“World Order” against America

Trump has not yet built the wall, though it is starting, and has protected the most critical border areas. He has made little progress on draining the swamp. Some of the key swamp critters have “resigned”, and then been given immensely well paid sinecures by the Democrats and their pet media, but Democrats, for example Schumer and the Biden family, continue to commit shockingly illegal acts with impunity, while Trump supporters face grotesquely unjust trials, long prison sentences and enormous legal costs for frivolous or artificially contrived offenses. The underlying offense that Flynn committed was that one of the mortgage documents that he signed omitted relevant information. Did you read all the documents in that enormous pile that you signed when you took out your mortgage? And do you think that the bank read them any more than you did? Normally no one would read them unless the mortgage went bad, but it is evident that Mueller’s lawyers went through anything signed by people on the Trump campaign with a fine tooth comb.

But one area where Trump has had real impact is dismantling the New World Order – the international rule of “Law”, which is to say, the international rule of Harvard.

Pentagon demanded that the US protect Turkish troops from Russian air superiority, and prevent Syrian troops from being protected from Turkish air attacks. Trump told the pentagon to pound sand. The Russians did not engage in air to ground strikes against Turkish troops, but without air superiority, Turkish ground troops got cut to bits by Syrian ground troops.

US involvement in that conflict would have likely resulted in Russians and Americans shooting at each other.

The international rule “law” would mean that the other nuclear powers submit. Not submit in the sense of US troops marching into Peking, but submit to Harvard ngos meddling in their culture and society, submit by holding a gay pride parade in Moscow. And, as we have seen in numerous third world countries, failure to submit results in “color revolution”, and failure to submit to “color revolution” results in getting the hell bombed out of you, as happened to Libya and Syria.

When Trump came to power, color revolution abruptly and suddenly ended everywhere.

The Democrats, in particular Biden, propose to resume pursuit of World Order – which pursuit draws us towards war with Russia and China.

Since Russia and China are both making advances in nuclear reactors, particularly Russia, it is likely their nuclear weapons still work. The problems we are having producing tritium, enriched lithium, and Plutonium 238 suggests that our nuclear weapons are unlikely to work.

Massive wars tend to start, not because someone deliberately decided to start a war, but because of small incidents leading to uncontrollable and unpredictable escalation. You need a sovereign that can make war and peace, a sovereign who can ensure that when he says “peace” all his subjects are forced to behave peacefully, and when he says war, all his subjects are forced to make war.

If the sovereign is weak, some of his subjects are apt to act in ways that drag everyone into war. Elements of the Serbian government instigated the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand. The offenders were punished, but Germany was not happy because obviously more stuff along those lines was going to happen. The Germans demanded that the Serbian government remake itself so that unauthorized elements of the government would stop engaging in warlike acts. The Serbian government refused, and likely was incapable of complying, and one thing led to another, and eventually World War I.

In Roman times, some Jews rioted against their Greek neighbors, because a Greek had sacrificed chickens on his land adjacent to the path by which they walked to their synagogue. Roman cops showed up to restore order, the Jews killed a Roman cop, the Romans did not like that sort of thing … And eventually war between Israel and Rome, leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the expulsion of the Jews.

And if Trump had succumbed to Pentagon pressure to “secure” the Syrian/Turkish border, which is to say, prevent Syrians from securing it, Americans would have likely wound up killing a Russian pilot.

If you have a collapse of cohesion in the ruling elite, and you don’t have a sovereign powerful enough to keep them in order, elements of the ruling elite are going to engage in provocative acts.

“World Order” is Harvard exporting the American unofficially official state religion, and increasingly exporting with guns, bombs, and heavy artillery, as in Libya, Syria, and the Congo. And Russia and China know that this export program is targeted at them.

Harvard does not want war with Russia and China. It wants them to peacefully see the light, but when Russia and China obstruct Harvard’s noble efforts to help Russians and Chinese see the light, Harvard is apt to use the resources of the American state to engage in violence, usually without presidential approval. The intervention in the Congo was laundered through intermediaries, much as the assassination of the Archduke was laundered through the Black Hand group. If Trump was not president, we would be blowing stuff up on Hong Kong right now.

Much of the rage against Trump is rage at his failure to export “democracy”, and at his vigorous obstruction of governmental and quasi governmental efforts to export “democracy”

Had Trump not been president, the US would have intervened in Hong Kong, with some Harvard ngo doing what Serbian military intelligence did, and some bunch of US sponsored antifa types doing what the Black Hand group did. China might well have responded with a bunch of demands similar to those that Germany made against Serbia, and then …

Or as, in Libya, and Syria, the US might have engaged in direct military support of Hong Kong “protesters”, to which China might well have responded by destroying US military assets in and near the South China sea. This would then be declared to be another Pearl Harbor.

Hong Kong protesters have been destroying shops and businesses owned by mainland Chinese, or that they think are owned by mainland Chinese, and the Hong Kong police have been handling them with kid gloves. But there is much outrage in the US that the Hong Kong police have been obstructing the protesters at all. Absent a strong president, there would probably have been some vigorous US action to protect protesters against this terrible oppression. It is politically incorrect in America to say anything negative about the Hong Kong protesters. Political correctness means that not only can you not call out warlike acts, the elite refuses to know it is engaged in warlike acts. Even when they were bombing Libya into the stone age, they did not know that they were doing it. They could not see thirty thousand tons of high explosives, just as they cannot see female misconduct in the workplace. And Serbia refused to know it was making war on the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Harvard is outraged at the sudden cessation of color revolution throughout the world, but is unable to notice that color revolution has involved ever larger amounts of American high explosives, the connection between the American government and the color revolution has become ever more blatant, and the color revolutions have drawn ever closer to Russia and China.

The Turkish empire was the anti Turkish empire, and American empire is the anti American empire. The people empowered by World Order are for the most part Americans who hate America, and who loot the countries where they are installed in power.

Because the American ruling elite lacks cohesion, the American rulers installed by color revolution act like mobile bandits rather than stationary bandits. When color revolution comes to power, it robs the target country blind. Color revolution has become ever more unpopular, ever more violent, and ever more directly sponsored by American military power, not because anyone planned it that way, but because of the natural dynamics of a disorderly elite. Any one member of the elite personally and individually profits by color revolution that he is connected to, as for example Hunter Biden, whom Trump has renamed “Where’s Biden”, but only bears a small part of the risk it imposes on America and Americans. So, an elite without order and discipline inevitably behaved in ways more and more aggressive, and more and more likely to bring about World War Three. The way the wind blows, World War three is likely to take place because the nephew of the mistress of the undersecretary of someone in the USG State Department was looking for a million dollar payoff. The assorted ngos involved in color revolution have been stealing more and more and more cash, as they impose ever greater risks of World War Three on the US. And they personally and individually hate America and hate Americans in flyover country, so they don’t care, even if they were aware of their own actions, which they are not. The risk is socialized, and money is privatized. We will know the swamp is being drained when we get a full accounting of the money that has flowed through Where’s Biden’s hands, and a full accounting of American involvement in the Hong Kong troubles.

