When the west started losing wars

The Victorian theory that women were angels, therefore no coercion was needed against naturally saintly women, only against demonic males who make saintly women do bad things, led to an intolerable flood of bastards and women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, which in turn led to “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables”, which brought us the welfare state, and the replacement of the nuclear family with child support.  As people in the eighteenth century were aware, people need marriage in order to reproduce, and marriage needs coercion to make it stick, and the primary victims of this coercion need to be women, otherwise they will have sex with one man, then sex with another, making it difficult and unpleasant to father children.

Similarly, “White Man’s Burden”, and “la haute mission civilisatrice” was the death of colonialism.

It led the British general who was invading Afghanistan to believe he was doing Afghans a favor, and if he was sufficiently nice to them they would throw flowers at his troops.  So he forbade his troops to take necessary measures for self defense, and, as a result, he and his troops died.

The white man’s burden was profoundly counterproductive to social cohesion, because it led to them sacrificing near (British officers and troops) for far (afghan officers and troops)

If it is a burden, then you proceed to conspicuously display your holiness by burden carrying – which is apt to mean making your troops carry burdens.

Before the British intervened in Afghanistan, the most recent news that most people had of it was records of Alexander’s army passing through two millenia ago.

The empire of the East India company was expanding, and the empire of the Russias was expanding, and it was inevitable that the two would meet. And so it came to pass that the Kings of Afghanistan encountered both, and played each against the other.

When the British became aware of Afghanistan, they interpreted its inhabitants as predominantly white or whitish – as descendants of Alexander’s troops and camp followers and/or descendants of Jews converted to Islam at swordpoint.

Afghanistan was, and arguably still is, an elective monarchy, and the fractious electors tended to fight each other and elect weak kings who could scarcely control their followers, and so it has been ever since Alexander’s troops lost Alexander.

Mister Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his account of is mission to Kabul in 1809, says he once urged upon a very intelligent old man of the tribe of Meankheile, the superiority of a quiet life under a powerful monarch, over the state of chaotic anarchy that so frequently prevailed.

The reply was “We are content with alarms, we are content with discord, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master!”

As Machiavelli observed, such places are easy to conquer, but hard to hold, and so it proved.

To conquer and hold such places, one must massacre, castrate, or enslave all of the ruling elite that seems fractious, which is pretty much all of them, and replace them with your own people, speaking your own language, and practicing your own customs, as the Normans did in England, and the French did in Algeria, starting 1830. The British of 1840, however, had no stomach for French methods, and were already starting to fall short of the population growth necessary for such methods.

So what the British could have done is paid the occasional visit to kill any king that they found obnoxious, kill his friends, family, his children, and leading supporters, install a replacement king, and leave. The replacement king would have found his throne shaky, because Afghan Kings have usually found their thrones shaky, but the British did not need to view that as their problem, knowing the solution to that problem to be drastic and extreme. If the throne has been shaky for two thousand years, it is apt to be difficult to stop it from rocking.

After a long period of disorderly violence, where brother savagely tortured brother to death, and all sorts of utterly horrifying crimes were committed, King Dost Mahomed Khan took power in Kabul in 1826, and proceeded to rule well, creating order, peace, and prosperity, and receiving near universal support from the fractious and quarreling clans of Afghanistan.

The only tax under his rule was a tariff of one fortieth on goods entering and leaving the country. This and the Jizya poll tax are the only taxes allowed by the Koran, at least as Islamic law is interpreted in this rebellious country which has historically been disinclined to pay taxes, and because this tax was actually paid, it brought him unprecedented revenues. On paying this tax “the merchant may travel without guard or protection from one border to the other, an unheard of circumstance”

However he did not rule Herat, which was controlled by one of his enemies, who been King before and had ambitions to be King again. He therefore offered Herat to the Shah of Persia in return for the Shah’s support against another of his enemies, Runjeet Singh. He was probably scarcely aware that Runjeet Singh was allied to the British, and the Shah was allied to the Tsar of all the Russias.

Notice that this deal was remarkably tight fisted, as was infamously typical of deals made by Dost Mahomed Khan. He would give the Persians that which he did not possess, in return for them taking care of one of his enemies and helping him against another.

The British East India Company, however, saw this as Afghanistan moving into Russian empire, though I am pretty sure that neither the Shah of Persia nor the King of Aghanistan thought they were part of anyone’s empire.

So Russia and the East India Company sent ambassadors to the King of Afghanistan, who held a bidding contest asking which of them could best protect him against Runjeet Singh. He then duplicitously accepted both bids from both empires, which was a little too clever by half, though absolutely typical of the deals he made with his neighbors.

Dost Mahomed Khan was a very clever king, but double crossing the East India Company was never very clever at all. No one ever got ahead double crossing the East India Company. It is like borrowing money from the Mafia and forgetting to pay them back.

Russia and England then agreed to not get overly agitated over the doings of unreliable and duplicitous proxies that they could scarcely control – which agreement the East India Company took as permission to hold a gun to the head of the Shah of Persia. The East India company seized control of the Persian Gulf, an implicit threat to invade if the Shah intervened in Afghanistan to protect Dost Mahomed Khan. It then let Runjeet Singh off the leash, and promised to support his invasion of Afghanistan.

So far, so sane. Someone double crosses you, then you make an horrible example of him, and no one will do it again. Then get out, and whoever rules in Afghanistan, if anyone does manage to rule, will refrain from pissing you off a second time.

The British decided to give a large part of Afghanistan to Runjeet Singh, and install Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk, a Kinglet with somewhat plausible pretensions to the Afghan throne, in place of Dost Mahomet Khan.

Up to this point everything the East India Company is doing is sane, honorable, competent, just, and wonderfully eighteenth century.

Unfortunately, it is the nineteenth century. And the nineteenth century is when the rot set in.

