Christians, Muslims, Tribalism

How the Church engineered paganism out of Western Europeans and Christianity into them:
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/whatever-happened-to-european-tribes/


The rather impressive theological reasoning behind de-tribing the peoples:
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/st-augustine-and-st-thomas-aquinas/


Inbreeding in Christian countries vs. Muslim countries today (I commented on this one belatedly):
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/inbreeding-and-natl-iq/


It seems that the Arabs have infected most of the Muslim world with their form of tribalism, since Arabs always have had comparatively high status among Muslims and often were emulated. Consequent upon this, tribally organized societies have difficulty forming nation-states. Their peoples' loyalties are elsewise engaged: by strong family, clan, and tribal identities. Islam, being a warlike religion, does little in practice to counter this tendency and unite its adherents, except when opportunity arises for jihad against infidels. Such fine social subdivisions also diminish potential for commercial development: the wealthiest Islamic country lacking major oil resources is probably Turkey or Malaysia. Both have Mexican levels of per capita GDP, and only attain that height due to multiple special advantages. The Turks are at the crossroads between Europe and Asia, are NATO members, have some of the lowest inbreeding rates of Muslim nations, were unusually secular in their governance for 80 years, haven't fought a significant war is almost 100 years, and, until recently, were making aggressive efforts to gain admittance to the EU. The Malaysians have a large non-Muslim Chinese minority (20+%) who develop and sustain its commerce, enough oil/natural gas production to supply itself and do some exporting, a geographic position in a peaceful and rapidly growing part of the world, and a tradition of moderate Islamic beliefs.

Over-Domesticated

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-31130750

The Pakistanis are like an invasive plant species from the great wide world, transplanted now to a little greenhouse environment in which natural defenses are deliberately suppressed by the rulers: the invader naturally overruns and destroys all the natives in its new territory.


Rotherham has about 250,000 people. The minimum estimates of number abused mean that at least 10% of all the young native English Rotherham girls over the last twenty years have been abused by these Paki gangs. And to this day nothing has been done to prevent future predation: no enhanced protections are in place, and no accountability has been imposed upon the abusers or the neglectful government officials/police. Only Rotherham has been investigated at all competently: the Pakis pursue this modus operandi throughout England, meaning the overall scope of abuse is probably at least an order of magnitude greater than here reported. There are only 10,000 Pakis in Rotherham, but 1.3 million in England (130 times as many).


Europe cannot have its cake and eat it: it cannot sustain its current civilizational path and host tens of millions of uncivilized people. It has now three options: it may expel the barbarians, it may revert to a different, more severe form of civilization, or it may succumb to the barbarians and submit to the Ummah.

The Curse of Islam

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.


No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Sir Winston Churchill, The River War



A British politician was arrested about a year ago for reading precisely this prophetic and diagnostic passage in the public square. He was charged with incitement of racial/religious hatred. Islam does indeed disintegrate civilizations when it overtakes them. It knows only how to spend cultural capital, not how to perpetuate it--certainly a creative culture is inconceivable within the Koranic interpretation of life. The celebrants of "Islamic Golden Ages" fail to apprehend the causes of such periods: they only occur when Muslims vanquish superior civilizations and ride their cultural momentum for a few generations, until virtually the entire population converts to Islam and their vitality is sapped. This is the main reason Europe is more endangered than America. The conversionary, goal-oriented weight of Muslim numbers poses a much more precipitous threat than America's Mestizos do--since, like the blacks, they lack the capacity for group autonomy and predictably suffer themselves to become mere puppets of the Left.

Epigrams and Aphorisms from the Right

I must, alas, confess that I failed to note the various authors of these strikes (many were Twitter posts)--but I will publish them anyway:

The more one learns about Charlie Hebdo, the more you realize it's a vile magazine totally supportive of a non-white future for France.

Muslim immigration into non-Muslim nations: the worst idea of the 20th century, after communism.

It isn't whether the French will have the freedom to practice satire. It's whether France has the right to stay French.

