The Dongola Times

(Anachronistic) Dispatches from the Kingdom of Makuria.
26th of August, 2015

Enough!: Never “Never Again!” Again!

I am tired, not (just) of how people get bled like cattle in mass killings and genocides, but of how the standard accepted response to this is the ridiculously impotent refrain “Never Again!” What the fuck do you think; that once was okay, twice is not? “Never Again” is so stupid: it is neither repentant nor reparative—it is neither, for instance, “Woe to us!”, which is mandatory in every such case, nor is it “An eye for an eye!” which, though far from sufficient, is where we should have arrived by now, after so many iterations of “Never Again”.

Never “Never Again” again. Henceforth, it is “Enough!” and “Restore!” For every society and nation that is guilty of genocide about people we care about—in this case Christians—there will be firm punishment and remorseless retribution, and the lands where these things have been committed with impunity will be in danger of being taken, in perpetuity, that the Christian Free State may incorporate them for the benefit of harassed Christians all over the World, and for the safety of humanity—what with the policy of the liberated gun.

It is funny, isn’t it, how the secularists like to say “Never say ‘Never’”, and that they can find justification for that in almost every case—because, of course, who is able to guarantee that P is never true, ever, under the sun?—but then they have made a talisman and idol out of the stupid refrain “Never Again!” that they squeal every time there has been a genocide, and (necessarily) shortly before there is another one?

They are right: nobody, without reference to the explicit promise of God, can ever say “Never” and be serious. We can say that the waters will never again cover all the face of the Earth—it will never happen—because God said so Himself. If you doubt it, wear a GoPro, chase a storm, and stare hard at the rainbow. Never Again.

Now, there is a “Never Again” you can rely on. But, under the sun, there is no such “Never”; there isn’t enough reliability to anything, to guarantee that anything will never happen. We neither know enough about what has happened before, nor anything about what, in fact, will happen; so every “never” is vacuous bullshit at the very best. The secularist has no option. “Never say never.”

But, unfortunately, they resist their common sense in this case, when they say “Never Again!” after a genocide, because they are doing it for show. All these people will be judged severely, because the weightiness of “never” in a mouth that has also ever solemnly mouthed “never say never” is such that it is, in fact, an oath and a promise; a solemn vow. If the World meant it when it said “Never Again!” for the Armenians, then the Assyrians, then the Jews—for judgement starts at God’s household—then the Rwandese, then the Congolese, then the Copts, then the … it would, by now, have become the first article of the United Nations’ charter (or whatever). Is there anything weightier? No—by their own admission, they preserve “never” for this wanton bleeding of humans when they are horrified that they did not stop it. They are accursed, and lie already judged.

21st of July, 2015

Nation-States of the Old Ottoman: All of the Historical Lands

There is no nation that has no concept of ancient historical lands, because no nation has no roots.

For a young nation like Uganda, this is almost all entirely encompassed within the present recognised borders. Indeed, Idi Amin's claim to parts of Kenya would have been invalid, because they were merely expansionist. However, for instance we recognise every single region or island on which were slain Uganda martyrs--be it Namugongo; be it Busoga of Bishop Hannington; be it Ukerewe island of Shergold Smith and CT Wilson--all that is Uganda's historical lands. Ukerewe, at present, is under the Tanzanian flag, but that doesn't nullify the claim Uganda justly has on it.

But for those nations that lived under Ottoman hegemony, it is a bigger question, because they are ancient nations.

The Armenians, for instance. Consider this:

Azerbaijan’s destructive position on Karabakh continues to pose a serious threat to the security in the South Caucasus, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said in his speech ...
President Sargsyan specified that the Azerbaijani authorities are unwilling or unable to follow the logic of the conflict settlement.

“Azerbaijan continues its bellicose policy. It unleashes arms race in the region and propagates hatred. The Azerbaijani President publicly declares that Armenians worldwide are Azerbaijan’s enemies and Yerevan that will soon celebrate the 2800th anniversary of its foundation is ancient Azerbaijani land. He announces that the violation of ceasefire is normal as the war has not ended but he forgets who was asking for truce and who was the first to sign the truce,” Serzh Sargsyan stated.

Long have they dwelt in the tents of Kedar! In another place:

In this regard Sargsyan has also assured that in the case of military aggression from Azerbaijan “Armenia will have no other choice but to recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic de jure and to employ all its capabilities to ensure the security of the people of Artsakh.”

The Armenians are stupid now, and weak because they forget God. The oldest Christian nation outside of Africa is here failing to have a good reason to blow away the Azerbaijani genocidaires like smoke before a wind, and to cause them to melt like wax before the banners of the Lord. If they asserted their Christianity, they would know how and why to be secure, and how and why to take back their historical lands. All of historical Armenia, with Nagorno-Karabakh.

The other case, oft-studied, is Israel. If they affirmed the Biblical standard, like they are supposed to, they would be a covenanted nation of presbyterial kahalim based on the Bible. They would know why and how to take back their historical lands. All of historial Judea, with Gaza and both the Jordan's banks.

21st of July, 2015

The islamic Republic Let Loose, and Why islam Must Die


Provided the Vienna accord is honored for 10 years, the UN will close its Iran file.
But this is wrong, because if the Iran file is closed, even after 10 years, Iran is left as a legally-nuclear state, which was not supposed to happen.

The nuclear deal reached in Vienna between Iran and six world powers was unanimously endorsed by UN Security Council on Monday.

What a tragedy! Unanimously, which means that America has back-stabbed Israel without raising hell, even among the conservative pro-Israel Americans. Usually, they resist the Falastin in the Security Council, and often they are the only other vote being cast alongside Israel against the lies and foolishness in the UN.

But now, for once, the Powers have all, unanimously, decided to avoid war now by kicking the responsibility of dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran 10 years down the road.

In terms of weapons supply to Iran, the resolution allows for supply of ballistic missile technology and heavy weapons, including tanks and attack helicopters, with Security Council approval, Reuters reported; the US has pledged to veto such requests.

Why did the US pledge to deny Iran powerful war-making technology, in a period where it is ostensibly non-nuclear, unless it believed Iran itself to be dangerous? And if Iran is dangerous enough to require pledges of veto, as concession, isn't this a clear sign that such a country cannot possibly be trusted with nuclear arms?

But the restrictions will be in place for a while: eight years for ballistic missile technology, five years on heavy weapons and an arms embargo on conventional weapons for five years. A decade-long restriction on the transfer to Iran of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is also in place.

These are the sign that the Powers know they are sinning. They are the concession to conscience.

It may also be that wanting lower oil prices caused some countries to buckle. It still remains that they were tempted somehow to throw their lot in with the many, and run swiftly to shed innocent blood.