His Majesty Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk will enter Afghanistan, surrounded by his own troops, and will be supported against foreign interference, and factious opposition, by the British Army. The Governor-general confidently hopes, that the Shah will be speedily replaced on his throne by his own subjects and adherents, and that the independence and integrity of Afghanistan established, the British army will be withdrawn. The Governor-general has been led to these acts by the duty which is imposed upon him, of providing for the security of the possessions of the British crown, but he rejoices, that, in the discharge of this duty, he will be enabled to assist in restoring the union and prosperity of the Afghan people.

So: The English tell themselves and each other: We not smacking Afghans against a wall to teach them not to play games with the East India Company. On the contrary, we are doing them a favor. A really big favor. Because we love everyone. We even love total strangers in far away places very different from ourselves. We are defending the independence of Afghanistan by removing the strongest King it has had in centuries and installing our puppet, and defending its integrity by arranging for invasion, conquest, rape and pillage by its ancient enemies the Sikhs, in particular Runjeet Singh. Because we love far away strangers who speak a language different from our own and live in places we cannot find on the map. We just love them to pieces. And when we invade, we will doubtless be greeted by people throwing flowers at us.

You might ask who would believe such guff? Obviously not the Afghans, who are being smacked against the wall. Obviously not the Russians. Obviously not the Persians. Obviously not the British troops who are apt to notice they are not being pelted with flowers.

The answer is, the commanding officer believed this guff. And not long thereafter, he and his troops died of it, the first great defeat of British colonialism. And, of course, the same causes are today leading to our current defeat in Afghanistan.

The commanding officer of the British expedition made a long series of horrifyingly evil and stupid decisions, which decisions only made sense if he was doing the Afghans a big favor, if the Afghans were likely to appreciate the big favor he was doing them, and his troops were being pelted with flowers, or Afghans were likely to start pelting them with flowers real soon now. The East India company was no stranger to evil acts, being in the business of piracy, brigandry, conquest, and extortion, but people tend to forgive evil acts that lead to success, prosperity, good roads, safe roads, and strong government. These evil acts, the evil acts committed by the British expedition to Afghanistan, are long remembered because they led to failure, defeat, lawlessness, disorder, and weak government.

As a result, he, his men, and their camp followers, were all killed.

Progressives tend to judge people by their good intentions, and the intentions of the British Empire in invading Afghanistan were absolutely wonderful, but the man who does evil because insane is a worse problem than the man who does evil because he expects to profit. The rational profit seeking evildoer, you can pay off, or deter. You can surrender on terms that will probaby not be too bad. The irrational evildoer just has to be killed. Before 1840, the East India Company was sometimes deterred, frequently paid off, and frequently accepted surrender on reasonable terms. In 1841, just had to be killed.

This illustrates the importance of the rectification of names, of formalism. If you lie to yourself, you are deceived. I have been reading the Clinton emails, and one of the most striking features is that Clinton and company are deluded and deceived by self flattering lies, that despite having vast spy networks in far flung places, are seriously out of contact with reality, as their circle tells each other what they want to hear.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Hillary and her advisers, and therefore I suppose the entire state department, know neither the enemy nor themselves. They dream grandiose delusions, in which they are the terribly smart and virtuous people, rather than a drunken old sow surrounded by lying flatterers.

The East India Company did not realize that it was about to be recast, or was recasting itself, from being a for profit company, empowered to make war and engage in acts of piracy and extortion for private profit, to being the British government’s instrument of holy do gooding, benevolently carrying the white man’s burden for the benefit of a bunch of strangely ungrateful foreigners. In place of a ruthless mafia with uniformed soldiers, the East India Company was about to become an NGO with uniformed nursemaids.

Yet strangely, the greater the good intentions, the more they were to be resented.</sarcasm> The East India Company seems to have been more popular when they were pirates and bandits than when they were pious do gooders. No one seemed to appreciate the East India Company doing good to them at gunpoint. The ridiculous part of the white man’s burden was the striking ingratitude of the supposed beneficiaries, resembling the striking ingratitude of Middle Easterner’s towards meddling by presidents Bush and Obama in the Middle East. Those @!^&$ Middle Easterners just somehow do not know what is good for them, unlike far away strangers, who, being terribly clever, know exactly what is good for the Middle East without ever having lived there.

If an elite attempt to rule distant places, they will rule them very badly, unless some of the children of the elite move to those places, and stay there to rule them.  Carpetbaggers who come and go tend to leave horror and devastation in their wake, as for example the looting of Haiti by do gooder ngos after the earthquake.   If you are not going to stick around, the incentive is to take everything and smash everything, which is what happened to Haiti when the US State Department ngos got coercive quasi governmental power.  Haitians wound up eating dirt, sleeping in the rain, and got cholera.  So, not going to rule well, unless you have a fertile elite, which needs more governmental and quasi governmental jobs for its excessively numerous offspring.   In which case good rule will naturally follow from the desire of that elite to make a nice place for themselves and their descendants.  This is necessarily going to be rough on the existing local elite, but  an ideology of doing good to far away strangers does not result in doing good to far away strangers, but at best to famine, destruction of property, and disease, as recently demonstrated in Haiti.

78 Responses to “When the west started losing wars”

  1. Mike says:

    > The British of 1840, however, had no stomach for French methods, and were already starting to fall short of the population growth necessary for such methods.

    Rubbish. Britains population was continually growing throughout the 1800s well into the early 1900s. The decline started around the 1910s, if memory serves me correctly.

    They colonised South Africa, Rhodesia, Australia and New Zealand during the second half of the 1800s. This would not have happened if they were weak, or lacking in manpower.

    • jim says:

      Elite fertility started falling in 1820 with the inability to divorce Queen Caroline and the revelation that King George was massively cuckolded. When the next generation came of age, twenty years later, 1840, when the missing children of the elite failed to show up from the playing fields of Eton to lead the enlisted men, twenty years after the Queen Caroline scandal, the British empire began its decline and fall with defeat in Afghanistan.