The American ruling elite drifts towards war internal and external, because it lacks cohesion. Increasing violence externally drags us towards war with Russia and China, and increasing violence internally, the grossly political use of police power to criminalize political disagreements, while legalizing criminal conduct of the elite, drags us towards civil war. At some point we are going to have dueling arrest warrants, when one faction of the elite attempts to arrest the other, and the other wants to arrest them for attempting arrest. The over the top reaction to investigating Hunter Biden cannot be resolved peacefully. If illegal acts by the elite are not prevented, they will escalate, and if Trump uses police powers to stop it, the Democrats will likely attempt to arrest Trump. Government is violence, and if government is incohesive, that violence is likely to escalate, internally and/or externally. It has escalated a great deal in the past few years, and reasons for its escalation have not changed.

83 Responses to ““World Order” against America”

  1. […] likelihood of coup, democide, or internal war within the United States. However, as I mentioned in the previous post, it also resembles the lead up to World War I. Serbia was conducting low level war against the […]

  2. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    Remnant Mueller prosecutions are collapsing during opportune coronavirus distraction. Concord troll farm case will be dropped, Flynn case is unraveling and this would be the time to pull the plug.

  3. lavpur-davduc says:

    Jim, do you think coronavirus gives Trump a free pass to anything he wants? If not now, then at least in a couple weeks when SHTF.

    If so, what do you think he will do? If you were Trump right now, how would you seize the opportunity?

    • jim says:


      That records supporting the persecution of Flynn were conveniently lost is what he is milking.

      We are already in a somewhat coup situation in that he is bypassing the advice and consent requirement and governing by state of emergency presidential order, and strangely, the Democrats have not sought to impeach him on that, perhaps because they think that such obscure legalistic limits on presidential power are ancient history.

      While the permanent government continues to largely ignore the president, so that his power is vastly less than the constitution commands, in that every judge and bureaucrat is exercising the vastly expanded power of the president while ignoring the actual president, the actual president, following the Bush-Clinton-Obama presidential precedents, is in fact exceeding his powers.

      There is a fair bit of indignation that he ignored and continues to ignore the “scientific” advice on the corona virus, which was of course anti scientific advice. The “scientific” advice was to keep the borders open, and to not permit private enterprise to make test kits – which advice was obviously priestly, not scientific, holiness, not science. They are outraged that he is defying Harvard, and Harvard’s “science”, unworried that he, like Bush, Clinton, and Obama, is stretching the constitution even further out of shape, albeit what he is doing to the constitution is nothing compared to what the Transpacific Partnership would have done.

      What he has to do to make a start on regaining control of the presidency is to arrest people for their illegal acts, starting with the illegal spying and illegal persecution of people connected to the Trump campaign without himself being arrested. Hard to do that on the Corona virus.

      • The Cominator says:

        He needs to keep this thing from destroying the economy though…

        Someone really really needs to get the information about Cloraquine to him… if anyone here lives in Kentucky they need to write Rand Paul twice a day on this until he actually see it.

        • jim says:

          I am sure Trump knows, but the Cathedral would be outraged if he blessed a medication that had failed to receive the holy blessing of official “science”.

          That is what the problem was with the test kits. Only the CDC was holy enough to issue test kits, and they could not handle the modern technology. The CDC were using twelve year old technology, and the relevant technology is ten years old.

          Not only did the CDC test kits not work very well, there was no way they could have worked very well.

          • The Cominator says:

            So what… this whole hysteria is a cathedral plot against him anyway he needs to clearup the hysteria and putting the word out that Cloraquine is the cure solves the problem.

            He needs to protect his economy for his reelection and he needs to put out the information about it as an antiviral NOW…

          • The Cominator says:

            “That is what the problem was with the test kits. Only the CDC was holy enough to issue test kits”

            Also the bigger issue was the FDA. The FDA is FAR WORSE than the CDC the FDA is BY FAR the worst agency in the entire federal government its not close… if there is any silver lining from this I hope that if Trump survives this crisis (and him immediately issuing an order that Cloraquine is to be labeled an antiviral for Corona-chan is his best path to that) he is going to take a very special interest in destroying the FDA.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      It’s the other way around. Coronavirus gives the anti-Trump factions time and cover to make moves that are hard to excuse otherwise. Quietly ending the Mueller fiasco, covering up Biden’s senility for longer while they frantically figure out what to do, doing test runs of a clampdown in Blue cities, laying the groundwork for app- and “harvested” voting in the general election.

  4. Pooch says:

    Why does this post have nothing to do with coronavirus?

  5. > Americans would have likely wound up killing a Russian pilot.

    Yes, and the issue with that is that even Putin is not a really strong sovereign. It is statistically likely that such accidents might have happened in the Vietman or Korea wars, but both superpowers decided to ignore them. I.e. to force their generals to ignore them. And they were capable of forcing them back then so. Today I am not really sure Putin has such a capability. He does look strong, but that might be just the surface. It is not hard to put up a tough act in a culture where such is still allowed. And it is useful for capturing the support of the average dude who wants an alpha leader. But among elites, such acting does not mean much, the real levers of power do not necessarily lie in the hands of whoever is looking the most alpha.

    • info says:

      “But among elites, such acting does not mean much, the real levers of power do not necessarily lie in the hands of whoever is looking the most alpha.”

      Perhaps. Although Bloomberg demonstrated the importance of personality. Despite spending hundred’s of billions of dollars couldn’t stand up to an old woman in a debate hence detonating his status in the eyes of everyone on live TV:

      Bloomberg showed that he was a bitch who unlike the more Alpha Trump couldn’t handle this kind of woman’s personality.

      Hence if a “powerful man” has a weak simping personality he is apt to become an ATM or a “puppet” of others with stronger personalities.


      The levers of power and wealth as long as legitimacy in the eyes of people matter will gravitate to men with more “Alpha” personalities.

      The Socio-sexual hierarchy will beat out wealth/status many times.

      • I haven’t watched it, I don’t follow US politics that closely, I watched it now. Interesting. Previously, Bloomberg struck me as someone with good average levels of confidence, clearly nothing on Trump but more than Ted Cruz for example, whose ridiculous hand-wrestling contest with his VP candidate woman in Cali back then made me laugh out loud.

        I… think it was in this case more political than personal. Warren’s fat broads stuff was a very tough shit test that requires a very tough smacking down and a Democrat is simply not allowed do that. Trump can pull a semi-joking “only Rosie O’Donnel” with a wry face, but a Democrat is not allowed to, because he cannot afford to raise the ire of lib female journalists.