The deal would make the world "safer and more secure," US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said. But she added that America's "concern about human rights violations committed by the Iranian government or about instability Iran fuels" remains in place. The accusations were rejected by Iran's UN Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo, who told the council that "the country that invaded two countries in our region and created favorable grounds for the growth of terrorism and extremism is not well placed to raise such accusations."

And the country that has invaded Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen? The Americans aren't better than the Iranians, but that doesn't make the Iranians saints either. Secularist here, islamist there; same kind of wrong. The problem is not their imperialism, because if they were already righteous, they would either be non-imperialist when it is unrighteous (not because they don't will for an empire, but because God wills the frustration of unrighteousness among the righteous), or their empire would be one of righteousness and warring against criminal claims to civilisation.

You see, it is evolutionary developments like this that are why islam must die. We know the two things that are necessary to require that islam must die:

  1. It is counter-Biblical, and sound Biblical doctrine is anti-islamic. We all swear by a book; and we all know that if that book is not the Bible it is wrong. The islamic poem-book, which they claim to be truthful over the Bible, is merely the work of one illiterate poet. You can't build a legitimate World religion around the poems and cult of a reprobate heretic in the desert, who is infamous for sanctioning rape and paedophilia. We do not honour even the Nazis who, in terms of revolutionising war-making technology are quite remarkable and have a legitimate testimony to the image of God in which He made even those reprobated vessels of His wrath. But then a man who is infamous for having the first recorded ethnic cleansing of Jews, undenied and effective to this day in Arabia, is permitted a cultic following? Accursed be he, and all his partisans.
  2. The Bible, in 1 John, identifies the spirit of anti-Christ, and clearly marks out the creed of islam as anti-Christian. The islamic teaching themselves are explicitly anti-Christian. They have to be met on their own terms.

No civilisation has the right to be wrong on civilisation itself; if it insists, it has become a barbarism that must die. No civilisation can argue against a rich and holy corpus of Scripture--the Bible; our creeds and confessions--in favour of the isolated snatches from a lone suicidal in the desert. No civilisation may argue that God has required the destruction of the most-fundamental character of civilisation itself, which is that it is the oracles of the Jews--their laws, prophets, and apostles. It is not surprising, even to Westerners, that it is not the oracles of the Greeks (to which we still have access); those were pagan poets, and we know we cannot build a civilisation on that.

On top of that, Mahound Qathem is even worse, because he is not just pagan, which can be excused for its pre-Christian ignorance and even searched for the comical gropings-about-in-the-dark for God that fill pagan epics. No; Mahound is anti-Christian; which is to say, as destructive to man as devil-worship. “For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.” These people to whom the Son was already revealed are even more without excuse.

So: islam must die; it is not dialoguing with civilisation, in order to learn something, and it is also clearly a barbarism. I try to avoid starting sentences with "islam" these days, because it does not deserve capitalisation; I have demoted it from capitalisation, since it is just a barbaric heresy. Yet if it is not challenged, its martial and mass-murdering character is bound to bring peoples into subjection to it, and make anti-Christian nations out of them. Iran, for instance, has gone from being safe--islamic, but weak--to begging for an invasion from all civilisations descended from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, being the first successful, anti-Christian, islamic triumph against the nuclear status quo.

Since God promises to restore at least some of the presently-islamic nations, it stands to reason that islam will be fought and defeated in those nations before the great and awful Day.

16th of July, 2015

The New Halifaxians

See catastrophe in the making. The tired and recessive cowards of the Western World have agreed to not join Israel in opposing Iranian access to the nuclear bomb.

The Westerners think that Iran will show the same self-control with nuclear weapons that the West has shown. Even the West, the post-Christian West, has not shown nearly enough discipline and righetousness to have such weapons legitimately. How much less the explicitly-islamic Iran?

But Netanyahu is right. Iran, and every other islamic thing, should be resisted permanently and persistently. Not just on the issue of nuclear arms, but in general. But the Westerners did not even pretend they were willing to fight. Ehud Barak recently said that America lost leverage when it committed publicly to the desire for a nuke deal, essentially at any cost.

What they have not noted as explicitly is that the American president was raised by pious muslims, is an enabler of their heretical movement, and was determined to have normalisation of relations with Iran as a core achievement.
On top of that, this is what has been said in the first link:

Britain’s Foreign Secretary, who was involved in the Vienna talks, told Parliament … “The real alternative to a deal that prevents Iran building a nuclear bomb almost at some stage would have been war. What we have averted with this agreement is the threat and a prospect of a war,” he said.
So it was not even because they thought it was right for Iran to have that deal, but rather because they didn’t want to spend blood and treasure against Iran.

This same man went and criticised Israel’s sensible reaction to his waving of Halifaxian surrender papers while saying “Peace! [Peace!] In our time!”
And he called Israel’s capital “Tel Aviv”, becase, being anti-Israeli (which is even worse, in a secularist purpotedly-democratist bossom, than is anti-Semitism), he couldn’t get himself to admit that Jerusalem alone is the capital of Israel alone.

03rd of July, 2015

If the Righteous is Scarcely Saved: Assyria

Peter wrote:

Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And
“If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”
Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.
By now, it is more-surprising when a day goes without a massive slaughter of Christians happening somewhere in West Africa, North Africa, or the Middle East.

Most of the Middle Eastern Christians, of course, are not Protestants. And this is the problem, really, because whether I could have hoped for their victory against their oppressors, I know that the time we are living in now is one where, for any deviation from what is taught to the Church in the Scriptures, a firm and final punishment will be meted out by God.
These Christians, anywhere in the World, who have rejected the call to reform and repent, will now be dealt with first—for judgement will begin in the house of God—and the first victims happen to be these Christians in the Middle East, who have been over-run by resurgent Islam.

So, for instance, in Revelation 2, Jesus cites the mariolatrous heresy, which we know by archaeology to be a very ancient one:

I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works. But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. Only hold fast what you have until I come.
Incidentally, Christ even calls out the root of their sin—that they fell from grace (by which alone they could have stood and not fallen)—and so now they receieve exactly as their works deserve. —For only the maintenance of the pure gospel, "from faith to faith", is what is required of them: "hold tight onto what you have until I come." Jesus rules out "doctrinal development", and all other such Newmanian heresies.