      Conquering Afghanistan would have necessarily involved white elite males going there and staying there to rule, quite a lot of white elite males. Jobs for the boys, but somehow there is not much demand for jobs for the boys. The East India company, before the invasion, leading up to the invasion, proposes a PC rationale and planned outcome that somehow, strangely, does not involve any new elite jobs for new English members of the white elite, which plan, predictably, fails. The freshly installed native ruler, not surrounded by anglo advisors nor an anglo praetorian guard, double crosses them.

      Obvious shortage of loyal anglo elite kids for anglo elite loyalist jobs in the colonies. Which shortage bites the colonialist project exactly twenty years after King George the fourth is publicly unmanned.

      • Mike says:

        Afghanistan was a resource poor country. There would have been no jobs other than the administrative ones, and the whole country would have been a net drain on the British resources much like Iraq was a net drain on the Empires coffers.

        The EIC was only in India to make money, not expand territory for prestige. That is why they married local women and cozied up to the Raj’s. The British were only concerned about India as a prestigious/imperial possession after the EIC went bankrupt and was bailed out by the government, and they took over control of India.

        The Rhodesia Company was basically the same as the EIC but in South Africa. Dito for the Hudson Bay Company in Canada. Britain expanded as a commercial empire not one run by aristocrats. The crown and was indifferent about the Empire, from James onwards.

        • Yara says:

          Where do you think opium comes from?

          • Mike says:

            Afghan opium is a modern phenomenon starting in the cold war. The British got their opium from either northern India or Turkey. Turkish opium went to the UK, Indian opium went to China.

            • Yara says:

              Wikipedia says that Afghanistan only began significant opium production in the 1950s, so I’ll defer there. (1)

              Wikipedia also says that Afghanistan is rich in many minerals, with “over 1400 mineral fields”, including “barite, chromite, coal, copper, gold, iron ore, lead, natural gas, petroleum, precious and semi-precious stones, salt, sulfur, talc, and zinc”, gemstones including “high-quality emerald, lapis lazuli, red garnet and ruby”, and occupies a prime geostrategical location for conveying vast wealth, viz. “Afghanistan’s significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline gas pipeline.” (2) (3)

              Wikipedia continues:

              “The last mining boom in Afghanistan was over 2,000 years ago in the era of Alexander the Great, when gold, silver and precious stones were routinely mined. Geologists have known of the extent of the mineral wealth for over a century, as a result of surveys done by the British and Russians.”

              “The British Empire first initiated resource assessments in Afghanistan in the early nineteenth century as they searched through pioneering exploration and military escapades for countries to dominate as markets and trading partners.[14] From the time of their first geological mapping and mineral resource assessments in Afghanistan,[15] and on into the twentieth century,[16] the British maintained a comprehensive interest in resources of Afghanistan. This was done while also improving their military intelligence on resources and topographic detail that would be needed in the event of any unrest in the machinations of their Great Game face-off against the Russian Empire, and as long as they could maintain their British Raj (rule) of the Indian subcontinent.”

              Wikipedia references at article published by the Independent, titled “Afghanistan’s resources could make it the richest mining region on earth”, in which a number of stunning and extraordinary statements are made, e.g. “According to a Pentagon memo, seen by the New York Times, Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium”, with one location in Ghazni province showing the potential to compete with Bolivia, which, until now, held half the known world reserves.” (4)

              How surprising, then, that the spontaneous collapse of three buildings in New York was promptly followed by the immediate invasion of an unrelated country full of harmless inbred goatfuckers armed with little more than surplus Kalashnikovs abroad, and a tremendous erosion of civil liberties at home, e.g. the depredations of the TSA, the radical militarization of police at every level of government (perhaps most importantly, siege mentality), the proliferation of asset forfeiture, and other symptoms of increasingly lawless government.

        • jim says:

          Administrative jobs are what was needed to rule Afghanistan.

          If they wanted to conquer Afghanistan, needed to rule it. If they wanted to rule it, needed elite anglos to go forth from Eton to rule it.

          English rule of Afghanistan would have made a whacking great profit, much as the entire British empire made a whacking great profit, when the colonialist administrators were able to keep some of that profit.

          The French in Algiers made a whacking great profit, until they were forbidden to rule. It is hard to rule at a loss, if the rulers have the incentive to rule at a profit.

          • Mike says:

            The administrative roles were not performed by aristocrats but by middle class civil servants, the kind that Rudyard Kipling would typify. Kipling was not an aristocrat.

            Iraq was under the British Empire and was a net loss. Throwing admin staff at a country doesnf make it profitable or even break even.

            British finance was investing in Argentina in the late 1800s because it was profitable (cattle). Afghanistan was not profitable hence they never invested in it. The British Empire was first and foremost a commercial venture, going back fo Drake and his.raids on Spain.

            • jim says:

              They never invested in Afghanistan, because it was under the control of people who were likely to take their stuff.

              I don’t agree with your history of the British empire. It was always and everywhere extremely profitable, stupendously profitable, until the government nationalized it.

              • Mike says:

                If you dont know that some regions of the British Empire were a financial burden, then you dont know very much.

                The EIC had to invade vaeious Indian states and engage in tax farming because it was constantly going broke. The only reason that India was taken over is because the EIC went bust. If you’re ignorant of that most basic fact then you are in no position to comment on it.

                • jim says:

                  The employees of the EIC were famously, or infamously, apt to become extremely wealthy. The reason the East India Company was frequently in financial difficulties was not that conquest was unprofitable, but that its distant and powerful employees were frequently robbing it.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      South Africa was colonized by the Dutch; the British took over an existing colony. Both South Africa and Rhodesia put the British against uncivilized and disunited people.

      The natives in Australia were hunter gathers who were easily pushed aside.

      The Maori were tougher but the British beat them by the simple expedient of having more colonists.

      • Mike says:

        Jims point was that British expansion effectively stopped in the mid 1800s because the elites werent breeding. This is false as I have just explained and so have you by the fact thay the British occupied Aus, NZ and South Africa.