        I think Bloomberg can me far more confident in situations that do not so directly and powerfully target a liberal mans main weakness, namely that he has to pretend to look pro-feminist.

    • Karl says:

      If Putin isn’t in, no one is in Russia. Shadowy power is insecure power

  6. Jehu says:

    Yes, the Russian diplomat was quite correct, the US is NOT agreement capable. Perhaps in 2024, with Trump’s son taking power, the US will at last become agreement capable again.
    When was the last time the US was agreement capable?

    • jim says:

      The US was agreement capable under FDR, who was dictator, and would have been re-elected forever, had he not died in office without a heir. He had suitable children, but neglected them.

      Kennedy was struggling to gain agreement capability, and his assassination may well have been deep state resistance.

      Under FDR, the presidency became so powerful as to make democracy unworkable. Were a president to regather the power of the presidency into his own hands, the US would be agreement capable, but democracy would still be dead.

      After FDR, the US was running on the social cohesion of the permanent government, and the social cohesion of the permanent government is collapsing. Which makes it less effectual in running America, but also less capable of resisting seizure of the presidency by the president.

      If the conflict is not decisively resolved, and it can only be resolved by a group with a single strong leader coming out on top, the conflict will inevitably become more and more violent and coercive.

      • Dave says:

        Should we expect to see a lot of dead bodies floating down the Potomac?

        • jim says:

          Eventually, if no one seizes power. As a general rule, the longer the disorder runs for, the more disorderly it gets, and the more dead bodies when order within the elite is restored.

    • >Yes, the Russian diplomat was quite correct, the US is NOT agreement capable.

      Yes, this is a good way of putting it. Meaning, there is no central authority strong enough to enforce all arms of the official and unofficial government to abide by an agreement. It is debatable how much authoritarian a government must to the average guy, but a government must be authoritarian to the elites and its members. Interestingly, it does not necessarily correlate with how “fascist” it looks! Imperial Japan certainly looked “fascist” enough, yet a Japanese general attacked the Soviets without orders from the government.

      I often struggle with trying to darkly enlighten normies who are intelligent and well-meaning, but cannot overcome the obstacle that they think saying widely accepted official truths are untrue requires a conspiracy theory. The real mechanism which I struggle to get across is this: yes, it is often easy to coordinate around the truth because people can independently verify and say it, and require no coordination to tell the truth. But it is also possible to coordinate around an untruth in the point deer make horse sense, or just generally unfalsifiable ideas like religions, symbols and suchlike unfalsifiable stuff. But what we are seeing here is not even coordination! But a spiral, and a spiral is something like the opposite of a conspiracy. Elites are simply competing with each other around who is the woker, and acting tough with unwoke countries like Russia is certainly one of the signals used in that. Spirals are also based on untruths or unfalsifiable ideas, they do look like a conspiracy to outsiders who do not believe those ideas, but on the inside they are not a coordinating, not a cooperation, hence not a conspiracy.

      By discovering spirals, we have basically discovered a new mechanism which a lot of people just do not understand.

      • Perhaps part of the issue is that, partially due to Jim’s influence, partially on my own I came to see human behavior through the game-theoretic lenses of cooperative/coordinated behavior vs. hostile/defecting/competitive behavior. This is at odds with the normie lenses that see behavior as either oppressive, coerced, or free, voluntary. These do not map well to each other. Free, voluntary behavior is not necessarily cooperative, nor is it necessarily hostile/competitive, it could be either. Oppressive, coercive behavior can coerce cooperation on the side of the coerced, that is generally its point, or the coerced can try to fight back. Or the whole oppression thing could be a complete myth of course. Whether the oppressor, the coercer is himself cooperative or not, is again not clear, milder, benevolent, fatherly kinds of coercion are cooperative, while of course a tyrannical government taking all your stuff isn’t cooperative with you.

        So the two models just do not map to each other…

      • The Cominator says:

        Japan in the 1930s until the end of the war is curious as perhaps history’s only truly right wing holiness/purity spiral. Nazi Germany was leftists in a lot of ways but I just don’t see any leftism with Imperial Japan it was purely a certain type of non-leftist insanity and purity/holiness spiraling.

        • Jan Martense says:

          That’s an interesting example. Arguably, another example is Wahhabism and, later on in the spiral, ISIS. But yeah, purity spirals are much more prevalent on the left.

          My theories as to why leftist status competition is more apt to get out of control:
          1) Right-wing ideologies emphasize social cooperation over individual freedom, meaning trying to “out-holy” everyone else is viewed more suspiciously. Best, though not only, example of this is having a powerful central sovereign to shut down extreme movements.
          2) What we might call “cultural Darwinism” (e.g. that societies which adopt healthy ideologies will survive and expand, while those with unhealthy ones will decline and eventually die) naturally selects for rightism over time meaning that it is the default or starting mode for most populations. Hence there is more room to innovate on the left.

          • jim says:

            Even a right wing holiness spiral is inherently leftist, in that very holy members of the elite are attacking fellow members of the elite for insufficient holiness, by continually inventing new and more difficult criteria for adequate holiness, while the right tends to emphasize being a good father, a good friend, and abstaining from self destructive vices.

      • The Old Tory, Reactionary politically philosophy and its Chinese Legist counterpart was based on the idea that cooperation often has to be coerced, and this requires a Uncoerced Coercer, an unlimited, absolute monarch. Modernity, starting with the English Civil War, was about limiting, coercing the coercer, constitutional monarchy although it spiraled beyond that. Limiting the coercer obviously reduces his ability to coerce cooperation, but there were and still are all these theories that people do not require that much coercion in order to cooperate either because they are naturally good (Leftism, Pelagianism) or can be taught to cooperate (Liberalism, Confucianism).

        Only power can limit power. Hence, limiting power is a power struggle. There are two possible outcomes of a power struggle: a temporary win or a final win. A temporary win makes the other back of but he keeps his power and can start it again, so there will be new power struggles. It is clear that when Jefferson said that the tree of liberty has to be periodically watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots his idea was a system of power struggle with only temporary wins, hence the power struggle recurring all over again. The NRx insight was that struggles for power also often result in final wins, when the loser is stripped of his power or dies, and the winner takes his power to himself, so he has more power, thus with such final wins power snowballs into bigger and bigger, eventually reaching the absolute and unlimited. And if the official government is officially limited, then some kind of unofficial power will become unlimited, either the bureaucracy or Harvard NGOs or suchlike.

