not resist.

                  Whether the average person ought to be kind to their fellow man and whether the principles of good governance are such that we should throw people of several sub-species into the same society and expect them to play well together are fundamentally different questions.

          • Turtle says:

            The parables are mystical, but do include politics, so we agree they are relevant here. The best interpretation I know is The Parables, by Archbishop Dmitri (Royster), a short, concise book. In the Parable of the Talents, he refers us to Luke 12:48, and 1 Corinthians 10:13.

            Anyway, your ‘whiten the world’ program is intended as charity, even if it is utilitarian for your in-group only. You don’t disagree as much as you think you do.

      • StoneMan says:

        A religion is to blame. Progressivism. Islam is also to blame. But “religion” is not to blame. Buddhism is not to blame. Hinduism is not to blame. Mormonism is not to blame.

        You’re very eager to lump all of Christianity in with Progressivism. Contrary to your expectation, many of us are not eager to be your scapegoat.

        • Cavalier says:

          What is your position on the Woman Question? namely, do you support the right of women to have income, own property, speak in church, teach schoolboys, and have control of their bodies?

          • StoneMan says:

            There isn’t any such thing as a right. You are only entitled to what you get. And I don’t think women ought to get any of those things. They haven’t demonstrated the ability to do those things well, and certainly not better than men.

            As far as control over their own bodies, well, they will always have that. Whether or not they get abortions or take pills etc. is a different question. Their jurisdiction ends where their husband’s begins and their husband’s jurisdiction happens to be over their reproduction.

            White Shariah all the way.

  11. Korth says:

    Any backlash on muslim immigrants will be exploited by human wrongs activists as an example of why we need more diversity, more rapefugees and more demonization of white males. Rinse and repeat.

    An obvious short term solution is to make human wrongs activism an extremely risky and low status line of work. Target their families and friends, too.

    • Turtle says:

      No, they are suicidal people. You can’t defeat evil with evil anyway. Turn the other cheek,or go to hell with them. Crime victims and war civilians do need the aid of Good Samaritans; this is our responsibility. You might consider the effectiveness of work stoppages, boycotts, and sjw-style combat.

      But, the families of the Manchester victims will not stop eating halal food, I expect. They will be like Columbine,CO massacre victims’ families, starting feel-good “non-profits” to cash in on the pityfest. Activism is both a means to an end and done as a holy war/ jihad. The British people who are ‘allies of islam’ *want* to pay dhimmi taxes, be ruled by a caliph, etc. Islam is normal human behavior, unlike peace and spirituality. Also, we can’t ‘hack the social code’ to win with vain generosity. We already tried that, nominally- “winning hearts and minds” is a chief tenet of the conservacuck religion (which is ideology/ memes).

      Anyway, we can help Muslims one by one, which is true social work. I’m planning on studying Arabic soon- if I can’t communicate with my muslim immigrant neighbors, then I can’t defend myself from them. And I am reading a popular book on one muslim’s “apostasy” into Christianity. Finally, I’m heartened by Trump’s success with the Saudis. It’s great progress, even if they’re lying to win concessions from him. The deals he makes are better than any other recent president’s were. And some muslims like Trump, mostly the ‘bad ones’ Jim describes, who respect sufis and actually read the koran, which can be a faux pas among islamists.

      Here’s some informative lulz:

      • jim says:

        No, they are suicidal people. You can’t defeat evil with evil anyway.

        The only way you can defeat large scale organized evil is with methods of war – bombing civilians, siege, artificial famine, taking the wives and children of the enemy hostage, burning people out of their homes, poisoning their wells and their farms.

        Just war theory is that you can do that sort of stuff under certain circumstances, and that it does not constitute evil, and progs have no hesitation in using such methods against non progressives.

        • JT91 says:

          The media is the engine that allows the rest of the components in this infernal machine to function.

          They are the enemy and they must be destroyed. Only then, after removing the IV pumping poison into the populace at long last, will people finally be able to maybe appraise this situation soberly.

          Just consider the amount of unholy garbage that no sane human being would put up with under normal circumstances being normalized every day. That, or being shoved down our throats. Antifa, grooming gangs, black crime, public displays of sodomy…

          It takes a severe amount of mental strangulation to coerce a human into accepting these things or worse, DEFENDING them. Look at the way your average liberal speaks and acts. It’s as though their brains stopped functioning after middle school, and I believe that’s no accident.