        • jim says:

          British expansion of political power stopped in 1840 because the elites stopped breeding in 1820.

          Migration to Au, NZ, and South Africa largely relied on proles, Irish, and foreigners. It was not an expansion of political power, just a movement of the ruled from one location ruled by Anglos to another location ruled by anglos, and migration of Europeans to locations ruled by Anglos.

          • Mike says:

            Right… So the Opium wars and the annexation of Chinese territory was a non event then?

            Aristocrats didnt have a massive rolen in the British Empire. For insyance Canada wasnfounded by the Hudson Bay Company, 13 colonies were settled by comon folk, Carribbean Islands were populated by slaves,and so on.

            The aristocracy was losing power, hence the rise of the Liberal party and the Conservative Party, whose power base was the bourgeois.

            • jim says:

              Aristocracy was in power until after the Crimean war. If you look at who is who in the opium wars, it is all Lord this and Baronet that.

              • Mike says:

                Armies are not the same governments. Generals follow orders they dont make them. British armies were ordered by the houses of parliament not the monarchy. Its a constitutional monarchy.

                In Britain the crown reigns, but doesnt rule.

                • jim says:

                  No one rules alone. If state jobs and quasi statal jobs go to the children of aristocrats, aristocrats rule.

            • The Cominator says:

              Almost all those non aristocrats involved in companies conquering foreign countries were either non firstborn sons or cousins/nephews of aristocrats.

              Kings generally ruled Britain until during the reign of George IV when parliament kind of started ignoring him (they also ignored George I because he was percieved as a barbarian German foreigner) and he let them. I don’t know whether it was entirely due to Queen Caroline like Jim says or the perception that he was fat stupid spendthrift drunk.

              William IV actually made a partial recovery in royal power but Queen Victoria threw it all away and let the politicians rule.

  2. TBeholder says:

    > Similarly, “White Man’s Burden”, and “la haute mission civilisatrice” was the death of colonialism.
    Yup. Kipling wrote a lot about it.
    Smart “sahibs” didn’t try to treat the locals as cute monkeys to put in funny dresses. They even managed to get Gurkhas work for them.
    From the other side, Russia mostly remembered the lessons of Horde — expand your sphere of influence, but don’t bug the vassals needlessly, just keep close to the basic feudal contract.
    And not bothering with non-issues makes easier the next step — an attempt to expand influence by recruiting partners into a bloc. In the end, it died, but this took incredible incompetence of Nicholas II. Who else could first allow corruption to run wild (despite several generations of his ancestors wrestling with hostile economic power of landowners, and the winner of this war being assassinated), and when it started to bite the neighbors, instead of curbing it push into amazingly stupid war?

    > Those @!^&$ Middle Easterners just somehow do not know what is good for them, unlike far away strangers, who, being terribly clever, know exactly what is good for the Middle East without ever having lived there.
    Heh. Here’s one from Taleb: “On Interventionistas and their Mental Defects”.

  3. lalit says:

    That entire “Graveyard of empire” talk regarding Afghanistan comes from the Brits who were too busy sucking the blood off of North Indian peasants to invade Afghanistan properly. When Afghanistan is invaded properly, it is quite easy to conquer, hold and tax, as was done to NWFP by Ranjeet Singh and earlier than that by Genghis Khan and even earlier than that by the Arab Islamic invasions.

    • jim says:

      Exactly so. Had the British done to Afghanistan what Clive had earlier done to India, would have had no problems.

      • Singh says:

        Fk the British, but I’m gonna use that term rule by enemies it sums it up perfectly||

        • lalit says:

          Why did Maharaja Ranjit Singh have to die so young? And then why did his capable son Kharak Singh have to die in such a freak accident at an even younger age?

          It hurts man. it really hurts. Especially when Sub-human Politicians in the Rape-public of Endia, like Karunanidhi are still alive at 93 and look like they will live for another 93.

  4. Frederick Algernon says:

    From “Got Game?” to the Great Game. Welcome back Jim.

    This was a fun excursion into a tiny piece of English Colonial history. Jim, have you ever read The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command by Andrew Gordon? I highly recommend it, in addition you could peruse A.T. Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power Upon History. Both books discuss England’s success, and the detrimental effects thereof, on the high seas.

  5. Oog en Hand says:

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. ”


    “De Grijze Wolven maken handig gebruik van het feit dat Nederlanders zonder een achtergrond in Turkije het Turks niet machtig zijn. Die hebben dus geen idee wat er werkelijk gebeurt. Daardoor kunnen Turkse fascisten openlijk hun gang gaan, en dat doen ze ook.”

    “The Gray Wolves make good use of the fact that the Dutch without Turkish background are not powerful. They therefore have no idea what is actually happening. As a result, Turkish fascists can openly do their thing, and so do they.”

    “het Turks niet machtig zijn” is translated by Google by “are not powerful”.

    REAL translation: “can’t understand Turkish”


  6. 1. Replacing the local elite can be tough on the local elite, but almost guaranteed to be very good for the local peasants. Because the love-everybody signalling doesn’t happen in vacuum, it is the peak of a moral status hierarchy, and that means even around the middle of that moral status hierarchy, i.e. the average elites, still do not like to and actively avoid committing cruelty. The BEIC may have been pirates but pretty sure they were the nicest pirates, compared to the local ones.

    2. That suggests that you can still do a love-everybody campaign as long as you formulate it as liberating the local peasants from the local elites. And the weird part is that this was precisely the rhetoric of white mans burden and the civilizing mission and democracy building in Iraq and what the hell. So either they did not remove the local elites, which sounds weird, as they hated the local elites whom they considered backwards and medieval, but perhaps they believed taking away their formal powers is enough, and ignored the informal power of property, family, clan, relations, contacts, and status. Or did remove them but failed to replace them with Western elites, assuming that it will just be a self-governming democracy.