        This is so far clear, why current elites who mostly have immense but not yet absolute levels of unofficial power are less able to cooperate than they did at a previous stage of the same process like 1950 is not quite so clear. Perhaps it can be explained so that as various centers of powers snowball, they clash more often. Perhaps it is because they are unofficial. Perhaps in 1950 the official, impermanent, elected government in the US had more power, the President had more power, thus if he made an agreement with e.g. the Soviet Union or another country he was able to enforce it.

        • jim says:

          > why current elites who mostly have immense but not yet absolute levels of unofficial power are less able to cooperate than they did at a previous stage of the same process like 1950 is not quite so clear

          Women and diversity.

          Hard to cooperate with people different from oneself, and women endlessly sabotage cooperation as a fitness test.

          Also, burning social capital. People had habits from the time when cooperation was enforced, and defection efficiently punished. Then the progressives said that due to natural goodness, we don’t need to punish defection and reward cooperation, and for a while it sort of worked, until it people discovered that they could massively defect, and they would be fine.

          Kind of like the way women in the 1950s generally accepted that they should get married, and a wife should obey, without the need to drag difficult women home on a leash.

      • In order to be able to explain the mechanism of the spiral to normies, it should be rooted in something like this: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/05/ol4-dr-johnsons-hypothesis/ “For example, in many ways nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth. Anyone can believe in the truth. To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army.”

        This is something an intelligent normie can understand. But nonsense as a political uniform acts as a form of cooperation, coordination *within the faction*.

        With the spiral as a mechanism we are NOT seeing this. Elites are not cooperating well. How to get from political uniforms to spirals? This is the task, if this can be solved it would be far easier to get normies darkly enlightened. I cannot do that job fully, but I can start it. First, notice that in the modern world various factions wore actually similar political uniforms. Every ideology came from Locke. Everybody praised democracy. And so on. Why was it so when the idea was nonsense is something I do not know. One would reasonably assume that competing factions wear political uniforms that are similar to each other in precisely those aspects that are true, because truth is a big Schelling point. Yet that assumption turned out to be false. Perhaps the answer to that is that you need Schelling points when you want to cooperate but those factions competed, so they did not need them.

        Rather the similaritiy of all political uniforms having the same Lockean-democrat colors comes from the fact that such an ideology is ideal for masking power grabs.

        But factions cooperated on the inside. We see that breaking down today, too. Now the same mechanism is working inside factions, breaking down to smaller factions, to individuals. This can be partially explained: the goal is never that someone like me gets power or “we” get power, but that I get power. As long as our faction gets a lot of power I will get a decent share of it, fine. Any faction is more incentivized to increase its collective slice of the power cake, not to struggle on the inside for the size of the individual slice. Yet today white/jewish male liberals are denounced by feminists, white feminist women are denounced by blacks and so on. Meaning they cannot increase the colllective slice of the power cake the liberal faction as such gets anymore, so they have to fight about its distribution inside the faction?

        • The Cominator says:

          The left is still mostly cooperating at the higher levels the breakdown has been among their orcs not their Nazgul… notice that the left is still using this Corona chan hysteria to try to deliberately inflict as much economic damage as possible and in a coordinated way.

          • jim says:

            If they were cooperating all that well at the higher levels, the US would have a coherent foreign policy, and they would have presidential candidate who was not obviously senile.

            • The Cominator says:

              They cooperated to make Biden an effective ringer against Sanders, but Biden is going to be replaced at the convention or resign in favor of his VP (who he promised would be a woman I think its going to be Moochelle) quickly…

              Most people think I’m nuts when I say this but they aren’t going to let Biden debate Trump… the DNC is insane but not THAT insane.

              • BC says:

                The point is they selected Biden because they couldn’t agree on a candidate beyond that Sanders would have resulting in losing 48 states. They plan to rule through Biden or at least put the decision of who will rule off until the convention.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “They plan to rule through Biden or at least put the decision of who will rule off until the convention.”

                  And I’m telling you its going to be Moochelle.

                • BC says:

                  Dude, that’s almost as dumb as your idea that Comey is secretly on Trump side.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I suppose it could be Warren (I can’t imagine it would be Harris, Tulsi very publically exposed her as a crooked prosecutor I can’t imagine anything that would turnoff the black vote more, blacks REALLY HATE dirty cops and prosecutors) but nobody except a few dried up old soccer mom bitches with very henpecked husbands (who haven’t slapped any sense into them) want Warren to be President.

              • Pooch says:

                The democratic party hasn’t acted remotely sanely for at least 20 years.

        • jim says:

          With the spiral as a mechanism we are NOT seeing this. Elites are not cooperating well. How to get from political uniforms to spirals?

          This is a chronic problem that has regularly afflicted Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and as recently as 1940 American leftism was recognizably a protestant sect, though it had been already holier than God by the civil war.

          You want your elite to be cohesive. You select true believers, exclude hypocrites, and adherents of enemy religions.

          So, suddenly you get people saying “I am a truer believer than those other guys.” Notice in the arguments over celibate priests, we were arguing past each other. I (and Saint Paul) argued that successfully raising children was an indicator of competence at the tasks of a priest, Nikolai argued that celibacy indicated superior holiness. The very holiest supposedly deserve the honor of a Bishopric.

          This is the same error as rewarding courage in battle with promotion. No. Officers need to be adequately brave, but other characteristics are more important, so you don’t hand out command as a battle honor. You hand out battle honors as battle honors. The very holiest should be honored with hermitages and monasteries far from the seats of power. Priests should be adequately and ordinarily holy, not the very holiest, as officers should be adequately and ordinarily brave, not the very bravest.

          Harvard selects you for leftism on your admission essay. So everyone, including my sons, one of whom is thoroughly reactionary, and the other very far from being left, submits piously left wing essays, with bios of fake leftist activism. So, the academy intensifies scrutiny for holy zeal. So, the admission essays holiness spiral.

          If you recruit the insufficiently holy, you get the Church of England problem – entryism by very holy heretics, who are lukewarm about the state religion because, like William Wilberforce, passionate about their own religion. If you recruit the holiest, you get the Harvard problem, holiness spiraling. You want to recruit your middle of the road sincere believer – sincere enough that he will be loyal, but extreme, because if you select the very holiest, you are likely to be inadvertently selecting for insanity, evil, and malice. Saint Jerome hated breeders, and the Global Warmists think humans deserve to die.

          • Imagine that instead of Harvard admission essay, there is simply a chat with a teacher. Who alone makes the decision. Or makes a recommendation, say a score from 1 to 10, there are other scores from objective stuff like grades and it has to reach a certain threshold.

            In such a situation it would not do to out-holy the teacher. One would have to be careful. Thus the spiral would be contained.

            So one possibility that it is a result of some kind of more impersonal bureaucratic process.

            But still… even in such a process, there are real humans scoring or evaluating the admission essays. Who do not like if the applicant is holier than themselves. Why doesn’t that contain the spiral? Because they too are competing in a holiness spiral? Why don’t they just make the essay evaluation double-blind or something, and it would contain that?

