« The Tyranny of Popularity - by Richard Sale | Main | Virginia's next governor ... »

21 October 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

ex-PFC Chuck
"The champion of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, turned on the Jews and wrote tracts against them when he failed to convert them."

If you ignore a few dated references to early 20th century ones Luther's On Jews and their Lies almost reads as if it came from the pages of Mein Kampf. There's a reason the reformist was one of the three figures Hitler regarded as mentors from German history. The other two were Frederick the Great and Richard Wagner.

I write this as an erstwhile Lutheran. For some reason I don't recall this screed being discussed during our confirmation classes.


The huge misunderstanding in the west is, that like you, majority people think this is about being "pro-Iran" or not. Is not about being pro Iran. Rather is about Shia minority common security need (against majority) that is what pulls everybody together. To understand better, just look at Bahrain, Yemen, and Lebanon before Hizbollah. Minority jews from all over the world pull together to support the state of Israel, do you think Shia are different? or should be?


Poland is more Catholic than Italy, and it is on the "other side". France has a much stronger presence of Catholics over Protestants, as does, for that matter, Canada, and they too are on the other side. I could go on but its rather useless, no only will you find a way to wave aside any inconsistencies, you will never consider whether you are using the wrong sociological factors much too broadly for your interpretations.

To defend and support your habit of relying on generalizations and nominal concepts, you quote Confucious's preference for clear language. However, I sincerely doubt if he meant by that the most sweeping generalization.

In your exchange with Mike, he is the one presenting contemporary historical conditions and references that dispute your claim. You are relying on the (faulty) framework you impose. (I imagine you've read the Myth of the Framework by Popper.)

Do know that I generally gain from reading your posts, and have learned how to factor in your weaknesses with your strengths, as the majority of readers here do with us all.



these rebels tried to create an Islamist theocracy You are for that? pl



This WH says a lot of stupid things, but as I am not "progressive," I prefer it to the alternative. pl

Keith Harbaugh

Colonel Lang wrote:

DJT's flawed decision was based on
the advice of his national security team.
Colonel, I believe you are completely and totally wrong in that assessment.
To explain why, let me recall some facts which I believe are indisputable:
  1. The MSM looks for any excuse to criticize Trump.
  2. As an example from the past of how the MSM works, let us recall GWB and Hurricane Katrina. The MSM and the Dems never missed a chance to fault GWB for the conditions resulting from Katrina. It was all GWB's fault!
    And opinion polls showed such blaming had a significant effect on the public's opinion of GWB.
    (BTW, an interesting comparison is how the MSM
    let BHO off the hook for the Chinese hacking of the OPM, even though
    the line of culpability for that incident led more directly to BHO
    than the Katrina problems did to GWB.)
  3. Let us also note how major parts of the MSM, certainly WaPo, have consistently claimed that our continued war in Afghanistan is necessary (so they say) to prevent further terrorist attacks on the U.S.
  4. Let us also note that over the past few years, when terrorism has struck the U.S. (the Boston marathon, the Fort Hood shooting, the Santa Barbara shooting, the various knifing attacks accompanied by a shout of "Allahu Akbar", and so on), the MSM has not tried to link this to Afghanistan.
Now let us suppose that DJT had made the decision to pull out of Afghanistan, and to let other forces determine its future.
(Which is, BTW, my preferred Afghan policy.)
Thereafter, just as the MSM laid all the problems of Katrina at the doorstep of GWB,
they would blame all future incidents of terrorism on Trump, and his decision to pull out of Afghanistan.
You can easily imagine the words that would flow:
"Trump didn't do enough to protect the U.S."
And if, by some chance, a major attack was made on the U.S.,
how easy it would be for them to suggest that our pullout from Afghanistan was a significant factor.
And just how, Colonel, could Trump protect himself from such attacks?

Well, anyhow, that's how I read the current situation and what would happen if Trump had pulled out.
And I think all that is sufficiently obvious that Trump sees the same thing.
So he made his decision simply to forestall those problems.

If that was his reasoning, he could hardly come out and explain it publically.
So he said all the things he did, essentially as a cover story.

And as to WaPo? They surely don't want to be blamed for all the negative consequences of our remaining in Afghanistan forever.
So they happily play the blame game, and blame the generals for the decision.
That's my theory, anyhow.

Babak Makkinejad

Have it your way, it all geoplotics. Poland is a pathetic case of the bootlicker.

The Twisted Genius

Christian Chuba,

"the Saudis fund NGO's that send in firebrand Wahhabist missionaries that poison the waters, then the shooting starts"

This is not the only problem we in the US have with Islamdom, but I do see this as a major problem that we should address. Our current policies only exacerbate the situation. I recommend we concentrate our efforts on depriving the Wahhabis of the ability to spread their version of Islam throughout the world. Let our "much vaunted" cyber warriors drain their coffers, sabotage their communications programs and harass every Wahhabi effort to spread their ideas. At the same time we should support mosques and NGOs other than the Wahhabis throughout the world by quietly providing and steering resources their way. I first pushed this idea when the Wahhabis latched onto the Tuaregs dream of Azawad and brought hell to Mali. Timbuktu should be a place of historic wonders and music festivals, not Wahhabi jihadists.



SST adds priceless information every day.

