The face of Western civilization

https://us.yahoo.com/gma/donald-trumps-pick-us-ambassador-israel-signals-changes-084611096–abc-news-topstories.html

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for the next U.S. Ambassador to Israel is drawing wide-ranging reactions from jubilant praise to heated criticism.

Trump’s choice, David Friedman, holds distinctly conservative views in direct opposition to long-standing U.S. policy positions. Friedman opposes a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, actively supports Israeli settlements and advocates for Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, maintaining that the occupied Palestinian Territories are not occupied.

Friedman, who has no career experience with either policy or diplomacy, is an Orthodox Jewish lawyer who advised Trump during the campaign. A close friend and confidant of Trump, he specialized in bankruptcy law and represented Trump in his investments in Atlantic City casinos.

He serves as one of the co-chairmen of the Israel Advisory Committee to Trump, alongside Jason Greenblatt, another Orthodox Jewish lawyer from New York City.

In an op-ed Friday in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, its U.S. editor Chemi Shalev argued that Friedman “makes Netanyahu seem like a left-wing defeatist.”

Netanyahu’s main political rival, Education Minister Naftali Bennett, wished Friedman good luck Friday, describing him as “a great friend of Israel.”

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely “welcomed” the nomination of Friedman on her Facebook page Friday, describing it as “good news for Israel.”

Among those who have also congratulated Friedman is the Zionist Organization of America, whose president, Morton Klein, said Friedman has “the potential to be the greatest U.S. ambassador to Israel ever.”

Matt Brooks, executive director of the lobbying group Republican Jewish Coalition, tweeted “great choice!”

“David is someone who understands the President’s vision and will strengthen the US-Israel relationship,” Brooks wrote.

Friedman, as the president of the American Friends of Bet El Institutions, associated with the Jewish settlement of Bet El, has consistently and actively supported the construction of new settlements. Friedman, already a frequent visitor, also owns property in Jerusalem.

“I think the West Bank was captured from Jordan in a defensive war,” he told ABC News at an October Trump rally in Israel. “The Jordanians haven’t sought to repatriate that land so I think; I’m a lawyer, under international law I don’t think these settlements are illegal.”

Trump’s take: In an interview with Israel’s Army Radio, Jason Greenblatt, co-chairman of the Trump campaign’s Israel Advisory Committee, said, “It is certainly not Mr. Trump’s view that settlement activities should be condemned and that it is an obstacle for peace, because it is not an obstacle for peace.”

“The view is that the Israeli electorate is a peace-loving electorate, a very informed electorate,” he said. “They choose their leaders very carefully. It’s a very robust democracy and ultimately they have to live with the consequences. And so the position of the Trump Administration will be to support the decision of the Israeli people to achieve peace as they see fit.”

“The era of Palestinian State is over,” right-wing politician Naftali Bennett declared after the election.

He may be right.

Western civilization must die. If you want to help make this happen within our own lifetimes – trust me, it can be done; we just need enough people willing to do the work – please send in a contact form:

http://aryanism.net/about/contact/

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

254 Responses to The face of Western civilization

  1. Hypnotix says:

    @Satya

    “You don’t just go about exterminating people you don’t like. [...] And no: a group that coheres without wanting to include a newcomer is not worthy of immediate extermination, the hobbits shall live.

    I didn’t mean extermination, though I get how you might think that. Stopping tribalists from reproducing, or convincing them not to reproduce of their own accord, is what matters for stopping violence in the long term. Besides, the hobbits, unlike some real tribalists, don’t treat any other group as Goys, so I’d say they’re safe.

    “Everybody has a right to be wrong and a right to learn.”

    This is something one often hears. With most things, it’s true. With racism, it’s not. The thing is, everybody has known better – racism is an attitude that is virtually non-existent in children. That some of them later become racists does not mean that they “forgot” how to not be racists – they just chose it, for whatever reasons. Of course, everyone should first be given the chance (or multiple ones) to redeem himself, and in surroundings that do not influence him towards racism, but if he persists in his attitudes, then the root cause is not surroundings, but genetics. And if his genetics indeed are the root cause, is the most just thing not to stop him from reproducing, thereby averting the suffering their potential descendents will no doubt cause others, i.e. one act of (retaliatory) violence to prevent multiple future ones?

  2. Lucius Rhine says:

    I don’t think removal necessitates extermination, there are camps too. If tribalists wish to isolate themselves, we happily ablige, and set aside land where they can live – as long as they don’t reproduce.

  3. Hypnotix says:

    @Satya

    “If there shall be any judgment of this sort at all, God shall pass it, no mortal man. Know your place.”

    There was this quote I recall, don’t remember who it was attributed to:
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

    What you’re talking about is motivation to inaction based on the belief that justice is handed out after death, of which there’s no certainty. Even if it did happen, though, it would be nothing more than revenge for one’s evil in life; it would do nothing to prevent further evil and, hence, further suffering.

    Besides, the sooner tribalism is phased out from the world, the sooner there will no longer be any need for judgements to be passed.

  4. Satya says:

    I said I would not comment again here, that Satya is an impostor.

  5. Hypnotix says:

    @Satya

    Yeah, I thought so. Even then, replying to critique is beneficial, so I’ll keep doing so, regardless who posts it.

  6. AS says:

    @handschar

    “Animals become distressed seeing anyone in pain.”

    Animals are individuals. Please do not generalize their behaviour. (I have seen some cats take pleasure in torturing mice, fish, etc..)

    “I was talking about con artists who pretend they are suffering from a terminal illness and playing on people’s compassion saying they need financial help for a series of life saving operations but they are really in fine health using the money on things like cosmetic surgery and on having a good time”

    The same applies. The victim consents to paying for a life-saving operation but actually pays for cosmetic surgery. The victim did not consent to paying for cosmetic surgery, yet ended up paying for it. Therefore the victim was made to paid for something without consent.

    “even dogs will die on a diet of human bones because they will be trapped inside the house.”

    I don’t care if they die, as long as there is no violence involved. I would never lock them in if they want to leave, but by the same token I would never drag them out if they want to remain.