          The media is the psychological warfare wing of our occupation government’s military

          • peppermint says:

            And the professors are the people holding it all together, though now that there can’t be any further metastasis of colleges, they need to compete with each other by saying things that go too far.

          • Cavalier says:

            The masses are irrelevant.

            The Kaiser didn’t give a whit about public opinion, the Weimar Republic cared deeply but was strangely irresponsible and unresponsive, and Hitler told his subjects what to do, what to think, and what to feel.

            Nor does the Cathedral care. A majority elected Trump, and yet the permanent government is strangely unresponsive to his democratically legitimate will.


            • Turtle says:

              Groups are groups, simply. The elite oppose the counter-elite, so they are #NeverTrumpers. Most normies are ok with Trump, if not supportive, so they are increasingly anti-elite. Populism, as in humility, is working. The strange response now is to get suicidal, and I have met Obama-lovers whose “will and ability to enjoy life was pillaged by the Donald.”

              Some have sued him for things like loss of enjoyment of life, or sleep deprivation… and these people are wannabe-elites. This is all predictable, but sorrowful. Nobody elite noticed that Obama harmed sensitive types, both true believers who were disappointed and his similarly desperate opponents, so now there is a lack of pity for the analogous Trump people.

        • Pepe Minion says:

          > methods of war – …

          Breivik and Mair waged war on a small scale but made no lasting impact. Here’s the thing: both were caught, their identities known to the world, long stays in prison begun. No one feels threatened by them now.

          Suppose they hadn’t been caught? No one would know who they were, where they were, who they’ll attack next, whether they act alone or with others. A more worrying situation for the baizuo (what a great word that is!). Much more. A fear of the known is always less than fear of the unknown.

          Suppose some uknown person or persons randomly strikes down a vocal baizuo every month or so. Each attack heightens the fear of “who’s next?” The virtue signallers consider themselves high status and they flaunt it, they give plenty of information that makes them easy targets. They might begin to wonder if it’s worth the risk.

          I suspect it wouldn’t take much, in terms of a casualty rate, to instill some fear in the baizuo.

          • peppermint says:

            Yes, that is what boomer and genx nationalists larp that the beginning of the final war would look like: professors and journalists and NGO lawyers being assassinated, followed by martial law protecting them. Harold Covington larps about how it might be possible to win, but he fundamentally thinks it’s still the ’90s.

            Assassinating single professors and journalists and NGO lawyers would help their morale and social climbing, where they currently are at each others’ throats because they have filled their ecosystem.

            Breivik took out the next generation of Cahedralites, a blow that could only feel positive to them starting a decade after when there’s more space available for the rest of them in Cathedralite careers, while the parents no longer think Cathedralism is safe for kids, and, having lost something, are more sympathetic to right wing causes.

            Dylan Roof should have targeted a grad school. There are already too many grad students so there’s no benefit to them to thin the herd, while assassinating young members of a profession hits much harder and drives people towards right-wing thoughts than assassinating older members.

            What we want is to capture the state with a minimum of violence, then execute a few and whip and brand the rest of the Cathedralites. It would take state power to execute all the Cathedralites at once, which is the only way to shut down religious fanatics by force, and if we have state power we can just whip them to demonstrate that they have no power and let them take part time jobs at 711 for the rest of their lives.

            It goes without saying that assassinating muds or Jews randomly is useless. Making them feel uncomfortable in public through microaggressions is not, however, because it increases the T of Whites and puts them on edge so they’ll whine more.

            More important is to trigger Cathedralites in every way possible. Up until 2 years ago telling everyone they can be triggered easily worked for them. Now it doesn’t.

            The actual way we’re going to win the war is when normies who are ostensibly on their side give us the country because they’re demoralized by fear of being the next SJW target and demoralized by the plan to have all the Whites killed by random niggers.

            Seth Rich was a normalfag who wanted to get money out of politics. He discovered that the DNC was corrupt and leaked, which helped us, which he probably wouldn’t have even wanted, but since they assassinated him, he might have sided with us if he had been told he would have been assassinated.

            I know quite a few normalfags who have always voted Democrat, including for Hillary, and are unhappy about being required to say the Caitlyn Jenner is brave and stunning. They wouldn’t switch sides for that, even if you told them nine year olds are getting hormone blockers. They’ll switch sides when they find out the global warming crisis is a lie, and to a lesser extent that the bankers and democrats are working together to drive down wages and the government will never protect them from mud “people”. But they’ll work with us to get the SJWs off their personal backs, while trying to rat us out to the SJWs.