In saying that He will judge sacramental sins—such as the Roman Catholics are guilty of—in the sight of all the churches, and that the churches will know that Christ searches the hearts of these people. This is a case where we know that these people have been judged, and their children (the Chaldean Catholics, say) have been killed, because they have been found wanting by God on a matter of the heart, which the church can recognise as idolatrous sacraments and mariolatry.
Moreover, "the deep things of Satan" are clearly not covered in the Bible, so we could never know them—and, consequently, we could never understand the marian cult—except by using non-Divine, non-Biblical sources. The very knowledge of this cultic information is punishable, because why would a confessing Christian study heathen cultic instruction?
Notice, also, that Jesus is not saying that they are not doing good works (which, in their confused short-sightedness, is essentially all they care about, obsessed with legalism as they are). Yet in spite of His knowing that their good works are, in fact, more now than they have ever been, it still doesn't save them from the harsh ruling which moreover shows that they should not look forward to being paid what they deserve: Christ mentions it as part of a threat to encourage repentance! How stupid indeed, the man who brags about what he deserves out of the hand of God! Are you not merely "unprofitable servants, only having done what's required"? Can the beggar demand of the donor? No; and "we are beggars all."

And to see just how far the problem goes, Agha Petros lost the war against the Turkic heathens, because even though he was fighting for a Christian state, it would probably have been prelate-based, given its Assyrian Christian character. That would have been better than what we ended up with—Assyrian Christians being stateless—and also better than what happened with some other Christian nations (such as the secularisation of Armenia and Lebanon).
For God to have looked with favour upon Agha Petros' project, it would have to have been a covenant Christian nation-state. He wasn't pursuing that, nobody else in the Middle East is currently pursuing that, and, to make things worse, they are actually doing the very opposite of what would stop them dying.

Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord has a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land.
My people are like as if they had no knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt not minister as priest to me: and as thou has forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children.
No truth (because they rejected reform, and continue in mariolatry and other sins), nor mercy (because they reject the good news of the grace of God), and no knowledge of God (because their traditions and their mysticisms edge out the Scriptures). Therefore they die, and there is none to deliver.
The Assyrians are all going to be wiped out, save for those who take refuge in Israel, because the beast, the anti-Christ, Islam, is going to over-run their lands. And if judgement finds an Assyrian in the sins warned about in Revelation 2, he will be cut off.

All these ones are going to die, in humiliating defeat and pitiful weakness, their young men will be carrion and their women sex slaves, because consider their heresies of syncretism, toleration, and relativism (moral distinctives having been dulled by generations of secularism):

With wooden crosses around their necks and others tattooed on their arms, several dozen Iraqi Christians are training to recapture their homes overrun by the Islamic State jihadist group. ... Thousands fled, but some want to fight back, and are now training at a military base near the Baghdad airport. ... They have Shia Muslim fighters instructing them on how to use their Kalashnikov assault rifles and on the basics of combat manoeuvres, but they are vocal in their Christianity on parade, chanting Ya Mariam (O Mary) in cadence as they march in a salute to the mother of Jesus.

"We heard that the Christians had an opportunity for jihad (holy war), and we all came and volunteered," said 17-year-old Chaldean Christian Frank Samir.

May you die! May you die first! "Jihad" for Christians? Are you insane? Do we have no culture, except that which a weak and pathetic heretical Assyrian nation can copy from its Arab rapits? If it is "jihad", it is not also "Christian". I know why they won't say "crusade".
Accursed be all things that do not maintain a distinction between Christ Jesus, the Son of God, and all the ordinances and symbols of the heretics. Cursed, and doubly-accursed, be any nation that sells out the exclusive rights and glories of Christ, in return for any alliance for any amount of ancestral land. If a people do not hold highest the name of Christ, may they be given into the hand of the heathens, and may the Muslims behead their bravest soldiers. Accurse be any people who pray to the heavenly host, instead of to God, our Father. Accursed be all who shout "Ya Mariam", in veneration to Mary for any reason, giving a mere clay vessel, a lowly handmaiden, an instrument in the story of God, the devotion and honour due instead to God Himself. Why pray to those who can't hear you? On the other hand, in one place He has said:
The eyes of all look to you, and you give them their food in due season. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing. The Lord is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works. The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. He fulfills the desire of those who fear him; he also hears their cry and saves them. The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy.
And in another place:
Praise is due to you, O God, in Zion, and to you shall vows be performed. O you who hear prayer, to you shall all flesh come.
And again:
O Lord, I call upon you; hasten to me! Give ear to my voice when I call to you!
Unless we have been reading the "deep secrets of Satan", we do not know whom else to pray to but God, the Father; for we were answered when we asked "Lord, teach us to pray." We say, with David:
To you, O Lord, I call; my rock, be not deaf to me, lest, if you be silent to me, I become like those who go down to the pit. Hear the voice of my pleas for mercy, when I cry to you for help, when I lift up my hands toward your most holy sanctuary.
But the heretics address themselves to Mary, in unison with their Muslim co-conspirators, and they expect the protection of God. May they be accursed who get in league with Muslims. The worst of all was this:
Both Christian and Muslim religious symbols are displayed at the training area. These include a large cross affixed to a concrete blast wall and banners reading "God is greatest" and "There is no god but God," the first part of the Muslim testament of faith.
May they be accursed. Shall you mix the wicked with the righteous? How can you put any of the shahadatayn together with Christ? An affirmation of unitarian heresy, together with the Islamic war cry, and a cross; are we supposed to be impressed? See how stupid a people become once they accept the self-defeating incoherence of secularism! And because they Assyrians are not "Calvinists", the prayer of David referred to earlier cannot fit in their theology, to their destruction; they do not read the Bible or "set God before themselves", so they probably do not even know the standard to which they are being held:
Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips! Do not let my heart incline to any evil, to busy myself with wicked deeds in company with men who work iniquity, and let me not eat of their delicacies!
No man can even understand his heart, leave alone keep it from inclining to evil and even keeping company, as the Assyrians are guilty of, "with evil men who work iniquity"; by God can turn hearts, if only they prayed to Him, and not to Mary.

26th of June, 2015

"The arrested suspect didn’t have a criminal record ..."

I don't know how many times I hear such a thing:

A terrorist attack on a French factory in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier left one person killed and two injured, the country’s president confirmed. The victim was reported to have been beheaded at the gate of the site.

The arrested suspect didn’t have a criminal record, but was identified as a possibly radicalized individual, Interior Minister Cazeneuve said, adding that the suspect had a 'link' to Salafist movement.
Does it even begin to make sense? Someone is known to be a faithful Muslim, and then you accuse him of having no criminal record?

Every faithful Muslim is necessarily a murderous criminal asking to be killed. I will indulge them every single time, tirelessly. In France, today, a man is getting a symbolic be-heading by Muslim criminals, and we say that the men who got that far have "no criminal record"?