    3. Failure to replace cannot be fertility caused. 40 years later they took over Cairo and ruled it well. Either replacement worked, largely because any point on the Mediterrean is leaps and bounds a more attractive geographic location to move to than the middle of landlocked nowhere (if nobody really wants to conquer place for 2000 years, it is shit), or replacement was not necessary because the local elites could be forced to cooperate. My hunch is that the Ottomans ensured only very cooperative Arabs get any sort of power or property, so the local elites were already strongly selected for that.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      1 The niceness of the BEIC depends on how much the famines were caused by them. I don’t know enough to sort the bullshit from the real.

      2 Democracy building is not putting in your elite. It is putting in a new local elite (which are presumably less competent because they aren’t the ones who previously had power) backed by the ‘international community’ which is less helpful then having it run by the Comiterm.

      3 Britain supported the existing ruler in Egypt; they did not attempt to install a new one.

  7. Mister Grumpus says:

    I wouldn’t even know where to look for this story if I knew to look for it in the first place.

    Can you recall where you learned this?

      • Singh says:

        Rann Jeet Singh whose name means Battlefield, Victory & Tiger was not an ally or vassal of the british||


        The Guru’s men tore open the chest of the British, like a Lion does to a meek gazeele, despite a decade of turbulence after Ranjit Singh’s Passing||

        A Famous Poem by a British Sergeant States that As He Saw the Commander in the 2nd Panjab-Angrej War he wished he had a Sikh commanding him||

        Sikhi is not just a Manly Religion, It is THE only many religion,

        ਕਮਰਕਸਾਕਰਿਦੇਹੁਦਿਖਾਈ ।।ਹਮਰੀਖੁਸ਼ੀਹੋਇਅਧਿਕਾਈ ।।
        When showing yourself to me have your Kamar Kasa [waist band which holds weapons] tied, in such a way I shall be extremely happy.

        ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰਕੇਸਬਿਨਪਾਉਲਖਹੁਨਰ।।ਕੇਸਧਰੇਤਬਿਆਧੋਲਖਿਉਰ ।।੮।।
        Those men who do not have Kesh [unshorn hair] or Shastars [weapons], do not recognize those men as full men. Those who have Kesh [unshorn hair], recognize those as half-men.

        Those who have adorned themselves with Kesh [unshorn hair] and Shastar [weapons], those men have attained their full form.”

        Rebellion is a sin along other Paths, while it is what the Singhs have asked for from the Guru||



        • jim says:

          > Rann Jeet Singh whose name means Battlefield, Victory & Tiger was not an ally or vassal of the British

          British offered him most of Afghanistan, therefore an ally of the British at that time.

          > Sikhi is not just a Manly Religion, It is THE only manly religion,

          It certainly used to be a manly religion, and in theory it still is, but under the rule of your enemies, I see a gap appearing between theory and practice.

          • Singh says:

            Agree on 2nd Part.

            on 1st, Hari Singh Nalwa took Peshawar.

            Lot of Afghanistan is a modernist creation out of various parts of Old KhoraSan Prov which is the real Persia.

            Peshawar, Gandhar, Kabul are the three cities of the Pathans & their Jewel Peshawr was taken by Shaheed Hari Singh||

            The Melechas are certainly trying to subvert Sikhi once more.
            Don’t think they’ll win 🙂

          • Singh says:

            Treat of Amritsar 1809 AD is the real sit.

            The treacherous Chiefs Across Sutlej River had allied with British||

            This was merely an opportunity & Ranjit Singh moreso allowed an EIC army to cross through Punjab into Afghanistan, where they were promptly massacred||

            Real question is, how do we destroy this type of BS before the African pop explosion wipes us all out?

          • Singh says:

            Brits loved Sikhs so much that they actively targeted Nihang Singhs, tore control of Akal Takht from them, and sought to reform Sikhi into Protestant Feminism||

            Even more, they loved Sikhi so much their view of it was that a Sikh truly finds his true potential under an Anglo Master||

            British ideas of governance including attacking Sati, Untouchability & Islamophobia ie Christian Governance were directly at Odds with Sikh Bharatiya RajNeeti (Rulership Method)

            The New World Order Shorrn of Abrahamic Feminism, (such as Abraham selling his sister into prostitution) will begin over the Corpse of the Anglo||

            Whether the True Sons of Brittania will again wear the Blue Uniform only Guru Sahib Knows||


            • glosoli says:

              >The New World Order Shorrn of Abrahamic Feminism, (such as Abraham selling his sister into prostitution) will begin over the Corpse of the Anglo||

              Good to see our enemies showing their true colours. The fact that 80% of them still shit in the streets doesn’t mean they’re not a threat, it’s just the threat is to their own survival. Indian corruption, coupled with low IQs and no Laws of God to follow makes them a permanent shithole nation, only briefly enlightened by the ways of God, via British men.

              Once again Jim, we see it’s either Christ’s way, or the highway.

              • peppermint says:

                You’re exactly the sort of faggot Singh is thinking of when he says Anglos are faggots. We will wear blue as he suggests when we shove your entire pathetic faggotry group into the bog.

                Millennials no longer think it’s cool not to know one group from another. Boomers thought that was cool as a way of signaling that they don’t want to get involved but then they decided it was actually cool to get involved in stuff they don’t know anything about, which is how the jew project to destoy Iraq handed Iraq over to the country jews hate more than they hated Saddam.

                We’ll talk about Christianity when it isn’t run by faggots, pedos, and ngo types.

                • glosoli says:

                  Don’t worry, Jehovah will do much worse than shove us into bogs. And us includes you too, heathen.

                  I’ll talk about Christianity whenever I want, and you’ll read it and your guilt will consume you.

                  You’re correct that our faith is corrupted by fakes and evil however:


                • peppermint says:

                  You missed the point that I made because you thought it your duty to focus on the insults I surrounded it with.

                  Getting rolled like that is exactly what’s been wrong with Christians for the past hundred years.

                  Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Evidently that only applies to muslim rapists.

                • glosoli says:

                  I’ve told you before, your comments on boomers v millennials are trite.