    “Authorities will turn up eventually to imprison the animal and then murder him.”

    I was talking about how I would act if I was the authority.

    “Also to understand why lewdness is unacceptable you must understand “signal crime”.”

    You are welcome to explain what you mean.

    @Satya

    “I will make this my last post on this board”

    And you keep posting…..

    “I said I would not comment again here, that Satya is an impostor.”

    6:06PM is an impostor. 5:57PM is you.

    “introducing 20 mil more refugees to Germany”

    Nobody is “introducing” refugees. Refugees arrive of their own will.

    “Germanys arable land can house a guesstimate of about 40 mil people if entirely farmed with permaculture. So the reduction in population is nothing that has to be remedied.”

    When people are allowed to live wherever they want to live, people will distribute themselves according to the relative economic carrying capacity of each country. It is interfering with this process by blocking the flow that causes all the problems. Folkish imperialism is a positive force in this respect because it allows this process of automatic distribution on a larger scale than was previously possible. Colonialism, in contrast, worsens the condition by draining wealth from the colonized lands into the colonizing land but prohibiting the people from redistributing along with the wealth. The phenomenon we see now is a belated reaction to colonialism, when the formerly colonized people are finally beginning to redistribute the way they should have redistributed centuries ago. Better late than never.

    “If high quality demographic maintenance is a value, then restrictions on immigration are “strategic fluidity””

    You don’t even understand the term.

    “The people currently coming in are not necessarily coming in as individuals but also as tribes”

    Again you immediately fail to see them as individuals by generalizing them as “the people”. SOME indivudals come in as individuals. OTHER individuals come in as tribes. Your duty is to tell them apart, not to ignore the difference.

    “There is evidence of an advertising campaign in the background as a startling amount of people ask for a house and car and free money when coming in as if someone had promised them that.”

    If Germany had no welfare for ANYONE, it would be impossible for such advertizing to be believed. I repeat: don’t stop refugees who turn up, replace welfare with public works projects instead.

    “Furthermore overall poverty in Germany is rising”

    If poverty in Germany were really higher than it is in the refugees’ countries of origin, I guarantee that no refugees would be coming to Germany. Again, let people distribute themselves.

    “Swamping a place without strategy as to how to assist in the provision of basic necesseties is violence to everyone already there.”

    There does not need to be a strategy in the provision of basic necessities as such. All there needs to be is a principle: nobody gets anything from the state unearned by labour. Everything else will fall into place by itself.

    No one is “swamping” any place. Actively pushing refugees to enter irrespective of their own wishes would be swamping. ALLOWING refugees to enter who themselves want to enter is not swamping, and BY DEFINITION not violence, since it is literally standing back and simply letting everyone move where they want. Violence is prohibiting entry to those who want entry, or prohibiting exit to those who want exit. We do neither. If you don’t like it where you live, you are as free to exit as the refugees are to enter.

    I recall that you like how apartment blocks work in Switzerland, where people must obtain consent from existing residents before moving in. In these apartments, must people also obtain consent before reproducing (which also adds new residents to the apartment block)? And if not, why the double-standard?

    “There is a point when “They take our livelihood” becomes a thing.”

    Please study elementary economics FFS:

    Immigrants, just like everyone else, are consumers as well as producers. Immigrants to a country may take jobs, but will also give custom to local businesses for the products and services that they need for daily life. These businesses, in turn, will have to employ additional staff in order to effectively provide these additional products and services. In short, jobs are taken, but jobs are also created.

    http://aryanism.net/politics/economics/immigration/

    “Rigidity on open borders will leave people no choice then to exercise their right to vote for the right wing that is already propped up to be Zionist.”

    Which was the Zionist plan all along, as we have been warning year after year. The way to defeat it is so simple: a sincere change of heart towards solidarity with refugees! Just this one move, if performed, would leave the Zionist agenda totally off balance and place us in position to finish it off. This is what miracles are made of.

    “Also tribal identities have a tendency to relax into universalism when not constantly attacked and forced to harden.”

    Animals have had no serious ability to threaten humans in combat since humans learned to use fire, sharp weapons and traps. If you were correct, humanism would not exist.

    Among humans, was the Inca Empire constantly attacking Spain?

    “Currently at least in America there is a war against the “white man” in almost if not all universities and in the general culture, which is violence.”

    Long overdue retaliatory violence against the initiated violence of “white” identity for the last 500 YEARS or more.

    “If those who follow Islam are going to be unconstructive crybabies instead of nation and community builders, they do not deserve to be defended.”

    “Crybaby” is a description of Original Nobility, and therefore nothing negative in our eyes. With that aside, I consider Muslims worthy of defence for their anti-Zionist attitudes alone, which considerably exceeds that of any other major religious community today.

    This just in:

    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Spains-Valencia-region-adopts-official-BDS-policy-477710

    “there were severe shortages in homeless shelters when the refugees started pouring in because people gave their support to them instead of to the homeless”

    If these German homeless were so desperate, they would be trying to find shelter in other countries. That they are not, while the refugees are, should have been your clue as to who faces worse conditions.

    “the body works best when the monarch is not trying to interfere too much”

    ALLOWING (refugees to enter) is non-interference, BY DEFINITION.

    “Everybody has a right to be wrong and a right to learn.”

    Nobody has a “right” to anything. Everybody has a duty not to victimize others. Learning is no justification for victimizing others. Refer to my earlier comment about experimentation on animals.

    “the hobbits shall live”

    This is a Hobbit:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/support-cedric-herrou/

    “My basic qualms with this ideology”

    I was never trying to recruit you. On the other hand, all lurkers who have followed this discussion and shaken their heads at Satya’s inferiority – especially those sickened by his claim to being a Buddhist – are welcome to send in a contact form if you wish to volunteer for activism:

    http://aryanism.net/about/contact/

  7. Confused99 says:

    @AS

    How do you know which is the true or false Satya????¿???!!

  8. Hypnotix says:

    @Confused99

    Did you notice that you send an email address along with your alias when you post?