26th of June, 2015

Re: #SONUG15, and the (Secular) Republic of Uganda

And, to make things worse for the Republic, even the only other serious contender against Museveni is himself a total secularist sell-out. He has scores of Mozzies working under him, and therefore has no right to stand against the President, when he himself is not bringing an improvement.

If anybody does such a thing as brand the very beginning of his electoral campaign with concilliatory attitudes towards Muslims, and seeking to make them a core pillar of his support base, he is even worse than Museveni (because, for starters, he is not Museveni, and neither is he Christian-sacralist).

The only reason we are even necessary, before we even get to talking of our being legitimate over and above the President and his Republic, is because the Republic is secularist. If anybody speaks of maintaining the secularism, he is already disqualified. God has qualified us, by Grace, and given us this ministry; and has revealed to us what He requires of us, and has made us desirous of it, and effortlessly-pious in our earnestness to serve this end. We do not tolerate anything less-pure, because we do not want anything less-pure. He has answered our prayer: "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

Then what makes us legitimate is that the nation, Uganda, was born into a sacralist order, which was lost only in 1966. To this day, people are still going back and forth about the events surrounding the rise of the secular Republic over-above the sacralist proto-Republican monarchy. The events speak of a pre-existing Uganda, but they are decidedly sacralist--"the Protestants", "the Catholics", and the "Muslims" all feature as distinct players in this history.

What makes us necessary is that democracy is a lie. Power doesn't belong to the people. The people do not choose who will lead them, and who will prevail over them. The Thirty Tyrants are sufficient proof, because they even prevailed in the days when Socrates was alive. Yet the people of Athens, fully convinced democrats in every thing and in every way, could do nothing but live humbly under the Tyrants, whom none of them had elected. Yet, in spite of this clear refutation of the basic assumption of Athenian democracy, in the lifetime of Socrates (and we learn about it from Plato, and in the writings of Aristotle), in spite of the brightest lights of Greek thought being impotent in the face of the will of God--as the Psalms declare all the time, that it is He who lifts up one and lays another in the dust of death--the stupid idea that democracy has somehow ever proven itself, or been true, or is true, just persists.

Nobody need set about disproving democracy; it soons shows through for the hollow lie it is. Yet the competition against Museveni is democratic. On top of being decieved, therefore, about whence cometh lifting-up, they have also yielded to the temptation of the hedonist promise of democracy. Museveni exploited it, by constitutionally (legally) remaining President, but not morally. Morally would have required that he never have denounced long reigns, before he embark on one himself. Morality would have required that he not be a hypocrite. But he said he would be a good democrat--which no good, strong leader can ever be, since all such are chosen by God, not by men--and he ended up being instead a good, strong leader who was being hypocritical (and therefore immoral) with regard to his democratic standard.

The solution would have been simply to not be secularist, so that the nation can refer to the God who gives both the definition of right and wrong, and also who raises a man to the throne and casts another down onto the floor before the throne. When the nation can do this, it can refer to a legitimate leadership that is actually in line with the reality. Even if the leader then institutes democracy, or socialism, or whatever, it is accountable not to the selfish people who are constantly brooding over evil from their youth, but to God's standard. A tyrant doesn't mind killing those who clearly have no power over him; but the sacralist tyrant has a King as terribly-sovereign over Heaven and Earth as the king does within his borders. If I am accountable only to the demos, and I am clearly more-powerful than it is (as all democratically-elected presidents and chancellors, like Hitler, are), why do you think that their having been humbled by my God-given charisma ("gift" of leadership) should make them any less-fitting as subjects of my state power, in all its forms, even my sword?

Better not to pretend, and then have a real, good reason as to why the leader should not be hard on his subjects; whichever you get, it is a better reason because it doesn't base on the lie that people are somehow rewarding the ruler with rulership when he treats them well. Only God gives rulership.

But the state can also not be a republic, because republics do not have a fixed cultural character. They are not familial state systems. They do not have staying power. They are materialist and shallow. Monarchies, on the other hand, are by their nature able to orient a nation and its state towards a particular cultural consciousness, without which no nation can long prosper. Anyway, if the revolution is about culture--the official religion, the national cult, and the culture that grows out of that--then it must root it and fix it in a continuing family obligation, in every household, and passed down from parents to children in all our generations. The head of state, then, hands down the responsibilities of the Christian monarch, including the maintenance of the Christian Free State, as head of state. Monarchy is natural. The rest are the ideas of the envious and the impious.

26th of June, 2015

#SONUG15, and the (Secular) Republic of Uganda

As things go, I do not know much about what Museveni said in his State of the Nation address, but a series of otherwise-random events led me to find out that "#SONUG15" contained a part where Museveni said:

Museveni: I spend many hours awake while you sleep. Handling the Namugongo event successfully proved a point #SONUG15

I am quoting a tweet, so there may be a few words missing. But indeed, I would like to use this excuse to express my support for the guy. Being President is not easy. He does it well, as God enables him.

He brags there about preventing a terrorist attack by Muslims fanatics. Of course, nobody can stop such attacks; only God. But God has done it by the hand of the man whom He chose to lead the country. Although his Republic falls far short--that is, it is not the Christian Free State--it does this security properly for the most part, while also preserving that freedom and laissez-faire that is Uganda's rich heritage. The Americans, with everything between their PATRIOT act and whatever they will respond to Edward Snowden with, have found that their freedom was not preserved in the "war on terror", which they have already lost (double-entendre intended).

Furthemore, Museveni realises that he can measure his potency, strength, and control by how firm his hand is around the terrorist Muslim's necks. Indeed, that is true. He bragged about how he has a special intelligence focus on them. He should, of course, go ahead and purge this land entirely of the high places of the heretics, and turn Uganda from the sin of secularism. Then nobody would shake his hold on power, ever; because even we, who challenge it by the Christian Free State, would not be relevant then, and I would have to retreat to his service under God. But now that he is hesitating to clearly stamp out the foundational sin of this nation …

However, as for the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel sin, from these Jehu did not depart, even the golden calves that were at Bethel and that were at Dan. ... But Jehu was not careful to walk in the law of the LORD, the God of Israel, with all his heart; he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam, which he made Israel sin.

You know that Uganda is still recorded in the Organisation of Islamic Countries. How can she ever defeat the Mozzies when she still consorts with them? Do not be unequally-yoked with heathens. What intercourse hath light with darkness? And I know that Uganda will not have a secure economic future until at least that is corrected, because, Uganda had a policy of entertaining this membership, even after Idi Amin was overthrown, because the Muslim countries did from time to time hand out a token to member countries.