            I don’t get it. There are always humans making hiring decisions. Who want applicants to be about as holy as themselves. Or maybe slightly less, so that they are not dangerous to their own position. Why does that not contain the spirals?

            The old professor retires. There are five academics applying for his position. Why would the other old professor hire the holiest and not the one who is about as holy as himself?

            • jim says:

              > Who do not like if the applicant is holier than themselves. Why doesn’t that contain the spiral? Because they too are competing in a holiness spiral?

              The holiness spiral is enforced by the holiness spiral. If you are worried about the excessively holy, you must be one of those terrible unholy people. Much as people who doubt the existence of witches must be in league with the devil.

              No enemies to the left, no friends to the right.

              It is striking that while people, for example esr, get agitated and outraged that so and so is slightly further to the right than themselves and are likely to end all communication, when they face someone far to their left who hates them, intends to destroy them, and makes no secret of it, they are unable to make any very serious criticism.

              Only the beyond-the-pale right seem able to notice Bernie’s staffers are rather keen on gulags. The moderate left are apt to criticize Bernie by saying those deplorables in flyover country are not yet ready for socialism.

              When Stalin was killing off those to his left and to his right, he said that those to his right were fascists, and those to his left were “objectively fascist”.

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          The idea might sound like nonsense to you, not others, you’re projecting yourself onto others, but you are you, and others are others.

          Downward spirals begin when there’s an insufficient level of necessity. You can see how necessity in the jungle would make feminism an impossible agreement. But being “non-feminist”, or rather, just being a plain strong man requires being strong, which requires effort and will. In the jungle only strong men survived so it came naturally, but some centuries after of developing it’s not the jungle anymore. Considering people just like nature tend to the law of minimal effort, if allowed to be weak, likely to be weak. I’ve worked in several positions as an executive and it’s just the way it is, if you allow it, it will happen, it continued to allow, it will worsen.

          We live the contradiction of civilization, men learn and use the environment against itself to build a more comfortable living, but because of that then their sons get used to the easier environment and they truly forget it’s a joke, not the actual truth. With your thinking you might believe self-hating white liberals are hidden malicious actors, but they are not hidden malicious actors, they are true believers. And just like they believe the beautiful lies of today, so did others in the times of Locke.

          Why do people believe in socialism so much they end up starving themselves to death, like the Venezuelans did? The magic of socialism is alluring because it’s easy. It sounds a lot better when you’re told you’re magically gonna live better, instead of dealing with the hard truth that only your own competence and effort will ever take you anywhere.

      • NoName says:

        US of A was completely in agreement, including the President, in subduing Turkey when their commie/anarcho-environmentalist/feminist little statelet in Northern Syria was in danger few months ago. So I’d say all branches still can get on the same page on some issues.

        • jim says:

          Not including the President. He ditched their commie/anarcho-evironmentalist/feminist little statelet in Northern Syria a few months ago.

          And although the Cathedral is in absolutely unanimous agreement that the Harvard State Religion should be imposed on the world at sword point – “World Order”, “Rule of Law”, they are not terribly clear on what the religion actually is, with the result that their efforts tend to be hijacked by people whose sincerity is doubtful. That commie/anarcho-evironmentalist/feminist little statelet in Northern Syria was none to keen on diversity, ethnically cleansing non Kurds, and a lot of their arms and money that Obama and Biden gave to moderate Muslims somehow wound up arming and funding Islamic state. And their export efforts keep being screwed up because the carryon baggers they send out to preach holy word and enlighten the ignorant at swordpoint tend to steal everything not nailed down.

  7. Dave says:

    “…particularly Russia, it is likely their nuclear weapons still work.”

    If the guidance systems on their ICBMs still work as well, war with Russia likely involves tens of millions of Democratic voters getting vaporized.

    Nukes aside, as we purge our military of “toxic masculinity”, it’s easy to pick the winner of a USA/Russia conflict when all the straight white Christian cis-men are on the Russian side.

  8. Herzog says:

    The assassinated Archduke Ferdinand was heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg-run empire. Consequently, it was Austria-Hungary that made demands on Serbia to clean house after the Sarajevo assassination, not Germany.

    When, a few weeks later and after Serbian stalling (if not worse), declarations of war flew around all over Europe, Germany just joined the war on Austria’s side because it honored its treaty of military assistance with the Habsburg empire.

    • jim says:

      I stand corrected.

      • Inquiring Mind says:

        I knew that, but I was not going to correct Jim because the Germans were egging the Austrians on. Germany had a lot more enthusiasm for what they did than simply living up to treaty obligations.

        Jim was correct in the Big Picture architecture of that situation.

        We all have our reasons for how we voted in 2016, but the top of my list was Hillary primed to start a war with Russia. That here crowd was yelling “Collusion, collusion” at the top of their lungs confirmed all of that.

        Gosh help us if Mr. Biden is elected — he wants to open the borders more than they are already wide open, he wants to make gasoline, heating fuel and electricity expensive again.

        As to starting another war, Mr. Biden was the peacenik hippie in the Obama Administration (OK, OK, there was Ms. Jarrett) with Ms. Clinton being the warmonger. But if Mr. Biden gets elected, who knows what control the Swamp will have over him.

        • jim says:

          > Jim was correct in the Big Picture architecture of that situation.

          Serbia was engaged in low level war against the Austro Hungarian empire, which Germany reasonably regarded as low level war against Germany, and was incapable of not engaging in low level war. To make peace, a strong Serbian leader would have needed to perform a self coup, would have had to seize the power to make war and peace, which power had slipped into the hands of vast anonymous and disorderly sea of government and quasis governmental officials. Hence the ultimatum was in one sense totally reasonable. It amounted to saying “make peace or war! Choose!”. And in another sense utterly unreasonable, because impossible to comply with. Serbia was incapable of making peace, and lacked the military capability to make war.

          > As to starting another war, Mr. Biden was the peacenik hippie in the Obama Administration (OK, OK, there was Ms. Jarrett) with Ms. Clinton being the warmonger.

          Biden has proposed that if elected he will go to war with China “I am not proposing war with China, but …”

          He proposes to use the air force and navy to prevent China from oppressing dissident minorities, which means US Navy and air force engaging and defeating the Chinese air force in the South China sea and over China.

          This appears to be Cathedral policy. Has to be the most unpopular policy in history – pretty sure the US navy and air force would decisively lose an airsea war in the South China sea, and the US would lose the ensuing nuclear war, because of technological decline.