            The enemy knows White normies are unreliable and has been trying to replace them everywhere.

            The tactics need to fit the strategy. Breivik is a true hero. Dylan Roof and James Earl Ray aren’t, but we need to make statues for them anyway.

            • Pepe Minion says:

              > when normies who are ostensibly on their side give us the country

              Even if they want to will they be able to? Every day the irrevocable election of a new people comes closer. If for every normal who comes to our side there is more than one gibsme colonist joining the voters rolls, that route is closed off forever. Even with the most repulsive candidate they could find, the cathedral got pretty close to final victory last November.

              Trump appears to be either self-cucked or deep-state neutralized, take your pick, and is nowhere near ejecting colonists at the required rate.

              • peppermint says:

                The muds are pretty worthless, which is why they’re here.

                The normies want the 90s back, but with less “sexism”. What they actually want, and will get, is White sharia.

        • Turtle says:

          >> The only way you can defeat large scale organized evil is with methods of war …

          I was spouting spiritual, as in spiritual warfare against demons and our own fallen nature. I don’t distinguish between organized and unorganized evil,for one. Large scale evil can include added up little evils, like each local fight, not just monumental battles. This is a Xeno’s arrow issue, as well as chicken-and-egg conundrum. How much evil does it take to justify a war? To me, any at all.

          >> Just war theory is that you can do that sort of stuff under certain >>circumstances, and that it does not constitute evil, and progs have no >> hesitation in using such methods against non progressives.

          Such methods are progressive, and always presented as circumstantially appropriate. “we had to kill all mankind, because gaia was under seige, lakes near fracking were poisoned, and cute critters were burnt out of their homes…”
          So there’s no way to win at conditionally-justified violence. It must be absolute, as in God defeating the devil through their wager re: Job.

          Finally, there’s some ‘no true Scotsman’ stuff with civilians and enemies (in Syria, just last week, the ‘rebels’ left Damascus with their families because Assad kicked them out- are their children enemy combatants?).

          I don’t think you realize how anxious cucked Christians (and others) are to not judge someone powerful as their enemy. They fear that the worldly powers can defeat God, so they try to appease evil to not have their own faith tested. There are also more dominionist-type people who obsess over their enemies, as in westboro baptist church. What they have in common is cowardice and distrust of God, which turn out to be the same thing.

          If we fear God’s eternal wrath and judgment, his fallen creatures are not serious threats to us. And we cannot love God without fearing him, so it takes courage to win the war of repentance. The root word, Couer, means heart, and so courage is a form of love. This means that we must love our enemies to defeat them.

        • Alrenous says:

          Since nihilism is true there’s no such thing as an unjust war.

          The only thing just war theory does is prevent good folk from destroying evil via making war on them, as evil usually successfully portrays the war as unjust. Evil folk of course simply ignore the theory when the theory is inconvenient.

          When two good folks disagree, the accused should generally be able to prove their righteousness. However, when good folk disagree with evil folk, the evil simply mirrors the accusation, and it should be obvious the good folk won’t be able to prove their goodness to the evil folk’s satisfaction. The only way to resolve this dispute is violence and submission.

          There’s also the distinct possibility that modern progs cave to anyone willing to make war on them, without having to fight much if any of that war.

      • peppermint says:

        》urn the other cheek,or go to hell with them.

        I hope you get an opportunity to act that out soon.

        Let’s start an online petition requesting that ISIS hit a U2 concert next

      • torpedo says:

        > You can’t defeat evil with evil anyway.

        Of course you can. It is called winning a war. The enemy dies, you live.

        > Turn the other cheek,or go to hell

        Lol, a suicidal christcuck. Muhammad has eradicated you from the middle east, so youre now inviting muhammad here so he can eradicate you here.

        This just means that in order to survive, we have not only to eradicate Islam, but christianity too.

        > we can help Muslims

        No, youre crazy and suicidal. If you want a muslim to slaughter you so you can play martyr like your god, go to Syria.

        • Robert says:

          Christians have been fighting Muslims for centuries. Christians aren’t your enemy. Where is the pagan equivalent of this

          • peppermint says:

            Only because Whites called themselves Christians. With that permanently broken, we see that less vocal Christians, the normies, are broadly with us, pagans are either full poz or suspected of being us, and most more vocal Christians oppose us, while all nazis and esoteric kekists are with us.