Yet the foundational sin of them all precedes Idi Amin. At the time of Independence, Uganda was not a Presidential Republic in the sense one sees today. The first president and vice president were both monarchs. When the monarchies were abolished, it was by the help of a Muslim army commander, who later went on to become president himself. But before all that, Uganda was under the British, who still have a sacralist system. The Independent Uganda was also sacralist, by virtue of being monarchic, since the only monarchic system that survived the 1890s (also signalled by name-change the previous formely-pagan monarch had undergone: to "Daniel") was sacralist, Christian, and Protestant, modelled loosely after the British sacralist monarchy, both implicitly and explicitly. In fact, there were civil wars around the religion of the monarch(y), precisely because Uganda was from the beginning a sacralist nation, growing out of sacralist tribes.

With the Republic proper came the secularism, which not only allowed Idi Amin, but also relied on him to actually come into existence and strengthen. So, like the Westerners, we first cut off the roots saying we were only interested in the branches. First we had a secular Protestant head of state, and then we ended up with a Muslim head of state. Those are our darkest days; those are the times our nation turned against itself and against the World. Uganda was taking part in terrorising Jews and Christians. We ended up fighting a brief war against Israel. (And though UG lost that battle, dramatically because it was not the hand of man against them, yet this fierce nation took out Yonatan Netanyahu: for though she had a mad Mozzie for president, and her hand was committing sin, yet before her Saul, even Jonathan, would fall as one whose shield was not annointed, that it may be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet "A nation of fierce speech, feared far and wide," cutting down heroes even in its defeat, sustained of God even when not deserving. I think Yoni was a sufficient to cover the requirement on our side; so even for that incident, there may never be bad blood between Uganda and Israel.)

When Museveni came, he righted many wrongs. Essentially, Uganda cried out for deliverance, and it was given it. But his mistakes are in thinking that secularism is what saved Uganda, rather than condemned it.

Uganda was a failed State, it had been a battle ground for religious opportunists. This had gone on for 100 years but it had to stop.

That's his opinion on the sacralists who came before him. You would think that secularists are not themselves religious opportunists, who rely first of all on the inherent hedonist mandate contained democracy, and who then have to act out the due intolerance to those who do not tolerate their standard (or, rather, lack of one). Unfortunately for him, he, like the rest of the World leaders, condemns himself by not distinguishing firmly and strictly between religion as revealed by God, and religion as revealed by liars. I mean, that quote above comes just after this one:

Some Moslem intellectuals either out of ignorance or opportunism, do mislead a lot of people. And this is not helping but destroying nations

Right, so Mozzies are destroying nations and Christians should be gagged? Isn't the destruction the Mozzies are causing a good wake-up call for nations to innoculate and insulate against creeping Islamism by enforcing the old religion? It can't possibly be that these people are comparing a state submissive to the Son of God, whose official cult is the old Trinitarian faith, whose people are quickened by the Spirit, and which applies to itself the standard of the Word of God--and, yes, admitting (confessing) when (not if) it sins and fails to live up to it--to a state whose highest moral standard is Qathem Mahound, the heretical rapist paedophile who renamed himself Muhammad. Nobody can force a religion on a nation; but nobody can separate a state and its religion, even if they have to leave it only secularist hedonism as a choice (and a bad choice at that).

I will not spend time on the infinite other reasons why, since a state is going to have a religion, it should be Christian. My argument here is simpler: secularism is an illegitimate usurper, and the Republic currently in sin. This is how the history has fashioned it to be for Uganda.

Nevertheless, God hasn't totally forgotten Uganda, and has given her a secular President who has strengthened his grip on the throats of his Muslim enemies, and outwitted them on all important show-downs. The importance of achieving this, against Muslim terrorists, of all foes, cannot be over-estimated, and certainly may not be under-estimated. It is God who has strengthened His anointed's arm, just like He strengthened Jehu's. He even has ADF cornered.

But the secularism remains a sin. Museveni once said:

The most atrocious, criminal, cowardly and monstrous attacks by Al-Shabaab against soft and innocent targets such as shoppers in a Shopping Mall, young students in a University or football fans watching the World Cup matches at the Rugby Club in Kampala may look very frightening to those that are not used to war or that are not well informed. However, those attacks, in fact, prove three things.

They prove that Al-Shabaab is sectarian which is obvious because it only targets Non- Moslems. Secondly, it proves that Al-Shabaab is bankrupt both morally and ideologically. Why attack non-combatants? Why not attack soldiers if you want to fight? Why attack only Non-Moslems? Thirdly, however, it also proves that Al-Shabaab is already defeated

Now, would that he had gone on to say that the Al Shabaab gangs are morally-bankrupt because of their faithful Islam! But he did not. The high places of Jeroboam son of Nebat! How can we, as a nation, be ashamed of confessing the holy supremacy of not only what is clearly superior, but which we believe--if in fact we believe--to have come by the Son of God Himself? What is not morally-bankrupt, and how do we know? How can a state, any state, know what is moral and what is not, unless it cite is official religion? Which one is it that Museveni is standing on?

Moreover, the sins Al Shabaab commits, targetting non-Muslim civilians (even as it avoids soldiers), are sanctioned and demonstrated by the accursed heretic Muhammad. How and why shall we be required to tolerate murderous intolerance? We didn't declare war; the heretic did. So "let the sword go throughout all the land," since that is what they have asked for.

This is also not a problem of "civilisation". The Muslim Arabs have been literate for centuries longer than we have been, and they still follow the paedophile's murderous examples as the highest of morality. It's not the lack of TV or Internet, all of which the Muslim states have much of, and only broadcast be-headings, torture-executions, and heresies, be it Iran, Saudia, or (some/the other) Islamic State.

23rd of June, 2015

On the Top Cat

So, apparently the top Cat, their pope, has apologised to the Waldensians for having mass-murdered them.

There is nothing to forgive. If you were justified then, you needn't apologise. If you were not justified then, you are not justified even now, and you should repent, rather than just apologise.

Just stop the mariolatrous heresies, and the privileging of your traditions over the Word of God, requiring that accession to God be first an accession to your impious ranks, addressing yourselves to the heavenly host rather than to the all-seeing all-hearing all-knowing almighty Father through the Son, and then we can live together.

Remember that I never lied: after I am done purging the Mozzies and their secularist collaborators from my country, I will in fact turn against you, too, not as heathens like the Mozzies, but as unrepentant Christians who have fallen from grace, seeking to be justified by works, and refusing the gospel of Christ's perfect work. Just not being a Muslim isn't enough. "Purge the evil from amongst you."

14th of June, 2015

They Invented the Idea

I have been reading sombre things:

Greece's political system produces more laughter, more enemies and more entropy than it can deal with. The gap between government and governed cannot be bridged by any coalition of political parties. Greek lawmakers look like a cartel of self-centered, corrupt puppets, who manage to survive in their jobs only because they have appointed thousands of their parties' supporters to jobs in the public sector, working as tax collectors, bureaucrats, port and airport workers, gardeners, school guards, and so on.