          He was a peacenik back when the commies were commies, and was behind the holiness spiral during the Obama years, but now that Russia and China are capitalists, the Cathedral has finally brought him up to date., it is war with Russia, China, and flyover country. They are going to try to take your guns, and try to take China’s heavy weapons. The holiness spiral is taking us to war, internal and external. Any place that does not comply with our unofficially official state religion is insufficiently holy, and needs to be converged. And if you doubt it, you are insufficiently holy. Esr does not allow himself to doubt that this is very holy work, and that the US is militarily capable of doing it.

          I think esr is a reliable weather vane, showing us which way the wind blows. And he is incapable of acknowledging, and is apt to censor, anyone that notices that China is being aggressed against, or is capable of defending itself against aggression. Just as progressives will not hear you notice female misconduct, nor your description of female nature, they will not hear you say that the troubles in China are in substantial part Cathedral intervention in Chinese internal affairs nor that China has military supremacy in and near China. These are thought crimes, and progressives will not only not think it or say it, but they will not hear when other people say it. It is like the mysterious invisibility of female misconduct in the workplace. The British failed to notice that the mighty British army was swiftly and humiliatingly defeated in Basra and Helmand province by handful of goat herders, and interestingly the US army that rescued them failed to notice that they needed rescue and had been rescued.

  9. Jatt Arya says:

    “Sikhi is a rediscovery of the Vedic steppe & a reconceptualization of the Vedic sovereign.”

    But the essential point in the Sikh case remains unchanged: the ferocity attributed to Chandi is a direct evocation of the ferocity of the Khalsa war machine. It is an anarchic warriorship, simultaneously controlled yet manic, individual yet collective. The Nihang tradition of chakravarti is relevant here.

    Chandi, then, represents for Sikhs a conception of war that is beyond militarism, beyond states, beyond even sovereignty itself. Hence the particularity of her appearance in scripture; she is not to be invoked haphazardly. Her purpose is specific, her means chaotic, but the outcome must be universal. What this entails, in practical terms, is a war without end, an indeterminate struggle beyond comprehension.

    ਮਰਨ ਕਰ੍ਯੋ ਸਿੰਘਨ ਪਰਵਾਨੈ ॥ ਨਹਿ ਛੋਡੈਂ ਦੰਗੈ ਕੀ ਬਾਨੈ ॥ ਜਾਤਿ ਗੋਤ ਸਿੰਘਨ ਕੀ ਦੰਗਾ ॥ ਦੰਗਾ ਹੀ ਗੁਰੁ ਤੈ ਇਨ ਮੰਗਾ ॥52॥

    The Singhs accepted death and did not renounce their propensity for warfare. The caste and clan of Singhs is ‘Rebellion’ – and this rebellious attitude is what the Singhs asked for from the Guru.

    ਅੰਨ ਨ ਪਚੈ ਕਰੇ ਬਿਨ ਦੰਗਾ ॥ ਦੰਗੇ ਬਿਨ ਇਨ ਰਹੈ ਨ ਅੰਗਾ ॥ ਕੁਹੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਬ੍ਰਿਕ ਬਹਿਰੀ ਬਾਜੈਂ ॥ ਬਿਨ ਦੰਗੇ ਕ੍ਯੋਂ ਹੁਇ ਇਨ ਕਾਜੈਂ ॥53॥

    For Singhs, food does not even get digested without fighting, and they cannot live separated from this rebellious attitude. Just like the birds of prey, the Kuhi and Bahiri [both falcon like birds], tigers and wolves; all of these cannot live without their need for hunting [killing].

  10. ROBERT SYKES says:

    The disarray in Washington is complete. The Defense Department, State, the CIA, the White House staff, and the President pursue independent foreign policies. No foreign leader can hope to know what the “US of A” wants, because there is no “US of A.”

    Lavrov famously remarked, in anger and frustration, that the US was incapable of negotiating. This came after the Pentagon publicly vetoed Obama’s first deconfliction agreement for US and Russian forces operating in Syria.

    Older readers will remember that back at the start of the Kosovo adventure the US Army slow-walked Clinton’s order to provide the European troops with air transport. And Trump’s order to remove US forces from Syria resulted in a reinforcement of our position there.

    Would anyone be surprised if we stayed in Afghanistan? Lt Col Vindman (and many others) does not believe the President should control foreign policy. Ret. Gen. Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff US Army, often appears on Fox, and his lunacy and war mongering provide an insight to the actual thinking of the Pentagon

    • jim says:

      Trump succeeded in abandoning Harvard’s progressive protectorate in Syria, with the result that the SDF is now signing up with the Syrians and Russians.

      A disunited US cannot operate an empire, because carryon baggers loot the empire. To operate an empire, you need stable colonialists to provide stable government. colonialists with a vested interest in peace, stability, and prosperity in the colony that they can bequeath to their sons.

      The protectorate in Syria created endless occasions for an incident that would result in war with Russia, and the avaricious eyes of Harvard and the state department are upon the wealth of Hong Kong, which has enormously more loot available for grabbing than the already much looted Middle East.

      It has become apparent we cannot win in Afghanistan, except we do what we did in the Philippines. The problem being both insufficient ruthlessness to wage war, and inability to provide good government. So the only solution is to cut and run.

      To win an Afghanistan, we would, as Trump says, have to kill a million people, and without a colonialist force of settler soldiers, what would we do with the victory?

      The Taliban is also disunited, but it is federation of groups with strong local roots, therefore capable of providing good government, which our carryon baggers and their local quislings cannot provide.

      The problem is that Trump’s commands for peace tend to be ignored, which creates endless possibilities for great power war.

      • Allah says:

        You were winning in Afghanistan by denying its use to China and Iran in addition to having a presence to the south of Russia and its satellites. The Kurdistan project was great for Israel and a nice potential replacement for Turks ‘going rogue’. Trump’s decision was ideological, not practical.

        Why is it that Americans must walk on eggshells so as to not upset the Russians?

        • jim says:

          Observing the Peace of Westphalia is not “walking on eggshells”.

          Cannot operate an empire without colonialists who will plant trees for their grandsons to sit under.

          America must abandon empire for lack of men to run it.

          As for denying Afghanistan to the Russians, China, and Iran, it is quagmire. If they attempt to occupy it, more fool them. Let them have it. Last time they had it, it destroyed the Soviet Union. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.

          Ever since Alexander, ruling Afghanistan has marked peak empire.

          • Allah says:

            How is this related to the Peace of Westphalia? Russians can be Russian as much as they want in Russia. Not in Afghanistan or Syria or wherever else they try to get into.

            I suspect this “foreign entanglement” narrative is 80% Russian disinfo. Afghanistan operation was botched, but Kurdistan could’ve been a perfectly fine protectorate. How are a couple bases in Afghanistan going to destroy America? It’s basically where you send soldiers to get combat experience at this point.

            • jim says:

              The troubles in Syria are the Cathedral exporting its state religion into Syria at gunpoint.