When zoo animals get loose and harm people, the question should be to find out WHO opened the cage not to get mad at animals...

So much for the magically transformative power of geography. Two of the three Muslim killers in Paris were born in France.

"There are good Muslims." Yeah, great. Now guess what happens when the bad Muslims win battles? The good Muslims fall the fuck in line.

Lie of the Day: "They aren't Muslims, they're terrorists." You may not believe in tribalism, but tribalism believes in you.

Allow me to encapsulate the mentality of white decadents right now: "There are still plots of non-vibrant land I can retreat to!"

Charlie Hebdo won't wake up the white man. Only the white masses stringing up the white elite will wake up the white man.

I'm coming to think that white European civilization (and outposts) can't survive without a return to a vigorous religious belief.

I think it was a smart attack from the jihadist perspective. Sure, people will pound their chests and declare I AM THIS SHITTY FRENCH MAGAZINE, but back in reality the point has been made. Because it is an attack on the media. It exposes the weakness and insecurity of Western elites. I'm sure there will be a crackdown of some kind, some cells will be rolled up, security will be tightened in some respects. But the impression has been made. Your freedom is meaningless against someone who hates you totally. And now you are surrounded by them.
So for now there will be a crackdown, solidarity, speeches. This will last maybe two months. Then, gradually, a growing concern about those who are always going around upsetting these volatile people. Now these can be talked to, cajoled, threatened. Unlike the men with AK-47s. The recent EU Joint Statement enacts exactly this response: restrict citizens' speech, spy on citizens, disarm citizens, propagandize citizens--and, of course, continue current immigration policies. Overall, it looks like a big, big win for the Islamists.  

Anarcho-Tyranny Unleashed

This is an especially disgusting type of crime. Its enablers (police, media, politicians, ngo's) will suffer not the slightest punishment. The few perpetrators so far convicted received light sentences.

On the theory and practice of anarcho-tyranny: http://www.vdare.com/articles/anarcho-tyranny-where-multiculturalism-leads

Overview articles on Rotherham:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11066244/Rotherham-is-not-an-isolated-incident.html
http://mangans.blogspot.hk/2014/08/rotherham.html

Top feminist websites' (non)-coverage of Rotherham: http://www.kidstrangelove.com/2014/08/29/the-rotherham-child-sex-abuse-scandal-and-the-american-media-coverage-in-pictures/

Some thoughts on the Rotherham atrocities from Nick Land and commenters (the "Cathedral" is the Leftist media-academic complex, those who lead the Leftist religion):

Nick Land:

The BBC fog-machine at work on the UK child-predation story:

Child sexual exploitation is happening in a “number of towns” in different parts of the country, according to the author of a damning report into abuse in Rotherham. … According to an estimate from the Children’s Commissioner for England three years ago, 2,409 children were identified as victims of exploitation by gangs over a 14-month period from 2010-11 …
 I’m going to assume that all the fanatically unspecified “men” (or “males”) involved are Muslims of Pakistani origin (abusing white children), unless presented with definite evidence to the contrary. Any other default would be an act of cognitive collaboration with Britain’s sordid little branch-operation of the Cathedral, and we’ve now seen with stark clarity what that enables.

Does the progressive media really think it can de-realize this festival of cultural ruin with a standard inattention protocol? If so, it has to count as an extraordinary peak hubris moment. Perhaps the left is structurally incapable of preventing itself from pushing things over the brink of catastrophe. It always has to take that one additional step, and it has no sense at all of how to back down.

There have to be a lot of people in the UK right now who would be delighted to see the media establishment strung up from lamp-posts, with panic and defection rife in journalistic ranks. It’s surely not impossible that the pattern now jutting into hideous visibility in Britain will evoke a disturbing sense of recognition elsewhere, possibly throughout the Anglosphere. As far as core Cathedral operating procedures are concerned, this has to be a period of (possibly unprecedented) vulnerability. As a source of regime threatening irritability, the Rotherham syndrome is the droit du seigneur of the new nobility — even among a pitifully broken people, it pushes some deeply atavistic buttons. Lies, sexual exploitation, and foreign invasion — who’d want to be PR manager for this cocktail of native degradation?