The desire of the political regime to hold onto power is the only reason why the Greek state continues to pay 700,000 civil servants, in a country with a population of 10,000,000. Members of the "party army," as it is called, in order to keep their jobs, always vote for the same party that gave them these jobs. The criterion for their employment is not their ability, but their political beliefs.

They gave us democrazy; now catastrophe, tragedy.

12th of June, 2015

System U & the JSON Specs

What if I implement a self-contained Turing-machine, whose programming is such that it is always reading ahead (maybe as the result of a perfect compilation from a perfectly-abstract language). I will call this computer System U. Now I have a computer that is certain to terminate just because it is certain to run out of tape, not because it is not perfectly Turing-complete. This language, as a string, would represent the very limits of Kolmogorov complexity. It can only proceed from mind, of course, and I could say that the chromosome and DNA represent something like the ideal System U, save for the effects of sin and entropy, for which we are solely responsible, and which God never had a part in. "He does all things well."

In such a system, addresses can be of arbitrary complexity, since they are just programs in this language. They will be short and uncompressable. They will then be executed with confidence, since they will run out of "string". They terminate at the desired object.

I am excited about the recent JSON technologies, most-recently JSON API, but also JSON Patch and JSON Pointer. I think they are still exploratory, as nobody has shown my the maths. But perhaps they achieve something close to a totally abstract encoding of arbitrary operations on a JSON document. Now, the problem, as I have said, is the non-mathematical approach. They haven't, for instance, sought what the guys of the relational calculus sought. The problem is that with data across a network, we probably want to do things to a document, as the JSON specs seek, not just store and link. But though we are doing something ugly, we need to, say, seek the basic set of operations out of which all others can be built. I think I will do exactly that to the JSON specs.

And then, we can know that we have attained it when we can ecode a call-with-current-continuation in just one HTTP request. Then we would have attained a full computer with URLs and the (JSON-based) abstract document language.

But to do it properly, it should have, not HTTP, but AQMP. And probably not such a language, but a combinatorial expression, probably written in the map-reduce of the JSON databases. Or an equivalent.

09th of June, 2015

Dhafer Youssef's Pseudo-Snackbar Success

Let me just say that I wish Dhafer Youssef would just self-censor a bit of his internal Sufi mystic. He'd be the perfectest thing to ever make the case for a synthesis of North Africa and Europe. This would put paid to the lie that it is about race, and expose the problem: Islam.

This album of his, Digital Prophecy is everything you expect from his genius. Sure, it doesn't have the shock and awe of Electric Sufi, but that's because we are aware of the possibilities. Still, songs like Aya make you realise the range of expression this guy has mastery over.

The only thing you may have to get used to, before liking Dhafer Youssef's music (and I am still dealing with it), something that he actually engages in more on Digital Prophecy than in any of his previous albums, is that thing I call the pseudo-snackbar. If you have been unfortunate enough to need to endure, you know who the snackbarians are, and that Dhafer is actually one of them. And he is a singing mystic. It can't be helped. And it is always irritating, even in pseudo-.

31st of May, 2015

Good Death

I am surprised how fast this thing is evolving. Like a bunch of other loud-mouths, I said "Oh, in two generations, all suicide, most cowardice, and much murder will masquerade as euthanasia." Apparently I should have said "in two years."

What a beginning! Oh, Europe, how great you were! How God clothed you in honour and glory! And how you turned your back on the One who "called you out of the darkness into His glorious light"! How you despised the Blood that was shed for you! How you desecrated the calling you were given!

And now, behold, you have been given in these Last Days into the hand of your enemies. Your children have become suicidal. Your capitals are in the hands of the Muslims who hate you. The first problem was the mariolatry that the Roman Catholics taught. It drew Europe into resurgent paganism (see Nazism, for instance) because paganism can compete successfully with Roman Catholicism, but not with the Gospel. Roman Catholicism, like any paganism, is just a religion. Just a collection of instructions and ceremonies and buildings. These things even pagans have aplenty. Moreover, the Christians are required to observe as Law only those things that Moses gave, short of which they are required to live righteous by faith, not by works of the Law.

Rejecting or ignoring this not only negates the Gospel ("in which is revealed a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written 'The just one shall live by faith'", to quote Paul in Romans chapter 1), and not only leaves room for paganism, but also consequently requires a legalistic framework of relating to God. Bad. (What's special about the Law of Moses, which cannot be found in the RCC's Code of Canon Law, for instance, is that Moses is explicityly counter-pagan in a way no other human law-giver can ever be. If it is not Moses, it is either the Gospel or it is pagan.)

So this mariolatry, this praying to Mary and the saints, was opposed from as early as Revelation 2. And in that passage, Jesus says that the communions that keep "committing adultery with that false prophetess Jezebel" would be "thrown on a bed of suffering, along with all her children". After conceding that they do in fact carry out a lot of good works (it's true, these are some of the more-charitable communions, especially compared to the far wealthier WASPs), He says "Your problem is that you are following this mariolatrous heresy even after I gave you time to repent from it." That is, since the Reformation.

04th of April, 2015

Is Islamic State Islamic, or Just Mohameddan?

One of the better commentators on what is happening on the groung in Iraq-Syria is Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi. He may even be the best in his specialty, in the World. Certainly for anglophones.
In particular, he is posessed of a genuinely astute capacity for interpreting modern jihadism as a socio-political phenomenon of our time, rather than as a hold-over from the past or a worrisome trend for the future. He does, for instance, translations of prevailing anasheed, analyses their effect as propaganda, and so on, and then writes about it clearly and quite dispassionately on his blog and in other places. Perhaps the only (but also the most-serious) thing I can charge him with is that, in keeping with absurd Western traditions, he has failed or refused to interpret modern jihadism first and foremost as a global spiritual, religious phenomenon, and then a socio-political one. It can’t be too much to ask that the jihadis be taken on their own terms.

If anything, this is what he almost does in his latest, but then he stumbles. Quoting a convinced jihadi:

"Do they think we are Jewish now? lol," responded one ISIS fighter in Syria when asked for his thoughts on the current public debate about whether the Islamic State is actually Islamic. He went on to make an argument, as many of these fighters often do when interviewed, that not only is the Islamic State Islamic but it is the purest and most pristine form of Islam, the kind most in line with what God and His Prophet had intended all along. Another ISIS fighter from South Africa, when asked how he knew that the Islamic State was legitimate, remarked that "I just used my brain."