            Christian reaction is basically cuckservatism. Agree in principle, disagree in the specifics, just like how Marx or Engels wrote that some Christian had told them to wait for the social meaning of Christianity to manifest itself. The commie wrote, it has been a thousand years. But the commie is the manifestation of the social meaning of Christianity and has been in the Buggers, the Muenster rebellion, and the Mayflower Compact.

          • torpedo says:

            > Christians have been fighting Muslims for centuries.

            Christians have been losing against Muslims for centuries. They never won anything, they managed not to vanish at best.

            But this is ok for them, because every time a rabid Muslims slits the throat of a Christian, this makes the christian happy because finally he can get a martyr halo and hope the surviving christians will proclaim him a saint.

            The only reason christians are still existing is their simultaneous advocacy of fecundity; they have managed to breed faster than Muslims managed to slaughter them. This still has not prevented them losing all of the Middle East to Muslims.

            > Christians aren’t your enemy.

            Modern-day Christians advocating open borders so Muslims can get in and martyr them ARE my enemy. Their irrational urge to die at the hands of a Muslim is endangering the rest of us who do not want a halo.

            I would only accept christians as allies if they manage to redefine their beliefs so Deus Vult becomes acceptable again. But i do not think that this is possible any more. Once you castrated yourself, it is impossible regrow your balls again. And christianity HAS castrated itself. So in order for the people to survive, christianity will need to go, and a new religion has to be invented from scratch which explicitely allows killing of millions of muslims without triggering the conscience or feeling or feeling guilt or as a “bad person”.

            • jim says:

              Clearly we need a religion, or equivalently an official belief system, that say it is totally OK to slaughter your enemies, enslave their womenfolk, take their land and stuff, and castrate their male children. Otherwise, on average, in the long run, we lose to people whose belief system encourages that sort of activity.

              The general principle should be that if a region, a city, a nation, whatever, surrenders while it can still fight, twenty first century rules of war then apply to the conquering army, and eighteenth century rules apply to the conquered, but if it fights till its military collapses (taken by storm), or it surrenders, then unsurrenders (guerrilla warfare) then sack of Rome/fall of Jerusalem rules apply. The victors get to do entirely as they please with the losers with the intent of total population replacement.

              • Cavalier says:

                If you enslave their womenfolk and do with them as you please, you end up with African-Americans.

                • jim says:

                  If we had had a policy of castrating all male slaves before puberty, the average American black would today be about one eighth black. Which would be a considerably less serious problem.

        • Turtle says:

          >> Lol, a suicidal christcuck

          Christians sometimes pray to be martyred, but I’d like to stick around for a while, preferably dying of old age without illness. I like comfort. If I had military training, I would go to Syria, and many Christians are there now. Many Muslims are fighting for Assad too, against the cathedral, so I don’t consider islam itself to ruin a person’s soul. God judges; I do not.

          As for what Muhammad has done, there’s always someone eager to kill Christians, until the apocalypse. Muhammad is like Diocletian, is like Marx.

          If Jim can become a reactionary, having been a leftist, and many others have undergone political conversion, then Muslims can become Christians. It does happen; when taught about islam in public school, I thought it was cool, but I’m don’t feel that way now. I stopped sympathizing with allah, so Muslims can too.

          • torpedo says:

            > If I had military training, I would go to Syria

            That is the suicidal cuck in your head speaking again. You want to get yourself in a Muslim zone so maybe a Muslim beheads you so you can get your halo.

            If you had any military training, youd be aware that simply nuking them without setting a single foot to Syria would be the most effective measure to secure the long-term survival of christianity. But you do not care about the long-term survival of christianity, you only care about your halo.

            The Muslim, on the other hand, gets his sainthood for doing precisely what you do not want to do: killing his enemy. Islam rewards fighting the enemy, Christianity rewards dying at the hands of the enemy. Is it any wonder that christianity is losing against the Muslims every time they engage in a conflict? Even with all the technological supremacy, you can not win, solely because you do not want to kill him as much as he wants to kill you.

            > Muhammad is like Diocletian

            Umm, no. Muhammad kills christians because they are his enemy. Diocletian likely started exterminating christians because they threatened to castrate Rome.

            > then Muslims can become Christians.

            They maybe can, maybe not, but why should anyone care what the enemy wants? Just exterminate them all, like they would exterminate all christians if they could, and you do not have to think about them any more.

Leave a Reply