                  Each generation’s ethos and behaviour is largely determined by where we are in the Tytler cycle. Easy times breed weak men, tough times breed hard men.

                  So I tend to ignore all of what you write on that subject, it’s both boring and stupid. If you think you’d have behaved any differently to your boomer relatives in their situation, with no internet for truth-seeking, you’re delusional.

                  You do however exhibit a boomer-like pride in thinking you ‘rolled me’. That comment could easily have come from Glenfilthie’s mouth.

                  Look in the mirror, focus your attacks on our enemies, not hard-core orthodox Christians like me (and there are but a handful like me, the uncucked kind). People like me are literally the only route to saving the West from the left, as Christian faith and obedience alone will enable God to bless a nation to defeat its enemies.

                  The day you and others like you realise that, we can start winning, until then, your nation is accursed.

                  You ever wonder why Britain, a tiny island of nothing special, suddenly rose to power over more than 1,000 years? And why the US is losing it’s power after just a 150 years tops? It’s because we had string faith for most of those 1,000 years, and adherence to the Law, whereas America had neither, its very constitution is leftist and anti-God.

                  Think on that.

                • jim says:

                  > Look in the mirror, focus your attacks on our enemies, not hard-core orthodox Christians like me (and there are but a handful like me, the uncucked kind)

                  The west is going to need Christianity to survive – but I notice that both Zippy and Bruce Charleton hate me because I point out that they are selling out to progressivism. Bruce Charleton interprets away Saint Paul on women and marriage, Zippy has accepted the invention of a new word and a new sin “racism” – the most terrible of sins, and similarly is working his way towards socialism. Orthodox Jews are still reproducing, but they have abandoned the tenth commandment for doubling down on not boiling a goat in its mother’s milk. Dalrock is great, but he banned me because I asserted that women should be subject to domestic discipline, that they should be physically coerced and that they rather like a husband who might well physically coerce them.

                  So, if Zippy is cucked, Bruce Charleton is cucked, and even Dalrock is a little bit cucked, Christianity is in deep doodoo.

                  We need Christianity for the trichotomy

                  but we do not seem to have it.

                • Koanic says:

                  Ignore the old cucks. Or rather, declare them heretics, and teach the young the importance of stoning them to death.

                • glosoli says:

                  Well, feel free to link to my little blog, totally uncucked, and I will do my best to convert an uncucked army of Christian reactionaries.

                  Maybe I can persuade a friend to write a guest post or two, what do you think Koanic, dust off the keyboard?

                • jim says:

                  Your blog is on blogspot.

                  Blogspot is evil.

                  Your blog requires google id in order to comment. Anyone who makes a politically incorrect comment on his google id will have his life destroyed.

                  I liked your post on free will.

                  Here is my comment on that post, which I could not leave on your blog, because your blog is in the hands of our enemies:

                  If God is omnipotent, he can play solitaire. If he can play solitaire, he can choose not to see the faces of the cards lying on the table.

                  If God cannot lie, he can create a stone too heavy for him to lift by simply saying “I cannot lift this stone”. And thus we have a universe that operates in accord with physical law, intelligible by the scientific method.

                  If God cannot lie, he can play poker fairly with us, and the story of the Garden of Eden is God being fair at poker.

                  God made himself small so that there would be room in the universe for more than one being with moral choices and responsibility for his own outcomes. Thus the Christian God, unlike the Muslim God, is both big and small, wholly God and wholly man – big enough to provide hope, unlike the Norse Gods, small enough to allow room for human flourishing, unlike the Muslim and Orthodox Jewish God.

                  I cannot comment on a blog in the hands of our enemies, and am not going to link to it, because that might lead other people to comment on it.

                  If you want a blog that is not in the hands of our enemies, ask me for a blog, ftp account, and an email with an address <example>.reaction.la

                  Do not connect your new blog with your old identity. I recommend a Threema code.

                • Koanic says:

                  I’m not even interested in writing for my own blog right now.

                  You have this backwards. You should be asking to guest post on other people’s blogs, who are more prominent than you. Google guest posting advice.

                • jim says:

                  It does not make sense to give someone else’s blog free content. People come here for my content. I want good people to give me free content. I don’t want to give other people free content.

                • Koanic says:

                  Pardon me, Jim. I need a new verb for “search the Internet”.

                  Duckduck doesn’t flow…

                  There is no suitable concise synonym. Therefore I’ll keep using “Google”.

                • Koanic says:

                  > It does not make sense to give someone else’s blog free content.

                  Guest posting makes sense for the same reason selling your product to someone else’s email list makes sense.

                  You can always link your readers to their blog for the post they would’ve otherwise missed.

                • glosoli says:

                  Jim, I will liaise with Koanic and get back to you, thanks for the offer.

                  I’m not a tech guy, and I already had a blogger profile.

                • peppermint says:

                  Aristotle cycle is the college answer. People do specific things for specific reasons.

                • peppermint says:

                  Cyclical history: Boomers were born into the golden/dark transition and are as effete as they are arrogant, GenX is lost in the dark and Millennials and GenZ are in the dark/iron transition.

                  Real history: The dark age of censorship began in the mid 19c.
                  The left achieved total dominance by the mid 20c. Boomer rebellion against the left consisted of not transmitting the values to their children, safety first, if every trophy needs to be given to a nigger every trophy needs to be given to all the children because they’re all special, saving the hwales instead of the niggers, when the left said that this group of muds should be used against that group and we should adopt this custom from this group and impose that custom on that group, pretending not to be able to tell them apart, reflexively shouting MURICA and plastering flags everywhere, arguing that forms of social organization that would only kind of work with Whites should be imposed on everyone, prepping for the apocalypse (calling it zombies is more of a genx thing), moving an exit down the freeway and arguing for lower taxes, the list goes on and on.