"The truth is never endorsed by the masses," he said. "It's always the smallest groups that are firm in truth. Migration becomes compulsory when a caliphate is established on the foundations of Sharia Law, and Muslims around the world have no valid excuse to remain amongst the infidels in enemy lands."
Right. That’s the quote of the jihadi. Now, to see where Al-Tamimi, and all his kith, have gone wrong in response, look at this:
This line of argument by members of the Islamic State and, to be sure, numerous other Salafi-Jihadi movements creates a major dilemma for Muslim communities around the world. How are they supposed to deal with violent movements within their faith, tiny in number but claiming greater religious authenticity, and greater claim to the truth?
No wonder none of them have a consistent, workable response to the jihadi! Wasn’t Muhammad just one heretic, and doesn’t he have authority over the entire Muslim World? How can the few obvious heretics who claim correctness be easily brushed aside, when the one to whom they are being the faithful remnant, the obvious heretic who started it all, remains “correct”?

Fine; Islamic State may not be Islamic—who knows the authority on “Islamicness”?—but certainly they are Mohameddan. They behead Christians in droves, rape women, kill children, enslave tribes, and generally live out their sinful desires under the cover of a heretical piety. This may or may not be Islamic, but it is certainly Mohameddan.
Al-Tamimi goes on to say:

To argue that ISIS isn't "Islamic" in a normative sense is to argue, to some degree, that Salafism isn't a branch of Islam and that jihad isn't a noble concept in the religion, arguments that are false and misleading, and severely hinder attempts to understand these movements properly.
This is very true. The movements are thoroughly Islamic. The only reason anyone seeks to distance them from “Islamic” is because these thoroughly Islamic movements have been judged and found to be wanting, so something is clearly the cancer here: either the movement alone, or the “Islamicness” in the movement. But there is no solution to the wickedness in these thoroughly Islamic movements, because when they are at their pristine best, they are Mohameddan. Muhammad himself, being a perverse and murderous man, has been judged and found to be wanting.
Moreover, as the article goes on to note, even if you advance centuries beyond Muhammad, for as long as it is still Mohameddan at its core—for as long as it is still “Islamic”—you find these cases of the proud unrighteousness that has its issue from the accursed Qur’an of Muhammad.

Al-Tamimi continues:

One could go on, but it is in the realm of IS fatwas in particular – issued by its Diwan al-Eftaa wa al-Buhuth – where the impressive ability to find opinions from medieval jurists and theologians is laid bare. Many of them are unknown to most of the outside world, including contemporary Muslims. The best example is the fatwa ISIS issued to justify burning alive the Jordanian pilot, deemed an 'apostate'. Many were quick to say this practice is absolutely condemned in Islam, but ISIS cited Hanafi and Shafi'i jurist opinion to claim it is permissible, including specific citation of a 15th century Egyptian Shafi'i jurist.
They could have just stopped at citing Muhammad’s precedent, since he is what these scholars are citing, themselves. (And, indeed, I also came across an Islamist justification of punishment by fire, basing on Muhammad himself alone. He blinded a whole tribe by jabbing a red-hot iron into their eye sockets, for instance.)

For this reason, nobody who continues to affirm Mohameddanism may remain within our realm. Enough already.

07th of March, 2015

Summa Contra Worksism

Now, I hate to say "Calvinism" in a positive light, because I think I hate Calvin (but I like the arguments he believed, copied, and propagated). Nevetheless, here is a salvo against a "worksist" (for lack of a better opposite to "Calvinist"):

Have you read the (“definitive Calvinism”) Three Forms of Unity? They repeat these things you seem to think are at variance with “Calvinism”.

“all baptized persons have the ability [if they desire to labor faithfully] to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.”

This is straight Calvinism. I assume you understand that baptism is of essential importance to the salvation of their soul. Now, if they are baptised and desire to labour faithfully, they are clearly elect. If they are not baptised and do not desire holiness, they are not.

“We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.”

This is repeated in the above-cited canons. It also is taken right out of a common refrain in Augustine, which Calvin tended to repeat verbatim (and credit to Augustine) in his disputations. Just to clarify for you (and the many others who have not checked the sources), the Calvinists do not say God ordains evil works. They reject that with some heat. Rather, they insist that God chooses to leave the wicked in their wickedness, and their evil works follow necessarily, just as the good works of the redeemed follow necessarily.

“And while John Calvin himself taught that there are men foreordained to evil by the power of God …”

Have you read any Calvin at all? (I don’t mean isolated seven incomplete phrases; I mean, say, one single, whole argument.) It seems to me that if you had, it would be easy for you to see where that link is outright false. Calvin generally opened his arguments with a fierce denial that he was teaching that God ordained evil works; this is clearly neither a new charge, nor one that would not come to the mind of those who read lightly (or second-hand-ly) what he said. It is certainly not a misunderstanding that can be caught by one whose exposure is but a few isolated lines which start sixteen chapters into book 1, before skipping to book 3, chapter 24.

I am starting to wonder how accurate you are in calling yourself a former Calvinist of any sort, if you don’t know item one of his argumentation style.

Do you know what Peter said, regarding the wicked murder of Jesus? That it was fore-ordained by God. But I also know that you will not accept such a thing, since you are clearly reprobate and predestined by God to the futile pursuit of justification by works. (You should not mind that I call you reprobated of God, since you believe I am deluded, anyway.) But what saith the Scripture? “It therefore doesn’t depend on the one who works or the one who runs, but on God who calls.” You will work diligently, you will run hard, but since you have not been ordained to life, you will not be saved. You can even see, for instance, how you have failed to understand Orange.

20th of January, 2015

PEGIDA A Little Too Late

Given the fact that the murderous impiousness of Islam recently struck many times, in quick succession, in the very heart of the West, you can understand why even the long-ignored counter-Islamic currents of the West are suddenly everywhere in the news.
Nevertheless, they are only speaking now because the Westerners faced off with murdering Muslims everywhere from Sydney, Australia, to Paris, France; but in places like Africa, comparable stuff happens well-nigh every hour. For instance, the Central African Republic has essentially been destroyed by Islamic murder, with Christians killed and churches burnt. Kenya witnesses several executions of Christians a day, in cold blood, at the hands of Somali Muslims. Several a day! In Nigeria, Boko Haram Islamists murdered over 10,000 civilians in one year (and abducted hundreds), and has an ambitious goal of achieving that number in the space of a few months (starting about last month), with the recent attacks on the town of Baga (near Lake Chad) evincing their determination to actually do it.

In short, there is nothing new about what is happening to the West at the hands of Muhammad’s teachings, and you can just take a stroll down your favourite African foot-path, if you need proof.