Commenters:

Scientism: I think perhaps we, from what I assume are our fairly “privileged” positions (not having been “vulnerable youth”, but I only speak for myself here), don’t quite grasp how insidious the Cathedral is. This looks to us like the Cathedral coming apart, but consider that what we have here is a system that managed to train a succession of civil servants to overlook abuse. Not just one or two, but seemingly every last person involved with the council, the police force and the charities, was trained to overlook this kind of abuse, for 16 years.

How can such an outcome be anything but the Cathedral firing on all cylinders, doing what it was designed to do? The immediate reality of the Cathedral for most of us is, essentially, having been misled by the media, having woken up and realised we’ve been lied to, perhaps knowing we’ve lost much of our culture. In the future, we expect some kind of collapse, we think things will get worse. But that’s in the future. On the other hand, the reality of the Cathedral for the civil servants, activists, etc, who are part of it is: Pakistani men raping little white girls while everybody looks the other way. The reality for the media: not reporting on these events, because it might make white people angry at a minority group. That’s their main concern, in both cases, not the abuse. That’s their daily lived experience: being complicit in atrocities while simultaneously being enraged by trivialities.

This is what these guys do all day and have been doing for years. A little scandal isn’t going to change the way they do things. The only thing that’s going to end this is economic collapse or war.


Kgaard: I do not see economic collapse, and I don’t see war coming to the UK’s shores anytime soon. So the existing system continues as is, I guess. When you look to the top of the power structure, the logic of it all is crystal clear: Big business wants the bodies to offset all the babies not being created by native Brits. Labour, meanwhile, wants the immigrants because immigrants vote Labour. So it’s a pact made in hell — and the same pact has been made in the US and much of continental Europe. There is no stopping it that I can see. Who stops it? Who can withstand the combined force of the ENTIRE power structure coming down on their head — from the political left to the right?

Scientism: It’s essentially a set of pernicious feedback loops. The civil servants, the media and a large portion of the British public are experiencing a severe belief bias effect where all evidence confirms their Leftist outlook. Every atrocity is cause to double down on their anti-racist efforts. These efforts protect and enable the gangs and cause more atrocities. This serves to confirm the horrors of systemic racism in the mind of the anti-racist. When the natives try to organise against the protected immigrants, they’re merely seen as racism incarnate, again confirming the Leftist outlook. It’s difficult to see any end to it. These aren’t rational people; they’re caught in a system that develops and maintains a kind of delusive belief system. With the media and most university educated members of the public complicit, there’s little hope of exposure. The outrage of the uneducated masses merely confirms their racist nature. Nationalist groups inevitably find solace in anti-system symbolism and end up goose-stepping down the street, again conforming the worldview of the anti-racists. Everybody has a role to play and everything confirms Leftism! How do you escape that?

Islam and the West

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/citizen-islam-zeyno-baran

The link is to a review of a book, Citizen Islam: The Future of Muslim Integration in the West, by Zeyno Baran, on Muslim citizens in Western countries. It's a sharp, concise, excellent review, worth reading. The reviewer wrote a highly regarded book on this subject a couple of years past, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West. Both authors agree that the most essential question the rise of the Muslim population puts before us is what form of Islam these people will ascribe to. I agree with this assessment, though in those countries with relatively modest Muslim populations the issue of the magnitude of future Muslim immigration is almost as important. The politically correct view, of course, in America and Europe, is that mainstream Islam is distinct from "Islamism" (the interpretation that Islamic values and rules ought to prevail in the political sphere).

That the priests or imams should want mastery accords with the natural order of things. Why shouldn't the arbiters of the ultimate things requite their pious followers with the gift of effectual earthly guidance?

“Islamism shares the most fundamental aim of Islam and all religions,” Baran writes, “to bring the world closer to God.” In so saying, she removes us from the cocoon of cant that swaddles most public—and all governmental—discussion of Islam’s role in terrorism.

The motive force behind Islamic terrorism is thus conceived by its practitioners as transcending the civil laws of merely secular governments. And, since its inception, the Quran has seemed to certain numbers of its adherents interpretable in this direction. If confined to a few extremists or to marginal lands, this might be of minor consequence, and it has been little more than a nuisance through most of Islamic history. However, massive Muslim immigration into the West has changed things, and rendered this disease much more contagious, if not also more virulent.

Islamists are, by definition, politicized Muslims. They are better at politics than their apolitical coreligionists. European officials made a mistake in the 1980s and ’90s, when they “granted asylum to many immigrants who presented far more of a threat to democratic rule than the regimes they had fled.” The core of Baran’s book is her description of the tactics by which Islamists co-opted, infiltrated, bamboozled, and overwhelmed Muslim institutions of long standing. Islamists generally preferred subverting existing bodies to setting up their own, Baran writes, because it “required less effort and offered greater recruitment possibilities.” Her account of such subversion will remind readers of the history of Communists in the trade-union movement. As Baran shows, boards of directors staffed with doddering old-country patriarchs do not stand a chance against young, modern, Internet- and media-savvy “professional Muslims.”

One might also analogize Islamists to a special interest group in politics. Though constituting a small number, they care about their monomania more than the great mass of the polity, and often use their focus to achieve goals against the interest of the nation. This looks to be something of a vicious circle. Revolutions, though, tend to burn themselves out as the youthful vanguard becomes less youthful and settles heavily into power. But, by a similar process of energetic youth overcoming apathetic age, the nonpolitical version of Islam is losing power also in many Muslim nations. Turkey is cited as a clear case of this. It has proceeded in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran--and the Arab Spring may yet prove another step in furtherance of this trend.

The threat of Islamism in the near and medium term arises from its manifest terrorist tendencies. Any irrational belief system, including any religion, may become dangerous. "The problem is that religion itself is a conveyor belt to radicalism in this way." The remedy for this, the action Western governments ought to undertake, according to Baran, is this:

  They should “shift their current focus from countering extremist violence to preventing extremism from taking hold in the first place.” The strategy she suggests might indeed be a better one. But there are two reasons it cannot be carried out. One is that Americans are too frightened of being disciplined and punished for breaches of political correctness to discuss honestly any aspect of any policy touching on Islam. Even this term—“political correctness”—does not do justice to the Zhdanovite lockdown that the government enforces when it comes to discussing Islam.

Apparently, even the Ft. Hood massacre of American soldiers by a radicalized Islamist soldier was dismissed by DOD as unrelated to Islamism.

Secondly, Americans don’t know Islam well enough. The distinction between “Islamists who renounce violence” (the people we are empowering now) and the “moderate Muslims who reject Islamism” (the people Baran would like us to empower)—these distinctions might be meaningful for a literary Turk with a good Koranic education. They will be lost on a galoot congressman from the mountain West who has never met a Muslim. And to draw such distinctions in the first place would reveal what a big, intransigent problem traditionalist Islam poses for Western societies. It is a problem that already has a long record of forcing those societies to weigh their commitment to diversity against their commitment to freedom.

We observe all this with a complacency born of the amateurism and incompetence of our domestic Islamic foes. In many Western nations, including America, their numbers are too small still to present a great danger. And the problem may well, by a variety of possible mechanisms, be self-correcting. The two most likely forms of this are the senescence of the revolutionaries or a change in attitude in Western nations should the threat become grave. That said, I see no benefit for the West from continued large scale Muslim immigration. Also, the radicals ought to be deported. We do not need the distraction and the drain on our powers political Islam involves--certes we do not benefit this way. Proliferation of WMDs, China's rise, and socialism-induced internal decay are quite a sufficient platefull of problems.