  9. Satya says:

    @AS

    A ring ding ding ding d-ding baa aramba baa baa barooumba

    Wh-Wha-Whats going on-on

    Ding ding

    Lets do the crazy froogg

    Ding ding

    A Brem Brem

    A ring ding ding ding ding
    A Ring Ding Ding Dingdemgdemg
    A ring ding ding ding ding
    Ring ding
    Baa-Baa

    Ring ding ding ding ding
    A Ring Ding Ding Dingdemgdemg
    A ring ding ding ding ding
    a Bram ba am baba weeeeeee

    BREAK DOWN!

    Ding ding

    Br-Br-Break It

    dum dum dumda dum dum dum dum dumda dum dum dum dum dum dumda dum dum

    Brem daem

    dum dum dumda dum dum dum dum dumda dum dum dum dum dum dumda dum dum

    weeeeeeee

    A ram da am da am da am da weeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Wh-Whats Going On?

    ding ding

    Bem De Dem

    ding ding

    da da

    A ring ding ding ding ding
    A Ring Ding Ding Dingdemgdemg
    A ring ding ding ding ding
    Ring ding
    Baa-Baa

    Ring ding ding ding ding
    A Ring Ding Ding Dingdemgdemg
    A ring ding ding ding ding
    a Bram ba am baba..

    ding ding

    Br-Br-Break It

    dum dum dumda dum dum dum dum dumda dum dum dum dum dum dumda dum dum

    Brem daem

    dum dum dumda dum dum dum dum dumda dum dum dum dum dum dumda dum dum

    ding ding

    Bem De Dem!

  10. handschar says:

    What a strange person.

  11. Satya says:

    @AS

    I keep coming and you keep retaliating, baby boy. Can’t resist it, can you?

    @ Hypnotix
    5: “There is evidence of an advertising campaign in the background as a startling amount of people ask for a house and car and free money when coming in as if someone had promised them that.”
    There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with anyone asking for such things, since nowhere is violence involved. Reactions such as yours, however – being appaled at any refugee having the gall to ask for [whatever] – are wrong, since they’re based on assumption of guilt, rather than assumption of innocence. You assume from the outset that no refugee deserves being given [whatever], or that all refugees would misuse [whatever] if given it freely, or that they would be “ungrateful”, et cetera.

    You are not reading the comment properly. Evidence of an advertising campaign indicates that someone is luring migrants to Germany on false promises. That qualifies as violating their consent. There are already cases of retaliation against state or private property and civilians on the basis of that disappointment.

    @AS
    “Currently at least in America there is a war against the “white man” in almost if not all universities and in the general culture, which is violence.”
    Long overdue retaliatory violence against the initiated violence of “white” identity for the last 500 YEARS or more.

    If that applies than anything then Islamophobia is long overdue violence against the initiated violence of “Muslim” identity against the colonized “infidel” of the last 1200 years or so. That is a tribal argument and inherently collectivizing.

    “Again you immediately fail to see them as individuals by generalizing them as “the people”. SOME indivudals come in as individuals. OTHER individuals come in as tribes. Your duty is to tell them apart, not to ignore the difference.”

    And how exactly do you tell them apart and by what criteria?

    “Also tribal identities have a tendency to relax into universalism when not constantly attacked and forced to harden.”
    Animals have had no serious ability to threaten humans in combat since humans learned to use fire, sharp weapons and traps. If you were correct, humanism would not exist.

    Humans can eat animals. If you have a look at nature every creature can and will do what it needs to do to stop being hungry. Humans are no different. The only difference is that humans can and will do things outside the bounds of the organic principle which is necessity and right measure. So they continue to feed of animals when there are sufficient plants to sustain them out of habit and taste.

    “There is a point when “They take our livelihood” becomes a thing.”
    Please study elementary economics FFS.

    Please study elementary history FFS.

    “All there needs to be is a principle: nobody gets anything from the state unearned by labour. Everything else will fall into place by itself.”

    I agree with this principle.

    “If high quality demographic maintenance is a value, then restrictions on immigration are “strategic fluidity””
    You don’t even understand the term.

    It means breaking your own rules when it serves a higher purpose.
    Otherwhise known as pragmatism.

    “I recall that you like how apartment blocks work in Switzerland, where people must obtain consent from existing residents before moving in. In these apartments, must people also obtain consent before reproducing (which also adds new residents to the apartment block)? And if not, why the double-standard?”

    Darrrling. Turn that around. Someone who wants to control who is allowed to give birth is in no position to lecture anyone on immigration policy.

    “Rigidity on open borders will leave people no choice then to exercise their right to vote for the right wing that is already propped up to be Zionist.”
    Which was the Zionist plan all along, as we have been warning year after year. The way to defeat it is so simple: a sincere change of heart towards solidarity with refugees! Just this one move, if performed, would leave the Zionist agenda totally off balance and place us in position to finish it off. This is what miracles are made of.

    Unconditional solidarity to one group of individuals over another group of individuals for no other reason than that they are part of that group is tribalism, Boromir. It is so golden, is it not, that stuff that miracles are made out of?

    How about unconditional support to truth, whatever it may be. Truth unifies. Always. Truth IS unity. And no I am not trying to recruit you.

    Bonus video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl_qy_hH_vY

    Look I am still here. You call me names and feel superior and yet I am still here. Why? Because I am committed to Truth, not to ideology, not to ego, not even to nobility. From your every retaliation I learn and I am a slave to no one. Your sickening is my quickening. And if it was not laughable, it was not the Tao.

  12. Hypnotix says:

    @Satya
    “Evidence of an advertising campaign indicates that someone is luring migrants to Germany on false promises. That qualifies as violating their consent. There are already cases of retaliation against state or private property and civilians on the basis of that disappointment.”
    Then those people need to be dealt with. That victims are “retaliating” against the state, private property and civilians isn’t true retaliation (and thus isn’t justified) unless it’s specifically against those who did this.

    “If that [attacks on "whites" being justified by 500 years of colonialism] applies than anything then Islamophobia is long overdue violence against the initiated violence of “Muslim” identity against the colonized “infidel” of the last 1200 years or so. That is a tribal argument and inherently collectivizing.”

    No, it’s neither a tribal argument, nor does what you say apply to Muslim imperialism, since theirs was integrationist, not segregationist. Did the Muslims offer everyone the oppurtunity to become citizens and equals (by accepting Islam)? And did the “white” colonizers offer anything resembling that to those they colonized? This is why retaliation against the former isn’t justified, while it is against the latter. Except that, like I said, I don’t really think holding descendents of criminals guilty by default is justified (and thus that violence against them on the basis of what their ancestors did is justified as retaliatory), but still.

    ” ‘ ‘There is a point where ‘They take our livelihood’ becomes a thing’
    Please study elementary economics FFS’
    Please study elementary history FFS.”

    To see how incompetent states fail at elementary economics?

    “I agree with this principle [of no-one receiving anything unearned by labor].”
    Then why don’t you agree with its logical application to everyone (immigrant and native alike)? What’s your problem with immigrants being treated as fairly as everyone else?

    ” ‘I recall that you like how apartment blocks work in Switzerland, where people must obtain consent from existing residents before moving in. In these apartments, must people also obtain consent before reproducing (which also adds new residents to the apartment block)? And if not, why the double-standard?’

    Darrrling. Turn that around. Someone who wants to control who is allowed to give birth is in no position to lecture anyone on immigration policy.”

    Given that the idea of controlling birth is to remove tribalists from humanity, I’d say that pretty much goes hand-in-hand with our immigration policy. Again, both immigrants and natives are to be subjected to the same criteria for control over reproduction; nowhere is this unfair to anyone. It is unfair to exclude an entire group of people from society just because of the acts of some members of that group.

    “Unconditional solidarity to one group of individuals over another group of individuals for no other reason than that they are part of that group is tribalism.”
    So is any form of unconditional prejudice to one group of individuals for no other reason that they are part of that group (such as your call for banning Muslims/immigrants because they’re Muslims/immigrants). Tu quoque.

    Besides, we aren’t arguing for making every immigrant a “king” in the nation, superior to everyone else, just because he’s an immigrant. We’re arguing for having no prejudice at all – neither negative, nor positive – towards immigrants, and thus for treating them fairly, ie. treating them just like everyone else, ie. treating them as individuals. Which is what you seem to oppose, thereby revealing your own tribalism.

    “Look I am still here. You call me names and feel superior and yet I am still here. Why? Because I am committed to Truth, not to ideology, not to ego, not even to nobility.
    Except that you are commited to your ego. Why else would you feel the need to point out your own “superiority”, “objectivity” and “humility”?

    “From your every retaliation I learn and I am a slave to no one.”
    You seem quite obviously to be a slave to your own ego, since you can’t control your compulsion to reply here, despite your (How many were they now? I lost count.) claims that “This is my last reply!1!!”.

  13. Satya says:

    “No, it’s neither a tribal argument, nor does what you say apply to Muslim imperialism, since theirs was integrationist, not segregationist. Did the Muslims offer everyone the oppurtunity to become citizens and equals (by accepting Islam)? And did the “white” colonizers offer anything resembling that to those they colonized? This is why retaliation against the former isn’t justified, while it is against the latter. Except that, like I said, I don’t really think holding descendents of criminals guilty by default is justified (and thus that violence against them on the basis of what their ancestors did is justified as retaliatory), but still.”

    Paying a tax until you submit to an ideology is not integration but violence. The Jizya had to be payed only by non-Muslims thereby making them into tolerated subjects and not citizens.

    Also Mohammed personally allowed rape as a form of taking booty. He even allowed the rape of captured married women and explicitly said that that was excluded from adultery. The right hand could possess people, which is slavery. Slavery was also wildly practiced in the Islamic world and only even dismantled upon Western pressure. Not exactly the pinnacle of fairness and nobility.

    A compulsion to convert to any ideology is blasphemy and a crime against God you will bitterly pay for. Any conversion under duress is compulsion and taxation is a form of duress, so is rape, kidnapping or the threat of execution. This is indefensible. Also it is no different than Leninism or Maoism or any other form of totalitarianism. All of these ideologues were sure they had it down and that the use of violence was justified.

  14. Hypnotix says:

    “Paying a tax until you submit to an ideology is not integration but violence. The Jizya had to be payed only by non-Muslims thereby making them into tolerated subjects and not citizens.”

    The fact is, anyone could, if he wanted to, become a citizen, or leave altogether. Unlike how Britain treated their colonized peoples, whereby none of them could become citizens, no matter how much they wanted to.

    “[What happened under the banner of Islam was] Not exactly the pinnacle of fairness and nobility.”

    We don’t argue that everything in Islam is noble (nor do we argue this for any currently existing religion – all of them except Judaism have both Aryan and non-Aryan aspects). We do argue that, since there are both noble and ignoble aspects to follow in Islam (and in Christianity, and in many others), it is wrong to smear each and every Muslim as ignoble, as you seem to want desperately to do for some reason.

    “A compulsion to convert to any ideology is blasphemy and a crime against God you will bitterly pay for.”

    I really don’t care much for what you think God believes, nor for what “crimes” against God you think I commit. But even if I was to “suffer eternally” for fighting oppression, that wouldn’t change my mind in the slightest.

    Besides, we’re not trying to “compel” anyone to believe in Aryanism (as that’s violence, among other reasons). On the contrary, we want only those who do so sincerely, and of their own will.

    “Also it is no different than Leninism or Maoism or any other form of totalitarianism.”

    I’ll keep that in mind.

    “All of these ideologues were sure they had it down and that the use of violence was justified.”

    So is democracy (unless you don’t count violence against the minority as violence). The thing is, none of these ideologies were explicitly created with the intention of ending violence (unlike National Socialism), neither are any of them noble in character. You really can’t make the parallels you want here.

  15. Satya says:

    “We do argue that, since there are both noble and ignoble aspects to follow in Islam (and in Christianity, and in many others), it is wrong to smear each and every Muslim as ignoble, as you seem to want desperately to do for some reason.”

    I plain don’t argue that. The Western media does. I am not the Western media and neither am I a Zionist. I am asking myself why you are trying to smear each and every unlimited open border sceptic as ignoble.

  16. Hypnotix says:

    “I am asking myself why you are trying to smear each and every unlimited open border sceptic as ignoble.”

    Because, given that people don’t choose where they are born, stopping them from relocating to the nation they do wish to be and contribute to is unfair. If, upon their arrival, it becomes evident that they do not, in fact, desire to contribute positively, they should be thrown out as the saboteurs they apparently are. But declaring them as such from the outset and not giving each individual the chance to prove himself is – you guessed it – tribal.

  17. Atmajyoti says:

    @Satya:

    For someone who speaks so highly of God, “do unto others as you would want done unto you.”, seems to be completely missing from any of your calculations, feelings, or remarks. Interesting, to say the least.

    For the life of me I could never understand how someone who claims to have found God could be as petty as you?

    I would have to agree with Hypnotix, you clearly are ego driven, and nothing more…

  18. AS says:

    @Satya

    “If that applies than anything then Islamophobia is long overdue violence against the initiated violence of “Muslim” identity against the colonized “infidel” of the last 1200 years or so.

    The Islamic ideal is that all non-Muslims one day be integrated as Muslims. Is the “white” ideal that all “non-whites” one day be integrated as “whites”?

    The “infidel” is the one choosing not to be Muslim, whereas the “non-white” is not allowed to choose to be “white” even if he wants to. Therefore Muslim is not an identity, whereas “white” is.

    “And how exactly do you tell them apart and by what criteria?”

    See above.

    “The Jizya had to be payed only by non-Muslims thereby making them into tolerated subjects and not citizens.”

    But anyone can choose to be a Muslim, and thus a citizen! That’s the point!

    Besides, non-Muslims cannot serve in the military, yet receive the protection of the same military, therefore being required to pay for this protection is perfectly fair, in fact if they did not pay the jizya they would be getting something unearned.

    “Also Mohammed personally allowed rape as a form of taking booty. He even allowed the rape of captured married women and explicitly said that that was excluded from adultery. The right hand could possess people, which is slavery.”

    No Muslim can rape or enslave another Muslim and anyone can choose to be a Muslim. Those who choose not to be a Muslim are thus by definition consenting to the alternative treatment. This is no different than if I get a speeding ticket for speeding: the choice was mine whether or not to speed; would the traffic cop take me seriously if I told him that he is ticketing me against my will as a form of scoring brownie points for his own career?

    Compare this to Western-style slavery. Could a colonial-era “black” American/Carribean/etc. simply say “I am white!” before witnesses and make it instantly illegal thereafter for any other “white” person to enslave him or treat him as anything less than a full citizen? (More likely he would be lynched for having the temerity to claim to be “white”.)

    “A compulsion to convert to any ideology is blasphemy and a crime against God you will bitterly pay for. Any conversion under duress is compulsion and taxation is a form of duress, so is rape, kidnapping or the threat of execution. This is indefensible.”

    Try telling this to a traffic cop: “A compulsion to convert to the Ideology of Non-Speeding is blasphemy and and a crime against God you will bitterly pay for. Any conversion under duress is compulsion and ticketing is a form of duress, so is clamping, towing or the threat of revoking my driver’s license. This is indefensible.” Remember to record a video and post it on YouTube for us to see the traffic cop’s response. And don’t forget to say something vague about Taoism afterwards to hide your humiliation.

    “totalitarianism”

    No, two Muslims can disagree about what being a Muslim should involve, and debate it, so it is not totalitarianism. Similarly, two non-speeders can disagree about what the speed limit should be, and debate it. We just didn’t want prospective debaters speeding while driving to the debate!

    “Humans can eat animals.”

    Thank you for admitting that you were wrong last time about tribalism relaxing into universalism.

    “It means breaking your own rules when it serves a higher purpose.”

    There was never a rule that the Ring-bearer could not bear the Ring, you moron.

    “Someone who wants to control who is allowed to give birth is in no position to lecture anyone on immigration policy.”

    Giving birth is placing children into imprisonment. Prohibiting migration is even more restrictively imprisoning them within the vicinity of their birth. I could not oppose one without opposing the other.

    “Unconditional solidarity to one group of individuals over another group of individuals for no other reason than that they are part of that group is tribalism”

    But anyone could become a refugee! Moreover, I am asking for solidarity WITH refugees FROM non-refugees, so I exclude no one.

    “How about unconditional support to truth”
    “I am committed to Truth”

    Says the guy who doesn’t even bother to SPEAK TRUTH, as he keeps saying he will leave and then keeps coming back.

    @Hypnotix

    “(How many were they now? I lost count.) claims that “This is my last reply!1!!”.”

    This is Satya’s long-lost twin:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2amEsayvKU

    “all of them except Judaism”

    As well as Gentile tribal religions, such as Creativity (as Matt and Moon Man were talking about above), and of course Confucianism.

  19. Satya says:

    @AS

    “The “infidel” is the one choosing not to be Muslim, whereas the “non-white” is not allowed to choose to be “white” even if he wants to. Therefore Muslim is not an identity, whereas “white” is.”

    Muslim IS as much an identity as is white or better as is Communist. It is an ideological identity not a biological identity. But given that it is more than very narrowly confined principles that you can agree on from a point of rationality, it has a Gestalt and structure and that makes it an identity and not a principle. Despite try telling that to a Yezidi refugee (ever talked to one?). He will tell you a different story. Or a Pakistani child bride (ever talked to one?). Even if you hold that “Muslim” is not an identity on the paper, in reality it is and thoroughly tribal in that it strives to exclude competitors and has done so in the past on more than one occasion in the most brutal manner. The Sikh come to mind.

    That does not mean that there have not been noble Muslims. Yet to claim an ideology cannot become a tribal identity is not backed up by reality. The Jews are the first and prime example. Anyone can convert to that.