Yet, you know, it is good that the Europeans are waking up to the threat of Islam, but it is sad that

  1. They deny the core virtue of being Islamophobic.
  2. They are focussed against immigration
  3. They are too late, demographically-speaking.
  4. They are missing the scale of the challenge.
  5. They are missing the only possible true solution to the problem.

It is good to hate ideologies of murder and heresy. So islamophobia is good. Islamophobephobia, on the other hand, and also the islamophobiaphobia that the West practices and teaches is as bad as the heretical death-cult itself.

Stopping all Muslim immigration into Europe will not stop the rise of Islam in Europe, since it has already actually risen. There is an article from the “Council on Foreign Affairs”, which starts “It is already possible to draw a reasonably reliable profile of the world's population in 2030. This is, of course, because the overwhelming majority of those who will inhabit the world 20 years from now are already alive. As a result, one can make some fairly confident estimates of important demographic trends …”
And that right there is essentially why Europe is already a Muslim continent. The article focuses on manpower, but what it says applies to simple religious dominance, as well, especially given the martial and invasive character of Islam.
What is perhaps more-interesting is that the Europeans have fallen for the stupid joke of linking Islam with ethny. That is wrong; the biggest number of European Muslims are blond and blue-eyed! Even if you did stop immigration, but did not implement Christianity, you would just have natives Islamised. The problem is not immigration; the problem is Islam.

But even if Europeans were not to Islamise, Europe will Islamise itself just fine.
Essentially, the problem is that the non-Muslim majority in Europe will not be replaced when it dies, because it is too late for them to breed and perpetuate now. Non-Muslim Europe is already in demographic collapse. As an example, Germany (which has had popular counter-Islamist protests recently) is the least-fertile nation in the World with Japan, but even the little fertility it has is almost entirely due to the Muslim demographic. What’s even more-interesting is that it is also the oldest country in the World, with the average German woman already past child-bearing age. It also has the oldest mothers in the World, and the lowest number of women who have children. It is not even below replacement; it is in demographic collapse. But the few kids who are being born are mostly Muslim babies.
Even if you stopped all Muslim immigration to Germany today, you would still have a sharia Germany tomorrow.
Even worse, as Germany goes, so goes Europe. Therefore the post-Christian West is already lost. “Many who come first will come last, and many who come last will come first,” to quote God. There is no worse fate for a nation than to be post-Christian; it is better to be a barbaric pre-Christian pagan nation than to be of those who spat in God’s eye, bragging about how sufficient their brains (or whatever) are. Can they save you now? Can you think up enough ovulations, sex, orgasms, and babies now? Cry to Darwin, maybe he will wake up and save you!

Many of these European protesters are actually in the dark about their reliance on the Islamic demographic of Europe. There is a reason the European countries, like Germany, are in appeasement mode towards the Muslims. If you even just stopped (Muslim) immigration today, in one week all of Europe’ economy would fall like a brick. There is no reason to expect that these heavily-indebted countries, whose non-immigrant populations are all essentially on pension, will ever be able to participate in the global economy without the continual infusion of such people as these Muslim immigrants. The politicians know this, and they cannot be so stupid as to commit economic suicide by alienating the only future population against which they have borrowed enough to be the most-indebted polities in human history. This, in fact, is where that Foreign Affairs piece really comes to bear:

In other words, over the next two decades, sub-Saharan Africa, Bangladesh, and Pakistan will generate nearly half the growth in the world's working-age population.

At the same time, most of the current advanced economies of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and many promising emerging economies are set to experience shrinkage in their working-age populations. This group includes China, Japan, the countries of eastern and western Europe, and the former Soviet states.

The prospect of shrinking manpower does not look any better when broken down into subsidiary age-group components. Younger workers are important for growth, because they typically have higher levels of education and better knowledge of the latest technology. But over the next 20 years, growth in the worldwide pool of young manpower will undergo a severe deceleration. According to U.S. Census Bureau projections, total young manpower -- defined here as men and women between the ages of 15 and 29 -- will increase by just four percent, or 70 million people, between today and 2030, representing barely a fifth of the increase over the past two decades. Only the countries of sub-Saharan Africa will see appreciable growth in young manpower. Japan and the states of western Europe are on course for significant prospective drops in this key manpower pool over the next 20 years (in the case of Japan, by almost 25 percent). But by far the most massive falloff in young manpower is set to take place in China: over the next 20 years, this working-age group will fall in China by around 100 million people, or about 30 percent.
You can read it again. This is just in the next twenty years; to say nothing at all of the next forty or fifty. So you can see, that even over the course of one presidency, the West could not afford to not have this Muslim demographic; the alternative is total economic collapse right now, rather than twenty to fifty years from now.
But if I am favourable quoting the satanists of the “Council of Foreign Relations” on this matter, why not throw a Pauline admonition at post-Christian Europe (and its distinctly post-Christian obsession with the absurdity of indefinite wealth accumulation)?
But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

The implications of these things are extremely grave for those Christians who find themselves in different places (such as sub-Saharan Africa), because they have to, very fast, wean themselves of ideological and fiscal dependence on a soon-Islamic West, and grow up in their own identity.
In particular, it is important to realise that there is no alternative to Islam in particular, and to heresy in general, except orthodoxy. Unless you are a Christian nation, you will be an Islamic nation. All these European protesters squealing about free speech and democrazy and human rights and whatever, they are all missing the point, and they are going to die for that mistake. The only—only—solution to Islam is Christianity. They are not mentioning it, though. As it is written:

He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
Emphasis mine, because Darwinism or laïcité, for instance, is not a display of power, signs, and wonders, but is simply a method of deception to sap the moral and reproductive energy of a people, and their religious fervour, among other things. If you think these are not necessary for the survival of a nation (any nation), you seem to me to be as deceived as they are. Forget the rosy ideals of our hormone-charged youthful selves. They don’t work; either be the boring kind of people the moderns rail against (like religious, mass-armed, monarchist, creationist, complimentarian, and breeding), or be replaced by exactly such a people. Woe to you, also, if you are post-Christian. “And it invites back seven demons worse than itself,” says the Lord, “because they refused to love the truth, and so be saved,” “so that the final state of that continent is worse than the first.”

19th of January, 2015

End of the Road Medley

One calm Sunday afternoon, when I was younger, I sat in the car I owned at the time, listening to FM radio, “and this song came on the radio …”
It was a kind of revelation. I, too, would have pulled over if I had been on the expressway; but I was just lounging, smoking a tame sativa.

There is almost nothing as American-griot as what happens starting from 05:00. The two minutes after that mark may be all that is required to link Kouroussa or Wassolou to Detroit—from the Mandé djelis and Oumou Sangaré to Detroit Spinners and Eminem.