https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/american-right-will-be-crushed-civil-war-unless-it-organizes-now/ri28185Updated Jan 22, 2020, 12:03 PM
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-22 12:03:00 UTC
https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/american-right-will-be-crushed-civil-war-unless-it-organizes-now/ri28185Updated Jan 22, 2020, 12:03 PM
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-22 12:03:00 UTC
ISLAMISM AND SOVIETS (NOW PERSIA AND ISLAMISM)
by Radu M Oleniuc
The KGB had more than 500 high profile agents in Islamic countries back in the 70s. They realized the potential of religious war against the US. This is the moment where long time Marxists imposed burka and grow themselves beards (remember how Egypt and Iran was back in the 70s – no fundamentalism, and how it is today). They used religion as a tactic, nothing more. In some respect, this is the same method used by some Jews who don’t know Torah, are not religious at all, sometimes they don’t even believe in God (they don’t care much about the Israel state either), but at the same time they identify as (religious) Jews to silence everyone as antisemite or even a fascist, whey someone is criticizing them.
The dogma was intertwined with politics, and this was used as a weapon against the western world.
The Islamists we face today learned their style of warfare from the Soviets, who established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as “the fulcrum of the Soviet Union’s strategic approach” to world revolution, especially control of the Middle East. At the time, President Reagan was battling the Soviet empire, including its support for international terrorist groups. Lofton reminded his readers of many facts about the Soviet-supported international terrorist networks. These facts are extremely relevant today.
…
Lofton wrote about and has to conclude that the modern-day Islamic terrorists we face today grew out of these communist networks that the Soviets sponsored.
…
What we have learned since that time is that PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was actually a trained KGB operative. The case of Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist, is perhaps more significant. He converted to Islam.
…
Jeff Jeffrey R. Nyquist asks, “When we learn that a leading commander in ISIL was born in the Soviet Union and trained in Russia, we ought to wonder what is really going on?” Omar al-Shishani, the Russian commander in ISIL (also known as ISIS or the Islamic State), has been reported to be the group’s overall military chief. We have heard repeatedly about Americans and Europeans fighting for ISIL, but little attention is being devoted to the Russian-speaking foreign fighters that make up the group. Their numbers are estimated at 500 or more. Omar al-Shishani is usually described as a prominent Islamic State fighter who is Chechen. In fact, he was born in the former Soviet republic of Georgia and was trained there.
…
Before we jump to conclusions that Russia is on our side in fighting ISIS, it might be wise to examine the history of international terrorism, its Soviet roots, and Russia’s ties to these networks today. President Obama told “60 Minutes” on Sunday that the U.S. intelligence community had “underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.” So what do we know about this mysterious entity called ISIS? Could Russia be playing both sides in this conflict as part of a geopolitical game to safeguard its Iranian client state?
…
Our media think that because the Soviet Union died and a modern Russia supposedly emerged in its place, these issues are irrelevant. But the head of this new Russia is a former KGB spy who wants to reconstitute the former Soviet Union. He invaded Ukraine. Is it really too much to believe that the Kremlin has had a hand in the rise of ISIS?
https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10152796343961565Updated Jan 22, 2020, 10:40 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-22 10:40:00 UTC
PARALLELS: ISLAM AND SOVIET SOCIALISM – AND CONSEQUENCES
by Radu M Oleniuc (must read)
Islam, like soviet socialism, is founded on a dual basis : on the one hand the ideological foundation, and on the other the imposition of that ideology through armed force. The combination of the two is characteristic. The earliest person to speak of this was Sima Qian, one of the greatest intellectuals in China, a historian, who was also prime minister. As an intellectual and as prime minister, he was perfectly acquainted with a system based both on ideology and on violence. In his letter to Jen An, which dates back to 91 B.C., he explains that, in such a system, there can be only two solutions :
– physical death : you oppose the system and in that case you are killed
– spiritual death : you pretend to believe in the ideology, and in that case you wear a mask.
(but “the mask sticks to your face”, as Sima Qian said later in his books. The mask becomes you, and you become what you did not ever wanted to be. The whole process can last for years, or several generations, but JUST AS IT HAPPENED IN COMMUNISM, the phenomenon always ends with exactly the same results – and btw, this explains also the high approval rate of Putin, or the 99% who voted for Saddam. It’s not only fear driving these men, it’s much much more).