Middle East policy is baffling for the simple reason, American foreign policy is influenced by Israel and the Gulf Monarchies to the determinant of its national interests. The media hides this. All the money spent on the military is pointless since without conscription there is not enough men and woman to conquer and hold territory. Desert Storm was just the first battle. The Iraq War continues today, a quarter century later, with American troops and contractors still in combat there. My personal take, having only lived outside of the USA in SE Asia, is that ethnic and religious rifts are being exploited by the rich, so they can make more money. The end game doesn’t look very promising for America; bankruptcy, withdrawal and secession at home or a nuclear holocaust.

Donald Trump is the reincarnation of Boris Yeltsin. He serves the same purpose; facilitating the oligarchs looting of North America.



It doesn't matter who will be the "China Hands" of Afghanistan and be blamed. We are still going to lose. Afghanistan will remain what it is. pl

Babak Makkinejad

North European Protestanism split into a Rational Religion crowd and an Old Testament Crowd. The first one seems to have died out, the second is still around. This second one is responsible, in a major way. For the Fortress West ME policy.


I am not proposing anything! I am simply observing the dynamics thus far with no concern for the US or its policies.

Babak Makkinejad

You cannot beat something with nothing; you will need either to recruit Ikhwan or the Shia Doctors.


"In the West is, that like you, the majority of people think it is about being 'pro-Iran' or not. I was simply commenting on the original message by pl.


Could you explain your reference to "Seljuk Muslims?"

Babak Makkinejad

Nah, the guy was a well-conected anarchistic fool, supported by equally foolish and undisciplined men. We have so many... e

Babak Makkinejad

He is saying Shia are illegitimate to operate and cooperate on basis of common religiosity and common threats. For 2 reasons: it is verbotten, per the diktats of their poli sci, to have religious based politics and, furthermore, that Shia are enemied of Israel, their religious darling. When it comes to their own Puritan-inspired politics, they cannot see it.

English Outsider

These figures may give a rough framework:-

According to a 2012 review by the National Council of Churches, the five largest denominations are:[18]
The Catholic Church, 68,202,492 members
The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,136,044 members
The United Methodist Church, 7,679,850 members
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6,157,238 members
The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members



Babak Makkinejad

I would like to pose the following question to the Committee:
If the state of Israel had not existed, would US be in the same situation as she is today in ME?

English Outsider

Apologies for the split comment. The figures do support the view that there remains a substantial Christian Zionist voting bloc. In England the Evangelical wing of the C of E was I believe associated with early support for Christian Zionism, though since Zionism did not become a force until Herzl's time that is perhaps irrelevant.


It actually won't surprise you, my friend, that I don't want it all my way.

I want you to integrate "bootlicking" and other current and operative concepts (however ignoble and pathetic) into your statements on the Israeli-American relationship, or Islamic-West relations, for the sake of historical accuracy.


OT but should be of interest:

"Again, Gov’t Forces Discover Israeli Arms at ISIL Positions in Eastern Syria"


Popper is considered a shallow thinker. I've read his key works, including the Open Society and Its Enemies. It's very clear he played fast and loose with Hegel and Plato. And he flipped out when people like Thomas S. Kuhn looked at the actual mechanisms of change within the scientific continuum and found Popper's abstract notions didn't measure up to the historical record.

When you bore right down his philosophy, he had very little to say. For example, he says in the end irrationalism and rationalism are equally irrational, therefore we should choose to be rational. This is the kind of 'deep thinking' scattered all through the book.

Basically, what "Sir" Karl did was hide out at the University of New Zealand (now the U of Christchurch) during WWII writing generalized screeds indicting Western civilization for Hitler and Stalin. I'm inclined to think the real 'mythic framework' here is the Jewish persecution complex. It's also interesting Popper's co-ethnic George Soros named one of his many interfering NGOs after the 'open society' concept.

But I do agree with Mike for the record. We don't need to name drop Popper to resolve our disputes, however.


We're not going to throw great European figures under the bus just because Hitler (who, reportedly, was a prolific reader) may have come in contact with their ideas.

It's all part of a pathology of obsessively parsing our past for proto-Nazi impulses, and it has to end or it will end us. The reality is from Cicero to Kant influential Western figures have issued sharp criticisms of the Jews. Most ascendant civilizations have a very clear idea of who they are, and who they are not. Distributed throughout European lands, Jews provided a handy foil for drawing such a dialectical distinction. The chaos of the 20th century, a product of dissolution, does not invalidate apriori how our historical forbears thought about themselves.

Also, the hysterical connections made between Hitler and these figures is often grossly over stated, as the journalist Jonathan Carr pointed out in his book The Wagner Clan.


Luther was originally philo-semitic but then he actually read a copy of the Talmud and changed his opinions. That said Jesus' opinion of rabbinical Judaism is made perfectly clear repeatedly in the New Testament when he condemns the pharisees (rabbis) and their scribes (talmud). As you say neither of these are explained today which is a shame as it whitewashes Rabbinical Judaism whilst falsely condemning Christianity. Christian Zionism is instead promoted, a heresy that begun with the writing and promotion of the Scofield bible, purportedly under the supervision of Mr Samuel Untermeyer.

The Church of England continues to be mildly critical of Israel, so I assume their offshoot the Episcopalians is too.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad