Islam Delendam Esse

The estimable Laura Wood, an orthospherean shield mate of long standing in the culture wars, and an old friend, responded to my recent post on The New Castellation of the Eurosphere (which adduced the recent proliferation of bollards as its material) with an intelligent and forceful critique of my attribution of that castellation and all its dire cultural sequelae to the threat of Muslim terrorism. This post is a response to her comments.

I thank Laura for her excellent pushback. It gives me an opportunity to expand upon a couple of points that are implicit in the original post, and prompts me to a deeper contemplation of some others I had not considered. It forces me to learn. I’ll take her points in their order of appearance.

Could you explain how this reign of Muslim barbarity in America might come about, given that Muslims comprise one percent of the American population, have a low birthrate here and risk their home countries being bombed to smithereens when they are accused of terrorism?

Muslim fertility in the Eurosphere is high, compared with European fertility. No matter how few Muslims there are in a given country, so long as they are breeding at a higher rate than the natives, and not dying at a commensurately higher rate, they will eventually replace the natives. That’s just math.

I doubt however that the Muslims will ever reign in America, and perhaps not even in Europe. In the recent European experience, Muslims don’t seem to tweak social systems too much – laws, customs, institutions, and so forth – until they get to be somewhere between 5% and 15% of the population, as has happened already in France, Britain, Germany and Sweden. Then, they begin demanding special concessions to their way of life – special Sharia courts, ID cards for women that depict them in full burqa (that, i.e., don’t identify them), legalization of polygamy, and so forth. That upends native legal systems, and must if it continues end by exterminating them. Such changes can nevertheless transpire without violence, and proceed in an orderly fashion, so that they don’t seem to upset the apple cart too objectionably (this, in exactly the way that gay “marriage” seems unobjectionable to the majority of Westerners – a merely legal, formal change, no big deal).

But other things that also happen with substantial penetration of European countries by Muslims – such as gang rape – then also begin to blossom noticeably. And these are the changes that are likely to foment a Reaction.

It is the Muslim culture of rape, and of the mistreatment of women generally, that will at last I believe incite the Europeans on all continents – which is to say, European men – to eject their Muslim subpopulations. This ejection need not – indeed, probably will not – involve any action on the part of the governing authorities. I expect it will begin when vigilantes begin killing Muslim men who are involved in rape of European women. I doubt it will take very many such events to flip the perennially delicate and fickle morale of Muslim men, to discourage them and engender their terror, and so to prompt their hasty voluntary departure from dar al harb.

There may however also be a revolution in the attitude toward Muslims on the part of the governing authorities, of policy, and of law, engendered by a more basic and urgent revolution in the attitude of the European public. The pendulum of Western culture has over the last 50 years swung very, very far to the Left. When it swings back, the Reaction is likely to be sudden, radical, and intense. If recent experience – in Britain, the US, Austria, and Germany – is any indication, that shift in public attitudes may have begun.

I do not think that Muslims would be the only population that such a Reaction in European attitudes would subject to discrimination, ostracism, persecution, and deportation. All minority populations would feel it, I think. Wherever we have seen tremendous ethnic intermixture throughout the West, I expect the Reaction to result in a Great Sortition of populations, and so movements – and sometimes removals – of immigrants back to their homelands. Most will be voluntary. European Jews are already talking about leaving for Israel en masse. If things go on as they have in Iberia, the Catalans will soon hate the Spaniards, and vice versa. And no Croat wants to live in Slovenia, nor any Slovene in Croatia.

A renascence of patriotic nations *just is* a sortition of peoples, an increase in their antagonisms, and in the adversity of their relations. NB however that a return of patriotism does not entail an increase of international violence. On the contrary, as the great supranational organizations and states are more and more disintermediated by organic national motions, and thereby rendered irrelevant, the concomitant dispersal of lethality is likely to lead to metastability. The smaller the nations, the smaller their disputes, and the more easily resolved.

So, taking all of these considerations into account, I think it highly unlikely that Islam will ever reign in the Eurosphere.

That said, a single terrorist incident can have vast effects on Western peoples, and on how they live. It took only a few hijackings by Muslim terrorists to prompt massive inspections of all air travelers in the world. A single Muslim shoe bomber prompted the public authorities to require that all travelers anywhere on Earth remove their shoes for inspection before boarding aircraft. The bollards are due to only a few Muslim terrorist attacks that used vehicles as weapons, beginning with the attack on Glasgow airport in 2007.

The entire urban infrastructure of the modern world is vulnerable to terrorist attack. Subways, bridges, plazas, churches, auditoria, stadia, office buildings and hotels, water systems, power grids, pipelines, refineries, port facilities, transit terminals – all are rich, soft targets. A bomb in a BART train as it transits the TransBay tube during rush hour – an event I contemplate almost daily as I enter the BART station – could instantly end commuting by train, all over the world. The economic harm of such an event would run into the hundreds of billions. And it would be a cost that the West would bear forever. So long as the threat continued, there could never be commuter trains again, anywhere. The economic destruction that resulted, and the decrease in efficiency, and the impoverishment, would be permanent: paid and suffered, year in, year out.

Multiply that sort of harm across all the mass systems of advanced civilization, and you are talking about an end to it.

It was just that sort and degree of economic harm, and from the same source, that caused the vast Depression that destroyed late Classical civilization and engulfed Europe for 500 years, and that was once called the Dark Ages.

I do not know what we might have to do to our cities, or to the way we live in them, if Muslim terrorism continues a threat. The necessary changes are likely to make the changes to European civilization that transpired in the wake of the Muslim conquest of the Mediterranean – not just castellation all along the Mediterranean littoral, but the arms race that it engendered all over Europe, and the breakdown in late Classical social order that forced all Europeans to live at all times like warriors and enemies, not just to the Muslims, but *to each other* – look measly.

If we want to go on living more or less as we have since we finally recovered (in 1683) from the last great florescence of Muslim power, we can’t tolerate Islam. Advanced civilization is simply incompatible with Islam. Indeed, pretty much everything is incompatible with Islam. Even Islam is incompatible with Islam.

Islam has been at war with everything else since it began. It is doctrinally, characterologically, basically incapable of peace. This means that, in the final analysis, there is only one way that those who do not wish to convert to Islam can respond to its inveterate war upon them: war.

I wish it were otherwise. War sucks. It kills lots of innocents. But it isn’t otherwise. Islam is what it is, and war is what it is. When the West finally decides to recognize that it is unavoidably at war with Islam, and takes the gloves off, and begins the total war that the West especially has perfected and waged, things will go very badly for Muslim innocents. The suffering we have seen so far in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria? We have seen nothing yet, compared to what we would then see.

There is an easy way out. Islam could renounce jihad, and cease its war. The West would then leave Muslims alone. But Islam will not renounce jihad. Muslims will therefore continue to make war on everyone else. And everyone else will respond accordingly. In logic, this must continue until Islam is eliminated. The end stages of the process are likely to be dire.

The logic of this process is baked into the basic doctrines of Islam. Islam is such that it cannot avoid its own eventual deletion.

No one risks his job with talk about Islam!! For heaven’s sake, the President talks about it all the time.

There is no editing of tongues when it comes to the “religion of peace.”

Anyone employed by anyone other than himself knows well that he might lose his livelihood unless he edits his speech at every moment – especially the President (Trump has yet to speak the plain truth about Islam; rather, he has at most reached out as if to touch its hem, without however having actually touched it). Such is PC. You risk your livelihood if you object to Islam, to miscegenation, to affirmative action, to homosexual marriage, to immigration, to illegal immigration, to transsexuality, to anthropogenic global warming, and to a long list of other taboo subjects. The only things it is safe to abhor in the workplace these days, or indeed anywhere, are white Christian men.

The white Christian men who administered Rotherham and enforced her laws refrained from discussing the ring of Muslims that there over the course of years raped more than a thousand British girls and young women. They knew of these crimes, but kept quiet about them and did nothing to stop them, because they did not want to be accused of political incorrectness.

Don’t you think killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Middle East is frustration enough [to discourage Muslim terrorism]?

Manifestly, it is not. If it was, we wouldn’t be installing these bollards all over the place. The sad reality is that we may need to kill millions of Muslims to put an end to the Muslim threat. This follows from the doctrines of Islam; Islam itself makes its destruction necessary. And because faiths subsist only in the hearts of their believers, to destroy the Muslim faith must almost certainly entail the destruction of Muslim believers.

I don’t want that to happen. I hate the idea. I’d rather that all the Muslims became good Christians. But history is not consulting my fond wishes.

Perhaps if we are lucky, and a total war of the West upon Islam commences in earnest, and so almost instantly ends with the complete defeat, conquest, subjugation and degradation of dar al islam, the Muslims will lose heart, lose faith, and begin to convert. That would be nice. We’d need to kill a lot fewer of them that way.

But if there is no mass apostasy of Muslims, then I am afraid that what we must expect sooner or later is a war of utter annihilation. It happens. Ask the Amalekites.

Islam delendam esse.

85 thoughts on “Islam Delendam Esse

  1. Pingback: Islam Delendam Esse | @the_arv

  2. To which I would add that even if Muslims did renounce jihad, as long as they flood into the West, outbreed us, and demand full inclusion in our societies, they are still a threat to our existence. In fact, I would prefer we didn’t even talk about terrorism, because the peaceful Muslims are much more dangerous to us. (I am here repeating my earlier post:

    Even if Western nations did an Iraq invasion type event every five years for the rest of the century, there is still no doubt that at the end of that century, vast swaths of the world will still be Muslim, meaning Islam will still be the religion of the majority, it will still be the communal consensus, and the inhabitants then will identify with the inhabitants now. The existence of any territory expressing our cultures at the end of the century or any people inclined to embrace us as revered ancestors is much more open to doubt.

    • Excellent point. On present trends, the West is doomed. But then, that’s been the case several times in our history, and every time we’ve staved off our eastern adversaries in the end; crushed them, in fact, and conquered them.

      Present trends have a way of petering out and turning into something else.

      As the West ruled what is now dar al Islam in 300 BC and in AD 1930, so might we rule it again.

      As you have noted, an Iraq style war every five years won’t do the job of eliminating the Muslim threat. It hasn’t worked to keep the gloves on, and can’t. This is why I think we are looking at a total war of utter annihilation, sooner or later. It’s an ugly prospect.

  3. This is an email I sent to some friends a couple of months ago.

    Mark Steyn on the strange death of Europe, mainly about demographics.

    E.g. in the UK, of women born in 1940, 1 in 9 was childless at the age of 45. Of women born in the 70s, 1 in 4 is childless at age 45.

    In Germany, 30% of all women, and 40% of all university educated women are childless.

    The population of Brussels is 25% Muslim. More than half of the elementary school pupils in Antwerp are Muslim.

    The population of France is approximately 10% Muslim. European France has a total fertility rate of 1.3. Muslim France has a TFR of 3.5. That is, each individual in the 90% is replaced by 0.65 of an offspring, whereas each individual in the 10% is replaced by 1.75 of an offspring.

    90 * 0.65 * 0.65 = 38.025 say 38
    10 * 1.75 * 1.75 = 30.625 say 31

    That is, the grandchildren of the European French will be 55% of their cohort. Within one more generation, that becomes

    90 * 0.65 * 0.65 * 0.65 = 24.7162 say 25
    10 * 1.75 * 1.75 * 1.75 = 53.5937 say 54

    The great-grandchildren of the European French will be 32% of their cohort. The great-grandchildren of France will be more than 2/3 Muslim, and all will be living under Sharia. The same scenario will be played out over the rest of Western Europe, including the UK.

  4. Concerning the jihadi’s supposed “risk [to] their home countries being bombed to smithereens when they are accused of terrorism”.

    The jihadis seem quite willing to assume such risk.

    At any rate, there are certainly many Islamic countries that have gone virtually unscathed from any U.S. attack in spite of a jihadi’s ultimate origin from those countries. I doubt that Sayfullo Saipov, the NYC bike path jihadi, was troubled in the least about what might happen to Uzbekistan as a result of his act. And nothing did happen.

    I’m not proposing that something should happen to these countries. Since 9/11 I’ve maintained that we should separate ourselves as much as possible from Muslims. Saipov should never have been admitted in the first place.

    • Scott in PA:

      Saipov should never have been admitted in the first place.

      Amen! Nor the parents of Nidal Malik Hassan, et al.

  5. Pingback: Islam Delendam Esse | Reaction Times

  6. You say this: “I’d rather that all the Muslims became good Christians. But history is not consulting my fond wishes.” Who would have ever thought that in the time of Augustus Caeser, a seemly insignificant man who is part of a small people in the backwater of the Roman empire would appear and His followers would convert the entire Roman empire? History would say that it is ridiculous, that Rome would drop its pagan ways for a religion from a backwater province.

    The biggest threat to the west is ourselves, we kill way more of our unborn than terrorists could ever hope to kill. If anything, the rise of Islam in the west is probably a chastisement for leaving the ways of God. Picking up the sword without fixing the central problem of apostasy that lies at the heart of European culture isn’t going to solve anything.

    • Yeah. But the Reaction, when it comes, will be against the modern Leftist order, in whole and in all its parts (insofar as those parts are wicked). That’s how the red pill works. Swallow a red pill respecting any of the shibboleths of modernism, and you begin a process of shaking the rest of them off in the bargain. Because why? Because each of the shibboleths implies all the others. If one is false, then probably they must all be.

      Once you are willing to admit that Islam is inimical to all that you love (for example), you have opened yourself to conversion, to repentance, and to the steep path of virtue to the sunlit uplands that beckon the hearts of all men.

    • Properly speaking, yeah, something like that. But I didn’t have the patience to figure out how to cast “Mohammedanism” into the accusative. “Islam” already sounds accusative, even though it is in the nominative, I think. So I went with that.

  7. Pingback: Bollards And Their Implications | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  8. Thank you for your post, Kristor. I appreciate your response. By the way, I’m not an old friend. I’m a rather young friend, in my opinion. But that’s okay. Age is subjective.

    A few points:

    ** Mostly, I was referring to Muslims in America. But fertility among Muslims has been in steady decline globally and the birthrate in Europe is 2.6, which is one child more than the non-Muslim birthrate. (The Muslim population of France is 8.8 percent according to Pew research.) I could not confirm pbw’s figure of 3.5 TFR for Muslim women in France, but according to this report it is 2.9 for Muslim women from Africa and the trend is that the longer Muslim immigrants stay in Europe, the lower their fertility becomes.

    Click to access integratingislam_chapter.pdf

    My point is not that Islam is not a serious problem in Europe, but that scenarios of demographic conquest are not realistic. What is likely to happen as the population grows, possibly to as much as 20 percent in France, is increasing conflict and violence. Modern religious indifferentism is highly attractive to Muslims too, but racial conflict is part of the story.

    ** Any discussion of Muslim terrorism would be incomplete without an acknowledgement that Muslims have been falsely blamed for the 9/11 attack. Other attacks (the Boston Marathon Bombing, San Bernardino, Orlando) are highly suspicious. I don’t want to get into a debate or harangue on this. I’m not evangelizing here, but the labeling of these suspicions or the copious evidence that the official version of 9/11 is false madcap “conspiracy theories” is just plain juvenile at this point. There’s too much out there confirming the latter, too many scientists and reputable scholars behind it all. A couple of hours on the Internet, starting with the website of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is enough to demolish the dismissals. Israel and its dual citizens in high places in the American government masterminded the attack over the course of decades to bring about the destruction of Iraq.

    ** Any future attacks must be carefully scrutinized and investigated in criminal courts before rushing to judgment.

    ** Bollards and other security measures are highly profitable to certain security businesses. They make a fortune off of scaring Americans and placing this stuff everywhere. Not that truck attacks won’t happen. They probably will — some likely false flags to get us to go to war — but they will not likely be a serious threat in terms of the numbers of people killed. A nuclear weapon could be used, but in that case bollards won’t make any difference. Muslim terrorists do not have the technical capacity to launch such an attack.

    ** You write: “Advanced civilization is simply incompatible with Islam. Indeed, pretty much everything is incompatible with Islam. Even Islam is incompatible with Islam.”

    Civilization is fairly advanced in modern Iran. It does not approximate the heights of Christian civilization but it is functioning. We should aspire to let Muslims live in peace and develop naturally, which will lead them away from Islam because it is inherently unsatisfying.

    ** You write: “Islam has been at war with everything else since it began.”

    It is my understanding — correct me if I’m wrong — that Arab countries admired America in the early decades of the 20th century before it began to heavily subsidize the Judaic Imperium and conquest of Arab nations.

    ** “The sad reality is that we may need to kill millions of Muslims to put an end to the Muslim threat.”

    I implore you to rethink this statement. It is absolutely un-Christian. There is nothing happening in the world today to suggest that we must kill millions of Muslims. We have killed far, far too many as it is.

    ** What is the solution to the threat of Islam and the even greater threat of the global Judaic Imperium:

    First and foremost, reparation for our sins, which is the cause of these terrible chastisements from God, and a determined effort to seek holiness.

    Secondly, a calm and forbearing reluctance to go to war, which will most certainly make things worse and would likely be cataclysmic.

    Thirdly, shrewd skepticism toward virtually everything we are told by our government and media and an intelligent determination to educate ourselves independently of corrupt propaganda machines.

    Thanks again, Kristor!

    • Thanks, Laura, for your response. I certainly didn’t mean to indicate that you are old! You are not! Heck, you’re just a kid!

      I meant only that our friendship is old. Compared to me, it isn’t; but compared to the whole corpus of my online friendships – an ever expanding body, thanks be to God – it is ancient.

      My point is not that Islam is not a serious problem in Europe, but that scenarios of demographic conquest are not realistic. What is likely to happen as the population grows, possibly to as much as 20 percent in France, is increasing conflict and violence.

      We agree, then; you’ve just recapitulated in a single sentence the gist of the most important point of the post.

      My assertion that Islam is incompatible with high civilization is not based upon the history of the last 100 years, but of the last 1,400 years. Islam destroyed the incredibly fertile agriculture of the Fertile Crescent, and of North Africa; Greece, Iberia, and southern Italy were pretty much devastated, too, although they were occupied by Muslims for only a few centuries. And the notion that Islam fostered an advanced civilization at its height in Baghdad and Iberia is a myth.

      Muslim conquest always brings barbarity in its wake. When the Muslims invaded Egypt, the Copts still knew how to read hieroglyphs, and knew the whole history of ancient Egypt. A century later, that knowledge was lost, and an Arab historian had to invent a just so story to explain the pyramids. The knowledge was eventually recovered, true: by Europeans.

      Such advanced civilization as has lasted in dar al islam is that of the Christians and Jews who remained therein, or who sold their goods and services to the Muslims. The vast Turkish fleet that was destroyed by the Holy League at Lepanto was built, not by Turkish shipwrights, but by Greeks and Italians. They built and maintained it in port facilities originally constructed by Greeks and Romans. Its cannon were not cast in Turkey, but were cast offs from Christian fleets, who had sold them as obsolete.

      Ottoman Turkey had not the cultural resources to build ships or manufacture cannon. It had to use Christian personnel, methods, materials, and products.

      This situation has continued to the present day. The high civilization of modern dar al islam, such as it is, is not native. It is an import, bought with oil money, that was paid for oil pumped from Muslim lands by pumps manufactured in the West and installed and run by Western technicians. The Muslims had not the capability to extract their own oil; we had to do it for them, and then buy it from them. Likewise, it was not Muslims who built and ran the Suez Canal, but Frenchmen and Englishmen.

      We should aspire to let Muslims live in peace and develop naturally, which will lead them away from Islam because it is inherently unsatisfying.

      We should indeed; and I do. It would be wonderful if we could let Muslims live in peace. But whether or not we do, Muslims won’t let us live in peace. So we can’t let them live in peace if we want to live other than as Muslims. It’s not an option that is open to us. They have foreclosed it.

      The sad reality is that we may need to kill millions of Muslims to put an end to the Muslim threat.

      I implore you to rethink this statement. It is absolutely un-Christian.

      It’s a statement of the plain strategic fact. Eliminating the Muslim threat may not be possible except by a total war of utter annihilation. NB: “may.”

      Facts are neither Christian nor un-Christian. They simply are.

      Now, I don’t *want* such a war, for Heaven’s sake. If I did, that desire would indeed be un-Christian. Indeed, it would be rather Muslim; Muslim leaders of the more ardent sort are wont now and then to advocate the genocidal annihilation of Christians and Jews, and to dedicate their peoples to that project. It’s a crazy, evil, puerile thing to say, but they say it.

      We should avoid a total war of utter annihilation if we possibly can. But, we might not be able to. Islam may force it upon those of us who want to live other than as Mohammedans. Or, there may be a mass Muslim apostasy, and conversion to Christianity. That could happen, too; as MT points out, such popular conversions are not unprecedented. It is by far the outcome that I would prefer.

      • Kristor:
        “Islam destroyed the incredibly fertile agriculture of the Fertile Crescent, and of North Africa; Greece, Iberia, and southern Italy were pretty much devastated, too, although they were occupied by Muslims for only a few centuries. And the notion that Islam fostered an advanced civilization at its height in Baghdad and Iberia is a myth.”

        Bill Warner his written of and lectured on this very point – that it was the Mohammedans, not the barbarians, who destroyed Roman and classical civilization.

      • Once the collapse of the maritime trade formerly carried out on what had been the Mare Romanum finished devastating commerce throughout the hinterlands of Hellenic civilization, it was very difficult for young men to make a living as a merchant or trader. It was thenceforth easier to make a living as a vassal of a warlord. So young men went into war, rather than business.

        The transition had an upside. The Arab bandits of the desert cut through the pacific businessmen and soft bureaucrats of Africa and the Levant like a knife through butter. They had a much harder time with the population of hardened warriors quickly generated in Europe by the Depression their depredations had started.

      • Bill Warner has also written of and lectured on how Mohammedan depredation limited Christianity to a fragment of what it might have been.

      • Few people remember these days that, with the exception of Indonesia, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, all of dar al islam was once pervasively Christian. Even much of the Arabian peninsula was once Jewish.

      • Non-Muslims need not apologize to anyone for defending themselves against the Muslims, for Islam – as an entity – is the greatest engine of mass death in human history. Historical scholars who have studied the issue estimate that as many as 270 million people have been slain by the soldiers of Allah over the last 1,400 years. Violence, chaos and bloodshed inevitably follow wherever Muslims go – this is the lesson of history. It would be one thing if most of these deaths were as a result of the aggression of non-Muslims; they are not. Archeological finds prove that almost all of the hundreds (if not thousands) of significant battles, incidents and raids occurred either in neutral or Christian territory – which means the Muslims were engaged in wars of aggression.

        Every human being, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, is born with the inherent right of self-defense. However, no man may tell another man how to live or how to worship; once force is resorted to as a means of eliminating non-Muslims, gaining converts, capturing slaves or obtaining wealth – which is precisely what Islam does – then the aggressors have forfeit their right to live among civilized human beings. When someone is waging violent jihad against you, killing him isn’t murder – it is lawful and morally-righteous self-defense.

        To put the barbarity and vicious nature of Islam into the proper light, consider the fate of one Swedish teenaged girl recently. She was gang-raped by a group of “migrants” (a.k.a. Muslim men), who – when they had concluded their use of her – doused her lap with gasoline and then set her on fire. There are no words for the those who commit such evil. They must be hunted down like the jackals they are – and put down.

  9. Regarding Laura’s assertion that the Arab world was at peace with America for much of the Twentieth Century: Many writers have pointed out that Islam allows its followers to lie low during periods when the non-Islamic world is strong. Aggressors don’t attack when the opponent is strong.

    And although the average Moslem prefers to live and let live, the basic nature of Islam is to demand submission. As the Western world has become manifestly weaker, Islam in general has become more aggressive. The only peaceful long-term solution is separation, and even then the separation will probably involve much violence in order to achieve.

    • Separation would take violence to achieve, yes. And because Islam is by nature militant, and violent, it would take violence to maintain. It would also require sealing off dar al islam from the rest of the modern world, and depriving it of access to high technology. It would require pushing dar al islam back into the pre-industrial era. That would result in a massive famine.

  10. Some very, very good posts and comments on dealing with Mohammedanism and retaking Christendom.

    As to the last thread, I Iater wrote to Kristor saying that I disagreed with him to the extent that his term “kill ratio” entails some of the “kill” in the “ratio” being our people, and that I opposed risking personnel rather than employing long range ordnance, including nukes. He replied that he was thinking of using infantry only for the invasion and occupation of the oilfields, and that his thought about Mecca was that stand off conventional weapons – cruise missiles, mostly – would suffice to cut the heart out of Mohammedanism.

  11. It’s a statement of the plain strategic fact. Eliminating the Muslim threat may not be possible except by a total war of utter annihilation.

    Let us be careful here, though. To Laura’s point, “total war” and “utter annihilation” are not – to my knowledge – terms associated with traditional Catholic just war considerations. I know you aren’t meaning “well lets go make some unjust war.” I’m just saying – particularly since Muslims identify as religionists and not nationalists – how to justly declare and how to justly combat this possible upcoming war is complex and of utmost importance. And as I mentioned in an earlier comment, we Americans are particularly susceptible – IMHO – to unjustly engaging in wars and annihilations. Maybe a topic for wise Catholic philosophers and churchmen to start thinking about.

    • To be sure. As my adduction of the Amalekites should have indicated, however, it is not apparently beyond our Lord’s pale to wage a total war of utter annihilation – of genocide. The criteria of just war according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

      2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

      – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

      – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

      – there must be serious prospects of success;

      – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

      These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

      If the enemy threatens genocide, and then begins to carry it out – say, by using nuclear weapons – then …

      NB: I am not of course advocating nuclear war, or genocide. On the contrary. I should make clear that by “total war of utter annihilation” I mean, rather, *cultural* annihilation. The goal should be so to destroy enemy morale that they lose faith in their ancestral god, and forsake him. There are other ways to do that than killing all of them. But, we must recognize that some of those other ways may involve killing lots and lots of them. Like I said, war sucks.

  12. Hi Laura – It’s the Jooooooooos! Tell you what, try a thought experiment: where would you rather be without money or identification: (a) Israel, (b) Iran, (c) Indonesia, (d) Fubaristan of your choice. All you accuse the Joooooos of, you will find in Islam. Jews prosper in Freedom and fight for it (former Lt Col in the USAF – and yup, another Jewish doctor); we do not rape in gangs, blah blah blah my dear.

    • All you accuse the Joooooos of, you will find in Islam.

      She knows.

      Jews prosper in Freedom and fight for it

      She knows that too, all too well. Contrary to what you seem to believe, those of us who object to Jewish prosperity under “freedom,” do not object to Jewish prosperity per se but rather to the ways in which Jews have historically prospered in “free” societies. Namely by way of usury and compound interest, sale and distribution of pornography of various kinds and all sorts of other illicit and subversive activities. And futhermore what Jews do with those ill-gotten gains – think George Soros and Black Lives Matter, The NAACP, People For The American Way, SPLC and on and on. All subversive organizations, and all Jewish in origin. That’s what “freedom” gets us.

      “Freedom” means we put the right kinds of people in jail, Colonel. In the case of Jews, it means government protecting as “speech” and sanctioning all sorts of immoral activities, and making it criminal to openly oppose them. It also means we must have laws prohibiting “anti-semitism.”

      we do not rape in gangs, blah blah blah my dear.

      That’s up for debate. Do you mean rape or rape rape?

      In closing, I wish you a first class ticket to some mosque in Middle East.

      And you guys wonder why ultimately you start to piss the natives off! Did it somehow escape your attention that Laura is a fellow Orthospherean and well respected around these parts? Or do you just not care?

      • That would be (b).

        Why would the colonel care whom you respect? Your taste and judgment mean nothing to him.

        And apparently he’s a newcomer, so he shouldn’t be expected to know what happened to Laura Wood after Larry Auster died. Just to give him a screen shot, here’s one of her posts

        into which she added this link

        And there’s been plenty more of that at THW. Presently she champions Shirley Temper and Brother Nathanael. Presumably Catwoman and The Penguin demurred.

        So that’s where Laura Wood is. And now I see, mirabile dictu, where you are. So you two just do what you do. And being Jews, the colonel and I will keep on making porn, loansharking, and promoting subversion.

      • Thanks, Roger.

        Would you care to a) refute my testimony that the ACLU, the NAACP etc, etc, are all subvervive organizations, and/or, b) that they are *all* Jewish in origin?

      • Are you testifying under oath? If so, then tell us what you think of Laura Wood’s admiring reference to Hitler.

        Anyway, the ACLU was founded by a Congregationalist and a Unitarian.

        And the NAACP was founded mostly by assorted black and white gentiles, including old line American gentry, though indeed there was a Jew in the woodpile.

        I don’t know why you didn’t take all this up with Larry Auster during those years when you were commenting at View from the Right. Far better than I care to try, he dealt exhaustively with what happens to people who go down the antisemitism rat hole. You, Laura Wood, and so forth have excavated Derinkuyu and trucked in colonies from the dump to stock it.

        I should have noticed your earlier “rape or rape rape” tidbit, which of course refers to this:

        So you”re equating Mohammedans with their war captives to Polanski, the colonel, and me. Obviously you’ve never seen me in action with the fair sex.

        Take a woman out. Go where she wants. Do what she wants. Pay all the bills. Head back to her place. Get rejected. Go home.

        That’s how I roll.

      • Roger:

        You don’t know why I didn’t raise these issues at VFR back in the day? It’s no big mystery, Roger – people learn; each in his own time and at his own pace. Besides, I *did* raise some of them with Auster, on more than one occasion, thank you very much.

        Meanwhile, as Kristor wrote in the O.P.,

        A renascence of patriotic nations *just is* a sortition of peoples, an increase in their antagonisms, and in the adversity of their relations.

        Harsh and uncomfortable reality, but nevertheless.

      • Personally, I think the Orthosphere is the poorer from the dual shock of Auster’s departure from this world and of Wood’s departure from her senses.

        Enabling Wood’s fantasies does no service to the Orthosphere nor, ultimately, to Wood’s own soul.

      • I note that commenter no matter’s crack – “In closing, I wish you a first class ticket to some mosque in Middle East.” – directed at Laura Wood, which I quoted and spoke to above has since been removed by the editors. For anyone who has come in late, I promise I didn’t pull the remark out of thin air.

  13. @Kristor

    “…But the Reaction, when it comes, will be against the modern Leftist order, in whole and in all its parts (insofar as those parts are wicked). That’s how the red pill works. Swallow a red pill respecting any of the shibboleths of modernism, and you begin a process of shaking the rest of them off in the bargain. Because why? Because each of the shibboleths implies all the others. If one is false, then probably they must all be. ”

    That probably ought to be true – but seldom is, because modern people are dishonest and have short attention spans, and are addicted to distraction.

    What happens is that one shibboleth of modernism is doubted – but only one at a time; and because doubting one aspect makes no sense when the rest is accepted, then the doubt soon ‘heals-over’ and the doubter returns to the fold.

    If it was as easy as doubting one – doubting all, or if leftism could be brought down by the fall of a single domino, then it would long since have collapsed.

    In fact leftist rulership has been robust and increasing for half-a-century plus, exactly *because* many things must be seen-through *simultaneously* before its yoke can be thrown-off…

    • I was speaking from experience – my own, and that of many online acquaintances who experienced the same thing. Red pills are rather famous for having this sort of mustard seed effect. It’s characteristic of conversion in general.

      Leftism grows until it doesn’t. It is robust because apostasy is dangerous, and scary. Its social danger is obvious: ostracism, excommunication. But admitting that one’s world view might be radically or comprehensively wrong and seriously considering an alternative is, like any conversion, a rather terrifying thing even prior to consideration of its knock on social effects. It takes a lot of work – a lot of neural reorganization – to set oneself up in a world view. If it works at all, it is costly and risky to reject it.

      To reject the common cult *just is* to declare oneself excommunicate, not just from the group, but from one’s former self. That could lead to all sorts of lonely, painful things. Conversion is hard. So people avoid it if they can – even scientists, who are supposed to engage in it as a basic, quotidian professional discipline.

      So, yes, many people might swirl a red pill around in their mouths for a time, but most of them spit it out rather than swallowing.

      Many, many reactionaries have suffered excommunication.

      None of this stuff is unique to Leftism. It’s just the way societies and minds work. They keep going the way they are going until the way they have been going doesn’t seem to be working very well. Then they change.

      The trigger is generally some small thing that works intolerably badly. That’s the red pill, the mustard seed. For most of us, it’s the incredible absurdity to which an ideology finally reduces. For a scientist, it’s the datum that can’t be made to fit the theory. It’s the snowball whose fall begins the avalanche. For a few recovering liberals I know, the straw that broke the camel’s back was bisexual bathrooms.

  14. Just found this blog. Most thought provoking discussion I’ve read in a while. I look forward to further reading here. Tip of the hat to you all.

  15. After reading the original post with its accompanying comments, so many ideas and topics have been covered. My observation would be a standard one many people often hear but I think it seems relevant here. Our nation’s historical support of Arab nationalist regimes and monarchies that oppress their own people have made things more volatile. In addition to the dropping of bombs in the Middle East on a regular basis coupled wih America’s thirst for oil, we have really helped to make this dumpster fire even worse. Maybe we need to look inward as much as we look outward.

    • Re: “Our nation’s historical support of Arab nationalist regimes and monarchies that oppress their own people have made things more volatile.”

      This is mostly not true. Historically, we’ve had relations with nations and didn’t tell them how to govern themselves. We’ve had good relations with republican/democratic nations as well as autocratic nations. We’ve also had bad relations with autocratic nations, but rarely bad relations with republican/democratic nations. It’s only when we started insisting that nations become more democratic that things became more unstable in many areas of the world, but even that is not the Middle East’s main problem. Let’s not ignore the obvious. The real reason the Middle East is a “dumpster fire”, as you say, is because Islam is the governing ideology in virtually every nation but one.

      • Arab peoples, and I think it’s fair to say all Mohammedans, can only be governed by oppression. The biggest mistakes made by the US, as Scott implies, were to topple oppressors such as Saddam and Qadaffi.

      • Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Modern Egypt, Iran until 1979, The Gulf States, Saddam until 1990. Many of those nations were autocratic or monarchies that oppressed their own people when we turned a blind eye and supported them for a reason. Our nation still supports these regimes. As for their ideologies, Islamist militancy and Arab nationalism were found in many of these regimes. In fact these ideologies were hostile to each other (see the 9/11 Report which I have read twice) . The reason the Middle East is a dumpster fire originates from America kicking a hornets nest too many times without learning any lessons every time we have kicked it. Let’s not excuse America’s thirst for oil which has resulted in bad policy for decades. We deserve SOME blame.

      • Nope, the biggest mistake is thinking America can export democracy as a commodity. Democracy should happen through reform which is something I would think conservatives would support and believe in because reform implies steady change.

      • Mr. Granger…

        Unless you have some sort of insight as to what kind of “freedom” is desired by the peoples of the M.E. then American support for their “oppression” just reads like knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

        And a “thirst for oil” is morally neutral. Yet, paying to quench that thirst is morally agreeable.

        So what is the actual solution if not total separation?

  16. The host contributors are entitled to exactly the sort of blog they want. Guest commenters like myself are here on sufferance, and shouldn’t have the gall to think they’re entitled to a say on policy.

    And the policy is that antisemites are welcome. There’s Dave. And TheOldOne. And of course Laura Wood. And now Terry Morris.

    Terry Morris was a respected commenter at View from the Right. Laura Wood was part of the intellectual elite there, a contingent whom Terry Morris and I looked to as mentors. Now Laura Wood and Terry Morris have succumbed to what John Derbyshire terms The Jew Thing. Laura Wood talks of The Judaic Imperium – Luke Skywalker, Darth Videous, and whatnot. Terry Morris says Jews are pornographers, usurers, traitors, and, yes, rapists (doesn’t everyone know by now about Jewish foreplay – two hours of begging?).

    This thread was supposed to be about fighting Mohammedanism. Go back to the top, scroll down, and see who hijacked it.

    • Roger:

      Larry Auster was aware of “The Jew Problem” and wrote about it numerous times at VFR. Most notably perhaps in 2013 when he posted, in an entry unto itself, a chapter from his unpublished book on mass immigration, dedicated exclusively to the subject. Maybe you should revisit it:
      I have been called all sorts of unflattering names in the past by various persons who disagree with me. Now you call me an antisemite. So what?

      • Larry Auster was a mighty intellect and writer. But he wasn’t born of a Virgin. I disagreed with him on, for instance, economic protectionism, the Civil War, and flying saucers. I nevertheless agreed with him completely as to the Jews. I agree with everything he said in that entry. If you were still free of The Jew Thing, you would see the difference between his stated position and The Jew Thing.

      • Roger, you’re probably smarter than I am, so why don’t you point it out to me exactly where I’m going wrong re: Larry’s stated position and the “Jew Thing.”

      • Oh!, and while we’re at it:

        I confess ignorance in the case of Laura Wood approvingly referencing Hitler. So could you please provide me with a link? I am indeed testifying under oath, and am happy to answer the inquiry perfectly honestly in accordance with that oath. If I knew what the heck you were talking about, that is.

      • I remember reading Auster’s article “Jews, The Archetypal Multiculturalists” when he posted it shortly before his death. Larry took a very serious approach to this problem. He would never use the cartoonish phrase “Judaic Imperium” when discussing this problem.

        God, how I miss Larry Auster! Imagine his incisive intellect analyzing all that has happened since his passing: the Boston Marathon bombing, Ferguson, MO, Black Lives Matter, San Bernardino, Hillary’s private server, Trump’s election. We are all intellectually poorer for the loss.

    • I am not a regular reader of the Orthosphere, but am familiar with it and some of its contributors, from my time as daily reader of, and occasional commenter at, View From the Right. I share Roger G.’s puzzlement that what is now considered “estimable” at the Orthosphere is trafficking in crazy conspiracy theories like the idea that September 11th, 2001 was not an Islamic terrorist attack, that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition, and that every mass shooting is a “false flag” staged by the government with the secret collusion of the mass media.

      By the way, are we ever going to get that posthumous book by Lawrence Auster, or is Laura Wood defying his wishes and neglecting to have it published because she now considers as “lies” things that Larry believed, like that 9/11 was a Muslim terrorist attack, or that the Jews aren’t the ultimate force behind the downfall of Western civilization? Larry must be doing about 1000 RPM in his grave.

      Roger, feel free to click the link in my username and email me at the address you’ll find on my (dormant) blog. I’m always interested in corresponding with members of the VFR diaspora, at least those who have not gone insane.

      • She’d be the last to toot her own horn on this point, so I’m sure you didn’t know, but Laura Wood and her family did rescue Larry Auster, took him in, and heroically nursed him through his agony. No offense, I just wanted to be fair.

      • Actually, Roger, I did know that, being a daily VFR reader right up until the end, and also checking in on The Thinking Housewife regularly during that time. And while it would be presumptuous of me to render final judgment, having never actually met Larry, and thus not being able to say I “knew” him, I think it’s obvious to anyone who was a daily reader of his site for years that, had a new correspondent written to him expressing the views Laura now espouses, his response would have been to condemn that person in the strongest possible terms and refuse to have anything to do with them. There were many examples of him doing just that over the years.

      • Hermes, you’re absolutely right, and I was conflating two issues. But it was a saintly act, and under the circumstances I thought it should be mentioned.