              Putin is intervening in Syria at the request of the legal government of Syria, and within the often restrictive limits imposed by the Sovereign of Syria.

              US presence in Syria is illegal under Westphalia. US troops in Syria are an act of war against the Sovereign, and the purpose of the war is forbidden under the Peace of Westphalia. Putin’s troops in Syria are not an act of war, and their purpose is legitimate under the Peace of Westphalia.

              • Allah says:

                Syria was set up to have troubles. You’re skipping Westerners putting disliked minorities in power to keep the region occupied before their departure. Alawite rule was imposed on them by foreigners, how’s that for legality?

                • jim says:


                  Alawites in Syria got into power when they were an oppressed minority ruled and victimized by local Muslims, possibly because the Muslims were focused on killing each other, while the Alawite faith is conspiratorial and cohesive. Westerners had nothing to do with it. Westerners installed Islam in power in Syria, but Islam was too murderous and fratricidal to keep it.

                  In power, Alawites made Syria prosperous and safe for people of all faiths, while Muslims had been busy killing each other, and have now gone back to killing each other as usual.

                  Alawites in Syria have the Mandate of Heaven. Muslims were initially given power by Westerners, who recently attempted to restore them to power (“color revolution” for majority rule), but they could not take power for the same reasons that they lost the Mandate of Heaven in the first place.

                  You count Trump’s withdrawal from Syria as a western attack on Islam. No it is not. It is a restoration of legitimacy and a substantial step towards restoring the Peace of Westphalia.

                  Alawite rule in Syria is legitimate because they stole power fair and square from people whose self destructive evil rendered them incapable of holding onto power, and their subsequent constructive use of that power demonstrated the Mandate of Heaven.

                • Allah says:

                  For Westerners to have had nothing to do with this, it must have occurred before WW1. Were the Alawites in power during Ottoman rule?

                  Are you just bullshitting and hoping the other guy doesn’t know enough to call you out again?

                • jim says:

                  Western power in the Middle East collapsed after World War II, and Syria became independent, with Muslims installed in power by retreating westerners in 1946.

                  Muslims ruled, ruled badly, and ruled worse and worse, to 1970. Blaming westerners for a 1970 seizure of power by a victimized religious minority after sixteen years of self destructive Muslim rule is nuts.

                  How did Westerners bring Alawites to power? Evil thought rays? Planting the seeds of Muslim self destruction in 1946?

                  The west has continuously opposed minority rule for a long time. Alawites are minority rule. Alawites came to power despite western power, and held on to power despite western efforts to remove them, color revolution being the most recent such effort.

                  Color revolution failed, for the same reasons as Muslims lost power in the first place, and failed despite continuing western intervention, long before the Russians assisted the Alawites. It only looked likely to succeed by continuing massive Turkish and American intervention, and its massive dependence on American and Turkish power was the reason that Russia assisted the Alawites.

                  Muslim self destructiveness in Syria was visible in 1946, and it is visible today. Evil Western thought rays?

                  Muslims were last united under the iron fist of Suleiman the Magnificent and it has been downhill since then.

                • Allah says:

                  Protection of Christians and other minorities was the reason Westerners gave for going there in the first place. Was the military the French built also Sunni? Sunnis are indeed as incompetent as it gets but it’s strange how they could keep power for centuries. Very similar things happened in neighboring Iraq, wonder if it’s related.

                • jim says:

                  The westerners left in 1946

                  And yes, the military the French built was primarily Sunni.

                  If the French fouled the Sunnis up in 1946, they had sixteen years in power to unfoul themselves, and instead proceeded to foul up, fouled up during the 1950s in much the same way as they did in the recent Cathedral sponsored color revolution.

                  > it’s strange how they could keep power for centuries.

                  Sunnis need to be ruled with an iron fist by someone like Sulieman the magnificent, culturally Middle Eastern but biologically white.

                  As I said, been downhill since then. You need a strong and secure ruler, who is smart, and willing and able to behead trouble makers.

                  Thanks to immigration and cultural decay, we need the same thing, but your need for that is spectacularly greater than ours.

                  If your elite has strong social cohesion, a virtuous elite, as the Alawites do, you can get by with something like a Republic, but if the elite lacks social cohesion, you need a competent despot with the right incentives.

                  A Republic is rule by a virtuous minority, an oligarchy rule by a corrupt minority. Internal conflict within the oligarchy will lead to the rule of one man, if he can assemble a team of virtuous men under his leadership. Trump is having a lot of trouble with the latter requirement, and your despots have had worse trouble.

                • Allah says:

                  SAA right now is also majority Sunni, something is not right here, but agreed on the rest.

        • The Cominator says:

          Afghanistan is consistently an absolute curse historically on whatever fool country tries to hold it. Tamerlane/Timur was the exception but he was not only a native (though a minority Uzbek not a Pashtun) but probably history’s most ruthless conqueror bar none.

  11. Allah says:

    Russians did not engage in air to ground strikes against Turkish troops, but without air superiority, Turkish ground troops got cut to bits by Syrian ground troops.

    Where are you getting this from, RT?

    • jim says:

      Turkey invaded, lost, not America’s fault. Not even Russia’s fault. Just Muslims being Muslim on each other, as usual.

      You have a different story? Tell us your version.

      • Allah says:

        Definitely gross incompetence on Turkey’s side, if only you knew how bad things really are.

        But really, answer the question. Where did you get the information that Russians did not airstrike Turkish troops and that Turkish troops were defeated by SAA?

        • jim says:

          I am not sure where I got that information. News on this event is curiously hard to find. So if you have more information, tell us.

          • Allah says:

            So you just decided to fill in the blanks with your imagination and served that as fact? What happened is pretty much the opposite of what you describe.

            What happened is the next failure of Turkish military doctrine, nothing new. For whatever reason, the Turkish military really likes to put exhausted soldiers in exposed huts and call it a base. PKK and TAF has been playing this game for decades. What happens is PKK ambushes isolated outpost, declares victory, TAF hunts down some of the insurgents and declares victory, keeps going like that.

            Anyways, they tried this in Idlib with predictable results. SAA just went around these “observation points” and kept advancing into Idlib as if they weren’t even there. The response from Turkish gov was to send in more exposed soldiers with the hopes that the enemy would get scared of our might and leave. Russians have been bombing the Turks for a long time, but this time they struck a HQ and according to TAF, killed 33 soldiers. After this, Russians went silent for 2-3 days and let Turkey use UAVs to strike SAA. SAA and Iranian militias had thousands of casualties. and rebels made some minor gains which were mostly reversed after Russian planes got going again.

            Situation right now is that Turkey capitulated with the recent ceasefire and allowed Russia and SAA complete access to M4 and M5 highways, important for connecting Aleppo, then declared the “Peace Spring” operation it just declared a few days ago to be successfully completed. The Turkish soldiers in those observation points? They’re still there, no one knows what they’re supposed to do, Syrians give them food out of pity. Coronavirus came in just the right time to make us forget this defeat.