    Also if Islam allows for rape of non-Muslims and no rape for Muslims and you are OK with that, than so much for your claim of empathy. This is indefensible and Talmudic. It makes non-Jews sex-goys to Muslims.

  20. Satya says:

    “No Muslim can rape or enslave another Muslim and anyone can choose to be a Muslim. Those who choose not to be a Muslim are thus by definition consenting to the alternative treatment.”

    That you even BEGIN to defend that. No one consents to being raped or enslaved, you moron!

  21. Satya says:

    Thank you for finally unmasking yourself. My point all along.

  22. Satya says:

    See I just mixed up non-Jews and non-Muslims.

  23. Satya says:

    Dear Atmayoti, I do not claim to have found God, I am a seeker as is anybody who is honest. What is and was driving me here was an instinct, a feeling that something is right and wrong with this ideology at the same time and I wanted to tell the one from the other. I understand how that seems petty. I think I would see it the same way, if I were you. To be honest I am bit wary of the mind games played all over the general culture. For all I know this is just another abuse of idealism, another intelligence mind game.

  24. Satya says:

    Miecz. For all we know the refugee crisis is a Trojan Horse for something else. And no I am not afraid of Muslim terrorism. I am concerned about Totalitarianism.

  25. Satya says:

    And the Zionists are not the only ones capable of conceiving illusive ideas and utopian worlds – or disinform for that matter.

  26. Satya says:

    “As well as Gentile tribal religions, such as Creativity (as Matt and Moon Man were talking about above), and of course Confucianism.”

    OK. That is another one. So you want to dictate to people how they play, forbidden people from being pagan. Can I ask what is the penalty in your state for being a pagan?

  27. Hypnotix says:

    @Satya
    “Thank you for finally unmasking yourself. My point all along.”

    That we’re tribalists for refusing to act tribal and close down borders? Sure thing, pal.

    “Despite try telling that to a Yezidi refugee (ever talked to one?). He will tell you a different story. Or a Pakistani child bride (ever talked to one?).”

    You want me to judge all Mulsims based on a conversation with a couple of them? Shit logic much.

    “The Sikh come to mind [as an example that Muslims are tribal].”

    You mean these Sikh?

    “Yet to claim an ideology cannot become a tribal identity is not backed up by reality. The Jews are the first and prime example. Anyone can convert to that. “

    Of course any religion can become tribal. Does that mean it is inherently tribal like Judaism is? And, if not, how do you justify disallowing each and every person professing that (non-inherently-tribal) religion from crossing the border on the grounds that he’s a tribalist?

    “I do not claim to have found God, I am a seeker as is anybody who is honest.”

    The fact that you were screaming “You’ll burn in hell for this!!11!!!” just a couple of posts back makes it hard for me to take you seriously.

    “For all we know the refugee crisis is a Trojan Horse for something else.”

    For all we know, we live inside a toaster. The fact is, we don’t know, and even if we “did”, that wouldn’t justify acting tribal.

    “I am concerned about Totalitarianism.”

    You think democracy is the way to go, then? What exactly “concerns” you about it?

    “And the Zionists are not the only ones capable of conceiving illusive ideas and utopian worlds”

    They’re not the only tribalists either. Which is why we’re not opposing Zionism “because why not”, but because of its underlying attitudes, which we oppose no matter where we encounter them. Such as, for example, in you.

  28. Hypnotix says:

    @Satya

    “‘As well as Gentile tribal religions, such as Creativity (as Matt and Moon Man were talking about above), and of course Confucianism.’

    OK. That is another one. So you want to dictate to people how they play, forbidden people from being pagan. Can I ask what is the penalty in your state for being a pagan?”

    You misunderstand. Our quarrel is with tribalism, and hence with tribal religions, not with paganism in itself. Hence, we forbid tribal religions, the penalty for which is expulsion/revoking of citizenship/quarantine.

  29. Satya says:

    “Despite try telling that to a Yezidi refugee (ever talked to one?). He will tell you a different story. Or a Pakistani child bride (ever talked to one?).”
    You want me to judge all Mulsims based on a conversation with a couple of them? Shit logic much.

    No. This is not the point. I AM NOT GENERALIZING ON MUSLIMS. Never have and never will. Again, there is no justification for what the Angloamerican Empire is doing to the Muslim world. I do not support nor condone it, nor do I mind Muslim citizens or for that matter helping refugees.

    The point is: the fact that you say the identity you propose is ideological does not mean it is less tribal or that tribalism is excluded by that mere assertion alone. Communists are kind of a tribe hostile to other tribes. So how do you really tell the difference?

    Well, through convincing by example. By promotion of certain principles. Through beginning with yourself first.

    “The Sikh come to mind [as an example that Muslims are tribal].”

    What? No! You constantly misunderstand! Just read about the cruel persecution of the Sikh through the Persian Muslim ruler Augranzeb. The Sikh were basically forced to go from Sufi and Shanti to military order in order to defend themselves against quasi Taliban Muslim hostility. Yet done especially in the name of Islam. Whether you like it or not.

    Similar things happened in the name of Catholicism which I am not defending either. Or Communism or Maoism. I don’t care what your justification for forced conversion is, it is WRONG. Religion must be offered and lived through example and not enforced under duress or through coercion. – The fact that this is even attempted is even evidence of Atheism. You do not really believe in God, you believe you have to MAKE things happen, rather than let things happen by opening an invitation. It displays a lack of faith, really. Also you seem to be more about unifying leadership than about God anyway.

    “Of course any religion can become tribal. Does that mean it is inherently tribal like Judaism is? And, if not, how do you justify disallowing each and every person professing that (non-inherently-tribal) religion from crossing the border on the grounds that he’s a tribalist?”

    If any woman is instantly declared rapeable the moment some Arab man says so if she does not profess believe in him as prophet, I am not impressed by his nobility. Rape is the ultimate tribal behavior. Next to slavery. And no: it is not OK when the British do it either and marginally better in that you could upgrade to Ingroup f.e. by lying or pretending, which is what Jews did in Europe.