                  The fact is GWB campaigned like Trump and voting for GWB instead of McCain or Gore was the right thing to do. Clinton instead of GHWB was also right and Obama instead of McCain and Rmoney was also the right choice. Boomers could have saved us a lot of grief if they’d been able to vote for Perot or Buchanan but the enemy controlled all communications. Instead, in between Christians and commies trying to ban uncensored Internet, in between Christians and commies trying to ban abortions of niglets, Boomers said duh and kept things going, as the butter in their coffee was taken out and their faces were stuffed with bagels instead of donuts.

                  I don’t signal as a Christian because I don’t see porn and availability of birth control and abortion as a big deal. Instead, I believe that the crisis in marriage is caused by college and divorce and intentional economic disenfranchisement of young White men and the idea that marriage is about two people making out in front of everyone instead of future children.

                  I expect to be vindicated in this belief when the men and women of my generation get married over the next few years after the men are redeemed by His Majesty the God Emperor, Donald Trump the Winner and Redeemer. And by I expect this to happen, I mean this is already happening.

                • TBeholder says:

                  > Obama instead of McCain and Rmoney
                  You still didn’t figure out? It was not a choice, it was a bad theater.
                  Back then, replacement of large-scale shell game with what Moldbug called Inner Party/Outer Party system was mostly completed. Sure, there were squabbles for the troughs, but they happened all the time within single pseudoparty of USSR, so does it matter?
                  CNN and McCain & Co were in perfect agreement during the little episode with fake sarin attack in Syria. Do you think they weren’t mostly in agreement the rest of time?

                • peppermint says:

                  That’s why GWB and Obama were the correct choices. Al Gore would have been followed by a neoconservative and McCain would have been followed by a progressive. Kabuki theater isn’t free, it imposes serious costs and uncertainty on the enemy as they need to constantly rewrite their positions, during which Trump slipped through.

                • peppermint says:

                  Since when and why is sustainability a leftist value? Are they abandoning it and what effect would that have?

                  It’s amazing how suddenly you change your perspective and forget the old one. Once upon a time threads were for making the system responsive and using them was good citizenship. Then SMP was obsolete because cpus were faster and the average programmer stopped thinking about them. Now threading is obsolete because everyone is working on software for web browsers and game engines.

                • glosoli says:


                  Re your kind offer of blog hosting etc, yes please.

                  I had a dream last night where we were working together, as well as playing golf, and there was some Jehovan influence on my golf ball, to my advantage. I rarely remember my dreams, so I take it as a sign of God blessing this move.

                  The email address I use for my comments is a valid one, but I’ll await your instructions on how we proceed. Thanks.

                • Dave says:

                  > Since when and why is sustainability a leftist value?

                  Since it became obvious that only capitalism, not socialism, could bring prosperity to the working man. In capitalist countries, poor people eat chicken every day and die of obesity.

                  “Sustainability” is a euphemism for “poverty”. If you can’t deliver the goods, deliver something bad and call it a good.

                • glosoli says:


                  Bruce Charlton just rang a bell with me, he’s not a Christian, he’s a fake:


        • lalit says:

          The time has come for all Hindus to convert to Sikhism or at least become Hindu-Sikhs. Or at the very least, the eldest son of every Hindu families becomes a Sikh as it happened in Punjab when the Mughals were at large. Failing that, Hinduism itself is doomed and with it Indian civilization and after that, I really don’t give a f***.

          • Singh says:


            Don’t worry we Will walk from Amritsar to Lahore sprinkliing Melech Blood at every stepp||ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।

            • jim says:


              • Oog en Hand says:

                “melech” = “hoerenjong”

              • lalit says:

                Melech is the Punjabi accented way of Saying Mlechcha, Punjab being the province where most Sikhs come from.

                The term Mlechcha, in Sanskrit, means barbarian and uncivilized. It is used by Traditional Hindus in a similar sense to the way the Japanese use Gaijin. Similar, but not the same. It was earlier sometimes used to denote Muslims and the British EIC.

                The term has enjoyed a renaissance among the Hindu Right wingers as a way of talking about Islam/Muslims and Christians while escaping the censors at Twitter with their search algorithms, much like you gentlemen use the terms Vibrants and Dindus.

                Some other terms
                1. Muslims: Maru-ummata, In Sanskrit, it could mean either desert madmen (Muslims) or the desert confederation (Islam)

                2. Christians: Shavasadhaka, pretasadhaka. Sanskrit meaning being Corpse-worshippers or Devil-worshippers

                3. Turushkas: Literally sanskrit for Turks, but actually means muslims.

                And as spandrell says, we too have been changing the meaning of some English words to talk about Islam and Chrstianity. This too permits plausible deniability when the Government of the rape-Public of Endia wants to prosecute Hindus for hate speech against Christianity or Islam

                1. RoP: Religion of Peace to talk about Islam
                2. RoL: Religion of Love, to talk about Christianity
                3. Peaceful: Muslim
                4. LoverBoy: Christian

                And some sections when they say Peace, they really mean Islam and when they mean Love, they really mean Christianity. So discussing the two in these ways avoids a conviction in the Rape-public of Endia’s court system.

                • jim says:

                  Loving thy neighbor makes sense, but loving people far away and very different from oneself, of whom one knows nothing, invariably manifests as dominating and damaging those people – as for example the outstandingly horrifying havoc, plague, famine, and homelessness wrought by the ngos “aiding” Haiti after the earthquake.

                  Christianity, of course, is genuinely the religion of peace, since it teaches to go the extra step to make peace with the outgroup, to take the first risky step in attaining cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, but the hearts men were never made big enough to love the outgroup, so, to the extent that Christianity claims to be the religion of love, it is as big a lie as that Islam is the religion of peace.

                • Koanic says:

                  There is no inappropriate love commanded or endorsed in the Bible. I am happy to defend any particular verse.

                • jim says:

                  I am pretty sure that inappropriate love is nowhere commanded in the bible, though modern Cuckstianity claims otherwise.

                • lalit says:

                  If Jim and Kaonic say that there is no inappropriate Love commanded in the Bible, i believe you. I am no expert in the bible. I’ve barely read any verses. The Koran is what I know a lot better. So I’ll shut up up about the Bible.