Thus, according to Sima Qian, in a system founded both on force and on ideology, one can choose only between physical death and spiritual death.
That is precisely the structure of Islam, founded both on ideology and on the use of armed force. Then there’s the interior violence that is exerted on the ‘dhimmis’, or peoples conquered by the Muslim armies, who lose all their political rights and the greater part of their civil rights, and who become foreigners in their own country. They are driven to extinction by a combination of methods.
Throughout antiquity, and right up until the second half of the 19th century, there were fluctuations in population due either to famines, or to epidemics, or to wars. After each decline, the population would increase again until it reached its equilibrium, that is, the maximum number of people who could live on the land considering the agricultural techniques available. The Muslims built new towns, Oran, Cordoba, Cairo, etc. while slaughtering or deporting the local populations, and peopling the towns with Arabs either from the Hedjaz region or from Syria.
It is a general phenomenon. Thus the Turkish population, initially 100% Christian, had fallen to 30% Christian by 1900, and is 0.2% Christian today. [We have the similar example of Pakistan today, or Egypt, Syria etc]
Secular constitutions in Europe evolved and are separated from religion only where Christianity was properly applied. Because this concept exist only in this part of the world, for thousands of years. In Islam is not like that. In Islam the religion IS the state. 90% of Islam deals with civil problems, administration, regulations and so on.
For Muslim scholars, Islam is “Dîn, Dunya, Daoula” (i.e. religion, society, state). And even a single comma is “sacred” in their book, thus cannot be changed – not like here, where we had dozens of versions (some conflicting among themselves) of the Bible. Hundreds of light years away from Virginia Convention or from “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God”. Hundreds of years away from the “wall of separation” of Roger Williams (a priest) or later, Jefferson. This is why they will NEVER reform their states. Not to mention the fact it is enforced with the sword at every step.
In Christianity there is the concept of sword as well (Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace, but a sword.”). But it is not used as a violent means to something (only for defensive purposes – at his trial “bring only two swords”), and only to separate “mother from the daughter, son from father” etc. As any sin is an individual sin, not a collective one (a revolutionary concept again, at the time). And here comes individual responsibility in jurisprudence and coutumes. Yakuza and Japanese culture doesn’t understand this at all. They can pass “sins” (in the Old Greek the word for sin is debt) among others, and usually a low tier subaltern pays / takes the punishment for the boss, a habit that is so typical for any collectivist society (and this with ‘honor’ – crazy).
This is a very long talk. At the end, I guess we must understand why Marcel Gauchet said “Christianity is the religion to end all other religions”, as it is the exit from dogma, cheap mysticism, forced morals (good by force), collectivism and so on. As all of the concepts we take from granted evolved very hard, but to conclude, we must understand why they happened ONLY in this part of the world.
https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10153609756561565
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-22 10:35:00 UTC
The problem is getting people to think about it. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-21 21:21:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219731744456310784
Reply addressees: @EricLiford
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219726960718491652
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219726960718491652
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RICHMOND RALLY
by Julian le Roux
1. We couldn’t have hoped for a better outcome.
2. I was expecting much smaller attendance and at least some serious conflict.
3. Amazing demonstration of the level of self-control, civilization (and conviviality to boot) amongst the Right.
4. Further to (3), I imagine the Left / media will have a very hard time manipulating or memory-holing such a unambiguous message.
5. Overwhelming safety-in-numbers should provide a huge boost to morale and willingness to participate.
6. The show of force has ensured that no-one can claim that they weren’t *respectfully* warned about the Rights’ commitment and seriousness. The fact that a clear message has been sent, supports the Right moral justification should future events require stronger action.
7. The ball has moved forward substantially for Peaceful Separation, and the rally has opened up new avenues to normalize that narrative.
8. It’s become easier to assert that the Right Desires Peace.
9. Again, being able to claim the mantle of Peace helps to draw in more normies and shift them towards our position.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-21 16:20:00 UTC
LIBER-TARDIANS … USEFUL IDIOTS OF THE ENEMY
—“I’ll bet I used [Propertarianism] before you ever did. It is amusing that you think”–
Well if you’ll bet, then how much, and what evidence can you present to back your case?