  30. Satya says:

    “For all we know the refugee crisis is a Trojan Horse for something else.”
    For all we know, we live inside a toaster. The fact is, we don’t know, and even if we “did”, that wouldn’t justify acting tribal.

    That goes both ways.

  31. Satya says:

    Because of things like this thorough criticism of Islam when coming to Europe is legitimate and necessary in order to chip away its tribal aspects and keep the good. If Muslims would like to live in an uncontested space, they are welcome to leave.

  32. Satya says:

    The British will get their fair share as well and the sum total is fairness.

  33. Hypnotix says:

    “I don’t care what your justification for forced conversion is, it is WRONG.”

    We’re not trying to “convert” anyone. People either share our values, or they do not – forcing them to act like they do is insincere and pointless. Why do you think we want this?

    “If any woman is instantly declared rapeable the moment some Arab man says so if she does not profess believe in him as prophet, I am not impressed by his nobility.”

    You keep pointing out the ignoble elements in Islam – which undoubtedly do exist, as they do in every religion – and you keep ignoring its noble aspects. To what end? If you don’t want to generalize and act against Muslims, why the compulsion to criticize Islam?

  34. Hypnotix says:

    @Satya

    “That goes both ways.”

    You still think we’re tribalists for opposing tribalism?

    “Because of things like this thorough criticism of Islam when coming to Europe is legitimate and necessary in order to chip away its tribal aspects and keep the good.”

    Is that what this is about? Dude, we know Islam has bad elements as well as good. We know that they, as well as the people who practive and support them, aren’t noble and should be treated accordingly. And we’ve told you this multiple times. So what’s all the fuss about?

    “The British will get their fair share as well and the sum total is fairness.”

    You seem incredibly certain of this, yet how exactly do you propose it to be done?

  35. Satya says:

    “If you don’t want to generalize and act against Muslims, why the compulsion to criticize Islam?”

    I want a line drawn in the sand. It is that simple. There must be absolute clarity as to how we are going to live together in the future and what constitutes offense. Behind this conflict is a larger conflict of ideas: the idea of the open mental space vs. the idea of submission in all its forms, not just Islam. I want open space above my head and some boundaries respected.

  36. Satya says:

    “The British will get their fair share as well and the sum total is fairness.”
    You seem incredibly certain of this, yet how exactly do you propose it to be done?

    Truth telling.

  37. Hypnotix says:

    @Satya

    “There must be absolute clarity as to how we are going to live together in the future and what constitutes offense.”

    We’ve done that, and it’s as clear and simple as it gets.

    “Behind this conflict is a larger conflict of ideas: the idea of the open mental space vs. the idea of submission in all its forms, not just Islam. I want open space above my head and some boundaries respected.”

    I’d appreacitate it if you’d elaborate on that. If you mean you want people to be able to do whatever they want as long as it is not initiatory violence, why are you arguing with us?

    “Truth telling.”

    We’ve been doing that about Israel for years. And yet, Israel’s still on the map. Go figure.

  38. U. A. says:

    Hello all. Thank you so much for your generosity in making such wonderful PDFs available for download. Since sending in a contact form a few months ago much has happened & after subsequently allowing myself to become depressed & cynical then struggling through – I present myself to you once again. I leave this message here as your blog comments sections have been invaluable.

  39. Satya says:

    “There must be absolute clarity as to how we are going to live together in the future and what constitutes offense.”
    We’ve done that, and it’s as clear and simple as it gets.

    Not sure about that. You are too Luciferian and miss the Christ aspect of things. That is why you want to control who is even born, which is a tough cookie and feels wrong intuitively and like another human transgression on life. Being sensible about immigration seems a bit kinder to me than sterilizing people for the moment. One or the other you have to do though. That is also for sure or you just collapse into chaos. Other than I see a lot of good practical ideas that can be adapted. I personally also wish to make no windows into people’s souls. There is something that moves in mysterious ways.

    “Behind this conflict is a larger conflict of ideas: the idea of the open mental space vs. the idea of submission in all its forms, not just Islam. I want open space above my head and some boundaries respected.”
    I’d appreacitate it if you’d elaborate on that. If you mean you want people to be able to do whatever they want as long as it is not initiatory violence, why are you arguing with us?

    Difficult to describe. One is unity through a shared morality and one is unity through a shared ideology. That sort of difference. It seems to me that the elites are in the process of making another collective mind game to bind the mind at the feet of the state.

    “Truth telling.”
    We’ve been doing that about Israel for years. And yet, Israel’s still on the map. Go figure.

    Israel embodies something that is still needed in the larger story othewhise it would not exist. This entire ideology completely looks at and therefore loves and is bound to Zion. Your mind belongs to Zion. Your every thought and action. That is the tragedy of the rebel and also the logic. You derive all your clarity and sharpness from negation. But for that to happen something needs to be there to negate.

  40. Hypnotix says:

    @Satya

    “That is why you want to control who is even born, which is a tough cookie and feels wrong intuitively and like another human transgression on life.”

    From a logical standpoint, each and every creature brought into this world is one more creature that must be subject to the suffering within it, and against its own will, at that. Is the most ethical thing to do, therefore, not to ensure that the endless cycle of life and death that perpetuates suffering is halted, once and for all?

    Why it feels wrong intuitively could be explained with the survival instinct kicking in. Or with Yahweh trying to influence people away from fighting the cycle. At present, however unfortunate it may seem, putting an end to the cycle is the only thing that will guarantee putting an end to violence itself.

    “Being sensible about immigration seems a bit kinder to me than sterilizing people for the moment.”

    Define sensible.

    “I personally also wish to make no windows into people’s souls. There is something that moves in mysterious ways.”

    What do you mean?

    “One is unity through a shared morality and one is unity through a shared ideology.”

    I’d say Unity through Nobility qualifies as the former. Though I wouldn’t necessarily say that the opposing side is united in an ideology, as tribes practice pseudo-ideologies, not genuine ones. Unity through tribalism, perhaps, but not through ideology.

    “Israel embodies something that is still needed in the larger story othewhise it would not exist.”