    • To Roger G.: From another Roger, thank you for pointing these things out. I am a regular reader–but only occasional commenter–here in the Orthosphere, and like you I do not wish to dictate terms or issue criticisms directed at individuals, since I comment only at the good pleasure of the site owners whose right it is to determine its content. But let me just say that I’m both surprised and more than a bit disappointed (after having found a site that seemed so hospitable to my views and temperament) to see such conspiracy theories against the Jews openly espoused here. I don’t expect to agree with everyone here about everything, but I would have thought such blatant prejudices to be unworthy of the level of discourse that usually prevails here.

      • Dear Roger:

        I *definitely* do not want to cut into the level of intelligence of the discussions here at the Orthosphere, not at all! But do keep in mind that if these issues are never discussed, then they’re *never discussed* intelligently or otherwise.

        Mr. Auster was adament on the point. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong; so be it. But show me where I’m wrong.

        I love the Orthosphere!; it’s a great site! God help us all when it succumbs to the dictates of liberalism!

      • Howdy! Much, much thanks in return, to you and anyone else I may neglect to address directly. I was beginning to feel forlorn.

        Just remember, I’m the goodlooking Roger.

    • As someone once said, anti-semites used to be people that disliked Jews. Now they seem to be people that Jews dislike. If, by anti-semite, you mean someone who is unprepared to accept that Jews are wholly beyond criticism, then you may label me with your favourite, blunderbuss word of condemnation. I have no wish to deny, or even underestimate, the enormous crime suffered by your peoples in the Holocaust. I’m not too convinced of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but even if such were true, I couldn’t see it as exceptionally egregious by a country that stands surrounded by hateful and murderous enemies and has a duty to protect itself. Certainly no worse than many things perpetrated by the US.

      What bugs me, is the seeming total silence regarding the large Jewish role in the anti-Christian Bolshevik Revolution. Also, the almost entirely Jewish Communist government that briefly terrorised Hungary in 1919, and which was surely a factor in the Hungarian delivery of Jews to the Nazis. There are many other instances of involvement by a significant minority of Jews in revolutionary movements throughout the centuries, magnified in their effects by the remarkable intelligence and brilliant talents of your people. This is a reactionary site-naturally, we are bound to be annoyed by such actions. For myself, I dearly wish you and your people follow the example of Lawrence Auster and join me in the Catholic Church. Anyway, I wish you the best.

      • In all seriousness maybe my point about looking inward instead of outward is very relevant in this discussion thread.

  17. I have not had the chance to read most of it yet, but promise that I will. In the meantime, I would like to comment briefly on a few points.

    To Roger G., your ad hominem remarks, suggesting that I am a wild-eyed Jew hater, are typical of the Jewish contribution to intellectual discourse on some of the most important events of our day. Lawrence Auster would definitely disapprove. In heaven, he looks down with sorrow on those who care less about the truth than he does.

    Hermes, I can’t think of any reason why someone would be so dismissive of the very convincing evidence that the official version of 9/11 is mythical — other than that he has some unacknowledged prejudices. Future generations will shake their heads that such blindness to lies once existed.

    As for your comments, Hermes, about Mr. Auster’s book, I take them as an offer of a donation to fund publication of the book on Amazon. Please include a decent amount for the services of a proofreader. I have donated much time to the project without remuneration for years so you don’t need to include me. I tend to be a bit of a masochist anyway. I appreciate your generosity. I faced years of stalling from the publishers I offered it to (whose views I do not completely share). It is possible that they put me through this because they are connected to the one publisher I rejected. I will never give it to an explicitly anti-Christian publisher who favors “population control,” a form of social engineering which Lawrence Auster never supported.

    You can send your contribution, Hermes, through paypal at my blog. I await your support for this important project.

  18. Scott in Pa writes:

    “He would never use the cartoonish phrase “Judaic Imperium” when discussing this problem.”

    Not sure what’s “cartoonish” about it but you’re probably right. Assuming he is indeed in heaven, with Jesus Christ, he would probably prefer:

    “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”

  19. To Mickvet: I have never encountered anyone who has expressed the idea that if Israel did 9/11 (which it did) such mass murder of Americans, continuing today with the death of first responders and others from cancer, was justified. Kind of takes my breath away. Israel has used disproportionate violence against its neighbors from the beginning. A few statistics:

    • With all due respect (I mean it when I say it), the focus should be shifted a little to the south so people can ask the Saudis some pointed questions because most of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from this monarchy that we still support to this day. With regard to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, I would agree that the current government of Israel under Bibi has acted with disproportionate violence against the Palestinians too many times. I believe David Ben Gurion pointed out the nation of Israel could only have two of three things: 1. Greater Palestine 2. a Jewish identity 3. a strong democracy. It seems Israel has ventured away from answering this question from one of its founders. If it did then peace could possibly be made with the Palestinians without all of the casualties in the link above. Without this cause to give groups such as Hezbollah and ISIS reason to shed crocodile tears, the wider Middle East would have a much wider reckoning. Criticizing certain policies of Israel doesn’t make a person anti Semitic.

    • Laura, could you please point out where I said it was ‘justified’. If you read again, you will see that I said nothing of the kind. It would still be an act of terrorism. All I said was that it would not be ‘exceptionally egregious’, which is no great mark of approval in the world we live in. It would certainly be no more of a terrorist act than an invasive war pursued on the basis of bogus ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Whatever your arguments regarding Israel’s behaviour with her neighbours, and she has indeed behaved despicably for decades, there can be little argument that she possesses far more skin in the game than the US did with respect to Iraq.

  20. Zimriel:

    “Personally, I think the Orthosphere is the poorer from the dual shock of Auster’s departure from this world and of Wood’s departure from her senses.

    Enabling Wood’s fantasies does no service to the Orthosphere nor, ultimately, to Wood’s own soul.”

    I am happy to be among the millions of people who have so lost their senses that they actually look to the laws of physics and the science of civil engineering when it comes to the unprecedented sudden collapse of two skyscrapers built to withstand intense fires.

    Truth is tonic to the soul.

  21. Just War, according to the Catholic Tradition, as summarized here by Prof. David Lutz, PhD., must meet the following criteria:

    1. Legitimate authority: The war must be declared by a legitimate authority, responsible for the common good; 2) Just cause: The purpose of war must be to defend one’s country or an ally against aggression; 3) Right intention: The intention must be the restoration of peace, not domination, wealth or revenge; 4) Last resort: All peaceful means of avoiding the conflict must first be exhausted; 5) Reasonable hope of success: It is wrong to bring about death and destruction, and to ask soldiers to sacrifice their lives, in a futile war; 6) Proportionality: The military action must not produce more evil than the good to be achieved; one must avoid using force in excess of the good to be achieved the objective of war; 7) Discrimination: Noncombatants may not be directly targeted and care must be taken to minimize killing them directly.