—“2. You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.”—
1. Demonstrated interest is existential: “demonstrated” – a truth. It’s not a choice, opinion, or preference. Any OTHER definition is a choice, preference or opinion. In other words any other choice is arbitrary.
2. You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest. (This is how Abrahamic Pilpul is used to create an internally consistent set of justificationary lies – and of course you fell for it.)
3. Humans can’t know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.
4. Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value. We can’t know scarcity only ignorance.
5. Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value, and you would have a very hard time doing that. 😉
6. Humans can’t avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something, we can only avoid conflict by knoweldge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest, and continue to demonstrate that interest.
7. What you are missing is (a) scarcity of a good is a circular reasoning. (b) that demonstrated interest is the scarcity, (b) that cooperation is the ultimate scarcity, (c) that reciprocity (non imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation. (d) that those who impose costs upon demonstrated intersets are the only source of conflict over the POTENTIAL to obtain returns on one’s demonstrated interests.
8. Your opinion on what imposition of costs upon their demonstrated interests does not matter to others or the headman, counsel, court that must resolve conflicts when demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability. In other words, you can try to advocate for leaving open the possibility of parasitism upon and harm against others, but it doesn’t mean anything to others, it’s just a lie you and yours tell yourselves to try to justify parasitism upon others and harm against others intersets. Morality is what other people won’t harm or kill you for, and the only reason not to harm or kill you is the value of your cooperation versus non-cooperation, uncooperative-competition, free riding, parasitism, predation upon anything that the use whatsoever to create and preserve their returns on cooperation. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you think – it matters what others do and you can negotiate for survival with them. (This is why I use science not justificationary pilpul like jewish rothbard and jewish-trained Hoppe.
Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other’s states. Rothbard is trying to restore jewish separatism by free riding on the same states. They’re both trying to justify free riding. There is only one source of determining your rights: the use of organized violence at personal risk to deny others the alternative. The problem is that the only way to hold territory and population is with economic production hence the universal creation of increasingly suppressive laws against parasitism in every empire so that economic velocity is highest, and returns highest, and therefore military capacity highest. )
9. I do science. Y’all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry (pilpul and critique, GSRRM, false promise, baiting into hazard) is the most sophisticated form of deception yet invented by man, just as science is the most sophisticated form of truthful testimony invented by man. There are many means of lying by sophistry, including numerology, astrology, pseudoscience, theology, but the means of lying without appeal to anything external to language is Sophism. The reason it’s effective – weaving internal consistently out of self referentiality – is because it does not, like science, appeal to reality for closure (decidability). Instead the technique seeks to overwhelm (overload) reason (modeling) causing an appeal to moral intuition. Once you understand it’s just a technique of deception that like any other technique that can be mastered, it’s relatively easy to identify. The problem is untangling the self-referentiality rather than modeling the consequences in reality – which is what it seeks to undermine.
Anyway. I don’t err. We all make mistakes. I very rarely err. And since this is my primary line of research I certainly don’t err in this case. I can’t. The science says so.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-21 16:11:00 UTC
Keep the compliment on account for the next time. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-21 02:38:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219449182748061698
Reply addressees: @Outsideness
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219448805608718336
IN REPLY TO:
@Outsideness
@curtdoolittle Just a quote, Curt.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219448805608718336
Dammit you’re good with words.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-21 02:35:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219448291299143680
Reply addressees: @Outsideness
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219191437490704386
IN REPLY TO:
@Outsideness
“Political monotheism – the faith that only one political system can be right for all of humankind – has given way to inescapable pluralism.” https://t.co/5MM95NL38u
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219191437490704386
You mean you’re just going to sit and wait while others do the work?
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-21 02:25:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219445818299768832
Reply addressees: @JayDevalles @LughODanu @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219425650429304833
IN REPLY TO:
@JayDevalles
@LughODanu @curtdoolittle @JohnMarkSays Well as soon as you get control of global media, Hollywood, and academia, let me know.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219425650429304833
Too bad. I was looking to start something. And I’m disappointed. Lol
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-20 23:19:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219399175994998788
Reply addressees: @probiotical
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219398771181703168
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219398771181703168