    Practically speaking, Israel exists because people let it exist. Besides, even if it did exist because it still has a role to play, who’s to say that role isn’t to die at our feet? We can’t know for sure either way, but even if we did, we still have a moral obligation to oppose it, and nothing can sway us from our determination to do so.

    “This entire ideology completely looks at and therefore loves and is bound to Zion.”

    This is, in fact, not the case. We view Zion solely as the broken doorknob preventing us from opening the door to the solutions of many other problems, nothing more. Were Aryanism’s sole purpose to destroy Zion, what you say would be true. However, it is not.

    “You derive all your clarity and sharpness from negation. But for that to happen something needs to be there to negate.”

    Indeed, once there is no more violence in the world for us to oppose, there would be nothing left for us here, allowing us to finally transcend this existence and free ourselves from it. But until then, we press on.

  41. Satya says:

    @Hypnotix

    To deny the existence of God is to deny everything that God has created, and then to go against everything he has established and systematized.

    Adolph Hitler burns in hell

  42. Hypnotix says:

    @Satya

    If you believe that God himself is, in fact, the one who created everything, I’d ask you to give me one good reason why you think God inherently deserves love and respect for creating a world that sucks as much as this one does, then turning a blind eye to the suffering of the creatures he himself imprisoned here.

    Even if Hitler was “burning in hell”, he’d still be a person orders of magnitude more heroic and admirable than you will ever be.

  43. Hypnotix says:

    @U.A.

    Glad to hear it :)

  44. Tony Stanford says:

    Wayne Dodson sent me here. I believe he’s involved in some kind of project with whoever runs the site. Anyway, he encouraged me to check out the blog too. This is interesting stuff, guys. I’m having a tough time wrapping my mind around some of the subjects here, but I’ll keep investigating. I’ve worked with Wayne and his advice is generally sound. I trust him when he says that you all are honorably minded and serious about activism. Lately I’ve become more political than ever before. With Trump in office, those of us who oppose the far right here in America will have to band together. Reading through the comments on this blog post, I saw there has been lots of discussion about immigration. So if I understand correctly, you guys are for closed borders, but also want to be able to take in refugees and new immigrants? Interesting if accurate. Usually one sees closed borders and refugee/immigrant intake set in opposition to each other. A deliberate trick? Also, I saw someone ask earlier, how would you tell the difference between the good intentioned and bad intentioned refugees? Would you just let them all in at first and then throw out any who misbehave? Lots of people argue that the state has a duty to protect it’s current citizens from bad intentioned refugees by not letting in any refugees at all. What do you guys say to this? How do you do the right thing for both natives and newcomers – how do you protect current citizens and help refugees at the same time? (Especially if statistics are right about refugee populations committing more crimes.) For the record, I support allowing immigration and helping refugees. I just sometimes don’t know how to respond convincingly to arguments for the other side – since I do also agree that the state has a duty to protect existing citizens.

  45. Tony Stanford says:

    Also, I can’t believe an earlier commenter compared refugees with prison populations full of psychopaths, murderers, and rapists, and also compared them to “rural” “undesirables” in India. Wow. ?!!!!?!

  46. Satya says:

    @Hypnotix

    “Being sensible about immigration seems a bit kinder to me than sterilizing people for the moment.”

    Define sensible.

    The state serves 3 major purposes:
    1 Providing a means for economic self-organization STRUCTURE
    2 Allowing the pursuit of Truth FREEDOM
    3 Providing help for the poor and penalty for the criminal JUSTICE

    Now given history it is clear as day that the more homogenous a state is, the better. So this is an end in and of itself: the people have to fit with one another and with the state that they inhabit. Given that I would stress recall immigration from emigrated Germans and immigration from Europeans. That does not mean deporting immigrants who are there or needing any extreme sense of purity but being clear about this. To my knowledge all multiethnic empires in history have failed miserably and collapsed into chaos. You cannot standardize the human mind is what I glean from that – not even on a microlevel.

    That is why I favor revamping the model of the German Empire but go with Stein instead of Hardenberg: No parlamentary democracy, but constitutional monarchy with an immaculate, clear and fair constitution, subsidiary communes, free democratic municipalities and a German Order of knights as the guardians of justice distributed all throughout the country that report to the king and preside over common law courts. Also I would want to see a RPUs established: regional provision units in 4 quadrants of the German Empire if need be in collaboration with the neighboring state. An RPU is a farmers association that allow for the distribution of agricultural products to the region without the need of private enterprise. It would help the health of the people as this is strictly macrobiotic. Additional food can be provided through trade. Surplus can be allocated to allow farmers to transition parts of their plots to permaculture. The RPU if well rounded and tested would also be the main gift of Germany to Africa. (Former German foreign minister has already been asked by one of the former colonies if it was possible to become a German protectorate again. If invited, we can move in but the people will have to govern their own state eventually. That should be the principle of all help and intervention, not hegemony. Asylum programs should focus primarily on deploying agents of constructive solutions into the dysfunctional countries of origin so they become livable.)

    As for sensible immigration policy:
    1 Fostering and maintaining harmony (heritage based immigration)
    2 Inviting applicants into a well organized job market (merit based immigration)
    3 Asylum and protection (need based immigration)
    4 Removing all unnatural incentives like walk in welfare.
    5 Establishing a very clear image of what Germany is and why you come to it.

    The purpose of Germany is to be a model state and to pump out good governance into the world. “Am Deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen.” The German model has always been pragmatic mixing of organisational forms and not dogmatic uniformity. Most of the worlds problems are due to a lack of good governance and good governance is predicated upon clear purpose and integrity NOT ideologies like Capitalism.

  47. Satya says:

    I see the greatest problem on earth is currently helplessness. I would love Germany to be exemplary in all fields from good governance to peaceful conflict resolution and sensible economics as a sort of national Seva to the Earth and to humanity with the ultimate goal that the people can govern themselves without much interference.

  48. Satya says:

    The other Satya was that impostor again.

  49. Satya says:

    Neither Britain, nor Rome nor America, nor Islam is the model of the future, but simple principles of good governance without the formation of empires folkish or otherwhise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>