            • yewotm8 says:

              Doesn’t help that Erdogan eviscerated his own officer corps in his fake coup he staged a few years ago. Or so I was told by a Turkish Uber driver who claimed to be a fighter pilot before he was forced to flee the country.

              • The Cominator says:

                The pre coup (extremely competent) Turkish officer corps was filled with Kemalists who hate Turdogan and Islam both so that sounda accurate.

                That whole coup was retarded though, you don’t start a coup and then kill the leader you kill the leader and THEN start a coup.

              • Allah says:

                That’s the Gülenist version of events. They had their positions due to political scheming, and lost their positions due to political scheming.

                The competent officer corps Cominator talks about were purged previously. There is some confusion about this topic as there were two purges. The first one was against nationalists, this is the purge you did not hear about on your media. The second purge was the Gülenists being outmaneuvered by Erdoğan, this is the purge that outraged Western leaders.

                • jim says:

                  Gülen was in cahoots with the Cathedral.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Okay I actually believe you here… since the Cathedral hates nationalists (except for dark commie ones) this makes sense.

                  When did the purge of the Kemalists officers happen?

                • Allah says:

                  Indeed, but they are using each other.

                  When did the purge of the Kemalists officers happen?

                  Slowly and steadily pushed out of the military during and after the Cold War.

            • aswaes says:

              Hey allat,

              What’s your opinion on Erdo’s strategy? Does he have one, or is he yet another dumb emotional islamist? For a time he looked like an off-brand Putin character to me, but I can’t come up with a reason for his Idlib offensive that isn’t prima facie idiotic. Why does he want that worthless shit hole (Idlib), filled with worthless people of shit-holeness? What’s he gonna do when all the crazy jihadists he cozied up with, inevitably turn against him? Why did he turn against Assad in the first place? Why did he chose to destabilize an important trading partner?

              Give us a portrait of Erdo, his motivations, his modus operandi. Do you think he’s good for your people/country? (And who are your people btw?)

              • Allah says:

                Mostly the latter.

                Holding Syrian territory is very important because Assad and Russia are purposefully pushing millions of Sunni Arabs into Turkey. Assad wants to take it all and finish off the commie Kurds later, but Russia cut a deal with us where they get the important parts of Idlib and leave us to take care of the refugees for the time being. He did not destabilize Syria. Westerners destabilized Syria and he wanted a piece of the pie. When Americans destroyed Iraq, we did not intervene and as a result didn’t get to secure our neighborhood. He wanted to do differently this time and failed.

                I think he was just really lucky to be where he was at the time. He was marketed as an enlightened progressive moderate Muslim against ignorant, authoritarian, fascistic nationalists living in the 19th century obsessed with such concepts as militarism and independence. Nationalists did have a bit of a national socialist leaning when the rest of the world wanted us to be neither nationalists or socialists, so they lost on both counts.

                I’ve been against Erdoğan since the beginning, but I was willing to tolerate him for being less of a socialist and didn’t think he could’ve messed up this badly.

                Is he good for Turks? He intends to be good for Muslims, not Turks.

                • jim says:

                  > because Assad and Russia are purposefully pushing millions of Sunni Arabs into Turkey.

                  Peace of Westphalia solution is that they can stop resisting the religion of the Sovereign, or die. He is not pushing Sunnis into Turkey. He is pushing people who are attempting to overthrow him and get rid of Alawites, Christians, and people of Palestinian descent into Turkey. The trouble makers are hiding behind women, children, and kin, so the women, children and kin get whacked, which is legal according to Westphalian laws of war. Law of war is that when enemy soldiers hide in a population friendly to those soldiers, or at least obedient to them, you can go after the entire population group.

                  > Assad wants to take it all and finish off the commie Kurds later.

                  Gee. The Sovereign of Syria wants all of Syria. How very shocking🙃

                  The deal he is has struck with the Kurds is likely to amount them ceasing to commie environmentalist anarchist feminists. (Which they never really were anyway – they were just pretending to convert to the American State Religion.)

                • Allah says:


                • jim says:

                  That is the direct opposite of what I said.

                  Repeating what I said: Russian intervention in Syria is legitimate, American and Turkish intervention illegitimate.

                • aswaes says:

                  > He did not destabilize Syria. Westerners destabilized Syria and he wanted a piece of the pie.

                  Ok but Erdo kept doubling down on jihadis long after Trump cut their CIA funding and armaments.

                  Around early 2016, I think, Jim was arguing with B that SAA was shortly going to wipe out the “rebels” in conventional warfare. Jim lost that argument (or was it another one?) by a technicality, but he was right that the narrative, then prevalent, that in a popular revolt situation a sovereign is helpless against irregular warfare by insurgents is complete bullshit.

                  Without Turkish backing, the “rebels” go back to status quo ante bellum, or die.

                  I’ve heard the ‘stop the migrant wave’ argument for holding Idlib, but I don’t buy it (it is probably spread by paid shills). If you want to stop migrants, why not strike a deal with Assad and clean Idlib together? Why not strike a deal with a third country and send all refugees/migrants there? Somalia maybe? Why not make life very unpleasant for refugees so that they don’t stay? It’s not like you didn’t ignore “international law” (honk honk) before to deal with your own insurgents. I can think of a hundred ways, cheaper and more effective, to take care of the migrant situation without supporting a jihadi statelet in Idlib. That’s why I’m looking for another explanation for Erdo’s moves. Currently the only explanation I find plausible is “out of spite”.

                • pdimov says:

                  >That’s why I’m looking for another explanation for Erdo’s moves.

                  Here’s your answer:

                  >Assad wants to take it all

                  Turkey wants Northern Syria, it’s that simple. In their mind, it’s not Assad’s, it’s theirs.

                • Allah says:

                  If you want to stop migrants, why not strike a deal with Assad and clean Idlib together? Why not strike a deal with a third country and send all refugees/migrants there? Somalia maybe? Why not make life very unpleasant for refugees so that they don’t stay?

                  Erdoğan sees himself as the leader of Muslims, not Turks. Mistreating Sunni Arabs is a huge taboo for his faction. The refugees get paid for education and healthcare while we don’t and their situation with taxes is blurry. We’re also afraid of Western humanitarian intervention. Where would the refugees go even if we forced them out?

                  I think he started believing his own propaganda after 2013 or so, that’s around the time his demeanor changed and he got his throne or the Ceausescu-esque palace he had built a couple years ago. I want to get off Mr. Erdoğan’s wild ride.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          If you are telling us that Russians bombed Turks, then God bless Putin.

Leave a Reply for Allah