                  When the Hindu right wing is parodying Christianity is “Love”, they are parodying the behaviour of Christian missionaries active in India, their methods of conversion, their justifications for their sometimes violent methods and the sycophancy of their Indian converts. You cannot expect a man trying to make a living and feed his family to critically read up on the Bible/Koran and then make a judgement of Christianity/Islam.
                  No! An honest man will judge any religion or ideology by the behaviour of it’s adherents. Since Christian missionaries convert via fraudulent means and attempt to take political power and then use it on the heathens in a bid to convert them all, all in the name of Love, it is parodied as “Love”. A manifestation of Christian political power in India is the fact that I could get jailed by the Rape-public of Endia for this comment.

                  There was even one Pope or was it Martyr who said, “For those who have Christ, there is no sin.” Since all Padres believe they have Christ, they can go on to commit the worst atrocities and pass them off as Love.

                  The Scriptures of the Indians say
                  1. He who cares only about himself is Barely Human (SJWs?)

                  2. He who cares about himself and then his immediate family members, is a Shudra

                  3. He who cares about himself, then his immediate family and then his tribe/community is a Vaishya

                  4. He who cares about himself, then his immediate family, then his tribe/community and then his nation is a Kshatriya

                  5. He who cares about himself, then his immediate family, then his tribe, then his nation and then all of humanity is Brahmin

                  6. He who cares about all of Humanity over his own community/nation is a Pervert, an outcaste, a Liar or a traitor.

                  I disagree with the Scriptures on 5. I don’t think 5 is even possible. That’s just Brahmin Virtue signaling. I’ll take 6.

                • jim says:

                  > When the Hindu right wing is parodying Christianity is “Love”, they are parodying the behaviour of Christian missionaries active in India, their methods of conversion, their justifications for their sometimes violent methods and the sycophancy of their Indian converts.

                  There is infamously a lot to parody.

                  We Christians have a saying “As cold as charity” – which is a sarcastic reference to the quality of long distance love for far away strangers very different to oneself.

                  > A manifestation of Christian political power in India is the fact that I could get jailed by the Rape-public of Endia for this comment.

                  In Britain, of course, you can desecrate Christian symbols all you want, but you are apt to be jailed for putting a ceramic pig on your windowsill.

                  When Pussy Riot was jailed in Russia for vandalizing a Church, progressives everywhere were outraged. What? Christians are second class. What is wrong with desecrating their stuff?

                  The reason that Britain suppresses Christianity, and India suppresses Hinduism, is that the education system has substantially replaced, and thus is in competition with, the traditional role of the priesthood. Thus the state religion, for which there is no name, because it is supposedly just truth and decency, suppresses the ancient religion of the majority. What you are seeing is not a manifestation of Christian power, but of educationist power.

                  > I disagree with the Scriptures on 5. I don’t think 5 is even possible. That’s just Brahmin Virtue signaling.

                  When Priests get on top of warriors, they are apt to get trapped in holiness spirals, and this happened to Christianity with the Diet of Worms, and it happened to Hinduism. Priests should support warriors, not struggle with them for earthly supremacy.

                • lalit says:


                  Just Start watching from 7:50. See what King George says about Honest men. I think most of you the commenters on this Blog might have already seen this clip. But I’m surprised that a modern American production could contain dialogues of such profundity. Maybe it is just Hollywood that is the cancer. The entire clip is highly recommended.

                • lalit says:

                  Jim, you are right. But how can I explain that to an average Indian or an average anyone from anywhere? They will be unable to comprehend this. As it is they have a hard time understanding anything that involves more than one degree of abstraction. To try to explain to them all that you have written in the last comment is impossible. To them the villian is Chrislam, i.e. both Islam and Christianity.

                  Holiness spirals, virtue signaling, Biolenninism, Coalition of the fringes and concepts like that are hard for the average man to comprehend.

            • lalit says:

              Admire your courage Brother. There was time, Hindus used to be like you Sikhs.

          • Oog en Hand says:

            Sikhi = monogamy
            Asatru = polygamy

            • jim says:

              The Ásatrú nine noble virtues are admirable, but they are no basis for civilization, the hard problem of civilization being enforcing and maintaining cooperate/cooperate equilibrium on a very large scale.

              The ten commandments are a sound basis for civilization:The ten commandments consist of four commandments concerning man’s relationship to God, five commandments that had the effect of ensuring that congregation of the Lord operated on a cooperate cooperate basis, and the final commandment, the tenth commandment, prohibited coming up with clever rationales for undermining, subverting, and re-interpreting those five.

              Compliance to the four commandments made fellow members of the congregation readily identifiable, and by complying with these four commandments, for which compliance was as visible as possible, one gave other members of the congregation reason to believe one would comply with the other five commandments, for which compliance was less visible, and thus reason to believe that cooperation with people who complied with the first four would be reciprocated and rewarded by cooperation, resulting in cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

              Social Justice Warriors have turned the tenth commandment on its head, making envy and covetousness a sacrament. This explains their chronic failure to cooperate, explains why rallies to save the earth leave a snail trail of trash behind them.

              Asatru polygamy is also a problem. Gives far too much power to women. Have to price control pussy down so that every man who supports the state and the social order by violence and/or paying taxes gets a chaste obedient virgin wife. Price control produces a shortage, monogamy and female chastity is rationing the supply of pussy to one per customer. Since all women want to marry a top alpha, polygamy gives them what they want – and instead of soldiering, working, and paying taxes, your beta males play video games in mum’s basement because they have no wife or girlfriend, and if the poor beta does eventually get married it is to a hambeast who spent her hottest and most fertile years fucking a parade of men richer than him, handsomer than him, with bigger dicks than him, higher social status than him, and more charisma than him.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      I believe part of this was described in the first Flashman book, generally worth reading.

  8. […] When the west started losing wars […]

Leave a Reply