    Muslim nations or groups have done nothing to America to justify talk of nuclear annihilation of Arab countries. The Iraq War was unjust.

    • Both Iraq wars were unjust. I agree with you that nothing justifies this talk of annihilating Arab countries, at least physically-although it would be best for everybody if Mohammedanism could somehow be annihilated without bloodshed. What is essential is that we keep good fences between our culture and their anti-culture, although it appears to be too late for that.

    • Quoting what I actually wrote about nuclear war and the annihilation of Muslim countries, with added emphases:

      If the enemy threatens genocide, and then begins to carry it out – say, by using nuclear weapons – then …

      NB: I am not of course *advocating* nuclear war, or genocide. On the contrary. I should make clear that by “total war of utter annihilation” I mean, rather, *cultural* annihilation. The goal should be so to destroy enemy morale that they lose faith in their ancestral god, and forsake him. There are other ways to do that than killing all of them. But, we must recognize that some of those other ways may involve killing lots and lots of them. Like I said, war sucks.

    • Sure there is: si vis pacem, para bellum. If we can’t speak of nuclear war, we can’t prepare for it. I.e., we can’t have nuclear weapons in the first place. And in a world where there are nukes, we need to have nukes, and we need to be ready and willing to use them under the appropriate circumstances.

      We must furthermore be seen by all our adversaries as ready and willing to use our nukes under the appropriate circumstances. We want religious fanatics who are thinking of nuking us to understand that if they do, their cause will be obliterated. And that will be good for those who survive.

      MAD might deter such religious fanatics. Even if it doesn’t, and they trigger it, they will have deleted their religion.

  22. Laura Wood, Tovia Singer and Michael Skobac are two rabbis skilled at dealing with Jewish and Christian Issues. I don’t believe either argues politics, but they both definitely do theology. Possibly Rabbi Skobac just lectures, but Rabbi Singer also engages in dialogues on air with Jews and gentiles. Maybe you can arrange to have one of those debates that we can listen to at youtube. You’re ready.

  23. I often wonder how L.A. would have commented on recent events — especially on the fact that the immigration issue has become widely discussed (and even debated!) in America, Europe, and Australia. Would he have re-evaluated Ann Coulter? And Brexit — is there any hope for the “dead island”? What would he say about Francis? Trump? Imagine the posts in response to the latest campus and cultural craziness — the war on whiteness, the war on sexuality, Disney’s first boy princess, BLM . . . His death cost us many opportunities of VFR delight.

    Also, concerning the Jewish question (one close to my heart), please consider what has happened in the U.K. Their spiritual rot is perhaps worse than ours in America. Their elite is as wicked and destructive, maybe more so. Were Jews pulling the strings of every government since Churchill? Rather, didn’t the indigenous blue-bloods from very homeland of WASP-ness cause their own nation’s ruin? Where are the beady eyed, hooked nose elders of Westminster? If native captains sank noble Britannia, shouldn’t we consider the works of Massachusetts’ fair children more carefully than those of Emma Lazarus’ dirty hordes from the Pale?

    • You’re absolutely right that they willingly surrendered the leadership they should have defended and enforced. But they also horribly weakened themselves – by the slaughter, especially of the American Civil War and WWI, and also of WWII, and by diminishing the number of children they bore.

  24. As a mainstream conservative, I assumed it beyond question that planning both for the number and timing of children was only prudent and rational. I was amazed to learn, thanks to my traditionalist mentors, that this seemingly sensible behavior may weaken marriages and families.

    • Not to mention clans, tribes, nations, peoples. Birth control is killing your young. What could be more lethal, demographically? What could be more evil?

  25. It’s odd to me that “reactionaries” and “traditionalists” who realize that our culture is a suppurating wound of decadence and who adamantly reject the mainstream at the same time unthinkingly gulp down narratives provided by those in power.

    It’s as if they believe Original Sin pertains to the individual and not the group, that a group cannot in coordinated fashion perpetrate organized evil. They are placing their own man-made limits to Satan’s creativity, not the limits placed here by God.

  26. Unthinkingly gulp down narratives? Not at all. Most conservatives here are fully aware that our culture is controlled largely by Liars coordinating one lie after another. But you’ve made the mistake that because they lie about some things, or even most things, that they lie about everything. The problem is that they can only lie as far as they are capable of carrying out the lie.

    The Liars love Islam. If there were some way that the Liars could exculpate Islamic jihadis from executing the Sep 11 attacks, they would do so. If there were some way that they could blame conservative Christians for those attacks, they would do so. But there’s no getting around that Muslims carried out the attacks.

    You’ve fallen for the lie that Israel is responsible for the attacks, somehow missing that Muslims the world over are pleased to take responsibility for the attacks. So, when looking for people who unthinkingly gulp down narratives, look first in the mirror.

    • Scott, one thing that Lawrence Auster himself knew and practiced was that there is no point engaging with people who have gone down such a rabbit hole. Rational discourse in such instances is impossible. One needs to simply isolate them and distance oneself from them. He would occasionally get emails from crackpots, and rather than responding to them directly, would post them on his site and then write about them, for the benefit of his readers, to demonstrate the folly of even attempting to engage with them.

  27. Thordaddy
    The ultimate freedom should be some sort of self determination to decide what type of freedoms and government a society should live by. Our nation was happy to support Saddam Hussein until he invaded Kuwait and the Cold War was ending. Colonial powers helped to carve up much of the Middle East without regard for the people who lived there ( Iraq and the Kurds). My criticism of US foreign policy is not knee jerk anti-Americanism. Much of what we have done has actually hurt us in defense of our ally Israel’s interests.

    • I confess to having no idea why any nation remotely traditional would look to the American and Israeli democracies and have any desire to emulate them. The moral rot in the two nations is palpable.

      As to the Iraq War (the second one in particular), Dubya and Co. started to lose me with all the talk of “freeing” the poor Iraqis from the oppressive rule of Saddam’s regime and “democratizing” Iraq. When all that “justification” got underway I began to lose faith in the sanity of our intrepid “leaders,” and said so on numerous occasions at putatively conservative websites. One self-styled conservative woman responded to my concerns by saying that my disregard for the plight of the suffering Iraqis (and others by extension) “knows no bounds.” I suppose she had a point.

  28. I’m closing comments on this post; the thread has been fully jacked. It has however raised some issues that I feel bound to address. But I am not yet ready to do that. I have begun to ponder those issues seriously for the first time, and while I can feel my thoughts forming into what appears to be a coherent integrity, they are not yet there.

    I will address them in a future post. My hunch is that it will be not long delayed.

  29. Pingback: The Great Sortition – The Orthosphere

  30. Pingback: XII – Invictus – Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth

  31. Pingback: What Would Moloch Do? | Winston Scrooge

Comments are closed.