The love story between modernism and Islam.

When issues with Islam are brought up (e.g., it being taught in public schools, though some students say it's on a historical context) defenders of it being taught tend to range from Muslims to secularists. There's not much in-between. Usually the secularists attack Christianity bringing up the Crusades, a common topic that supposedly exposes the religion for immense wrongdoings, and if the person who has issues with Islam is an American they'll say that America has been been raging war for the past 200 years across the globe. My favorite counter of those who try to make the Americas be on the defense is "it's all been verified."

Both of these talking points ignore the subject matter at hand and tend to build their talking points off of inaccurate history with poor analysis.

The Crusades:

The wars America has been have many, but a good historical exercise is to learn the motivations of entering a particular war and to see if these motivations later changed once involved.

Everyday Joe & Jane.

Right now I'm upset.

I'm rather tempted to call such people dumb, flat-headed, idiots, moronic etc. You name whatever pejorative thrown at "the masses" and I'll be urged to call them that.

Why?

They really like The Donald. I'll admit I have a "Make America Great Again" hat, and I do like it, but I'm a Ted Cruz voter. The Donald won Indiana's primary, quite YUGE as well, and which therefore signaled the end of Cruz's presidential campaign. The Donald will be the GOP nominee to face the DNC nominee, who will most likely be Hillary Clinton.

And The Donald will lose in the general election. Big Time. Big. Time.

And Hillary will be the first female president.

And the SJW's and the (D)'s will have an orgy over it like they did with Obama.

I don't have anything against a female president, but let's face it - people will vote for Hillary mainly because they want to "make history" again as they did with Obama. If you were the Everyday Joe or Jane, quite apolitical, would you vote for the person who can be the first female president or the supposed sexist, xenophobic and racist Trump? Those who are "political wonks" want Madam Secretary to become a reality. It's easy to sway the Everyday Joe and Jane to vote for HC.

You had your pick of probably the most intelligent and qualified GOP candidates to choose from, Everyday Joe & Jane. You picked the least brilliant among them.

Congrats, to the non-alt-right Trump supporters. Go ahead and wave your American flags that were made in China until election day, because you won't be waving them once the votes are tallied.

The obnoxious over at Social Matter

Social Matter is one of my favorite sites, but sometimes it can be bogged down with history (some contributors are pagans and it shows; their writing, while interesting, is generally boring -- sometimes they appear to be try-hards when talking about ancient Western civilization) and sometimes gets too "I wish we were knights" and other shit like that.

Occasionally you get people in the comment box who rant and rant and ... Rant.  Take for example poster "'Reality' Doug." Notice that he calls Christian religions "Abrahamic religions," which, in my experience are people who are secularists. No Christian that I encounter calls their religion such. It's as if a homosexual who tries to pose as a straight says, "I'm a heterosexual." Those who are straight say, "I'm straight." There are two kinds of people who put their worldview in their handle: atheists and SJWs. Doug is most definitely the former. His post reads like a brick.

Then there's "G. Mayre" who's the quintessential bitter alt-right fellow.

This is partially why I'm not alt-right. In general they're way too bitter and I don't subscribe to the PUA game. I mean, what on earth do the likes of 'Reality' Doug and G. Mayre do when they try to talk to women?

"Hey, I know a lot about ancient Western civilization. I'm approaching my 40s. Single. Never had kids. I'm a MGTOW. I'm noble pagan."

Yea, that'll get the women in bed with them.

I think such people are losers despite them wearing their MGTOW badge on their arm sleeve. I'll say it: The alt-right are mostly losers and I'm not impressed with their weird fetish with ancient Western civilization. I don't think it ever made them money; I don't think they even have degrees in such a discipline.

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

Change is sometimes good. Too bad it's mostly reactionary.

Possible Mississippi flag change. The petition headed by musician Jimmy Buffet (a manatee enthusiast and activist).

If South Carolina shooter, Dylan Rood, never held up the Confederate flag the momentum of abolishing it in public spaces would be mostly dormant. This zeitgeist of removal sounds mightily familiar of those who want to remove God from dollar bills and The Pledge of Allegiance.

Of course, the irony in this analogy is upfront - God being more respected, if not revered, in the interior of the States than the coasts. One can say that the Confederate states were rebelling against the Northern states drive to control economic revenues in the South. One can say that the belief in God and the following of traditional mores is the rebellion against secularism and modernism. One can say that both, that God and the Confederate flag, are misunderstood. One can also say that many will use the Confederate flag and God to justify horrid acts against certain groups. When this happens this does not mean that the item or "being" is innately corrupted - it just means that their use is being applied wrongly.

As a Yankee, or Northerner, I do not fly the Confederate flag nor have I had any feelings of animosity towards it. After the news that Wal-mart, Amazon and ebay taking the flag off their shelves as an act of non-race hating; it was simply an agency undoubtedly filled with reactionary thought. Corporations pander towards society's supposed aggrieved groups (LGBT, women, black & illegal aliens). I feel, in this case, that they are practitioners of the pathetic mindset of "nihilistic 'equality.'"

 I will admit, the Confederate flag is an aesthetically pleasing flag. I may actually fly it one day.

Banning the Confederate Flag at the state's capital won't do any good.

It's a knee jerk reaction to the Charleston, S.C. shooting.

Banning it from sales is another knee jerk reaction. It is similar when people wanted to re-name french fries to Freedom Fries.

Of course, this is mostly due the stigma attached to the flag. Many see it as equal to the Nazi flag. When people think of the Confederate flag, at least those who are socially "progressive," they think of almost everything redneck-ish and everything that is "embarrassing" about America. This includes slavery which was present in confederate states, racism, lynching and murders in the name of white supremacy. On face value all of these things seems to form a reasonable argument to hold the flag in contempt and to ban it. I feel that the narrative, coming from social "progressives" and a modern day liberals, is incomplete. This is not to say I support slavery, lynches or white supremacy; this is to say that the black & white (the irony) picture painted by anti-Confederate flag, anti-South types, has a shallow feeling to it.

H.K. Edgerton sees things differently. 

The banning of the flag is another pathetic attempt at a "Je suis Charlie." It's a another "Hands up, Don't shoot!" attempt at solidarity. Well, Islam extremists are still causing havoc - the whole "Je suis Charlie" lasted no longer than a week and the man who agitated the terrorists was an actual bigoted atheist; turns out Brown's cry of "Hands up, Don't shoot!" mantra was born out of lies.

A ridiculous thing that has been born out of S.C. shooting is that news/culture journalists are asking Republicans and whites to take responsibility for the tragedy. I'm not white, but I find that downright insulting. Of course, journalists who say this don't like Republicans (I'm an independent voter despite by politics) and they play off the childish belief that if you're a Republican, and white, that you're probably a closeted racist and that the plight of blacks and whatever 'oppressed' group is due to the ideologies coming from the backwards, gun-toting, people who live places like the South.   

Do you know what, forget what the S.C. governor and her backers say about it. Forget the confederate flag haters. I'd rather see it be flown than the Rainbow Brigade of Non-Straights Flag. In fact, I'm going to purchase a confederate flag right now.

UPDATE: Alabama governor orders Confederate flag to be taken down from state's capital building.

If the governor of both South Carolina and Alabama feel that the Confederate flag doesn't have a place at the state's capitol what other social "progressive" issues will they back? Answer: The Supreme Court will decide on gay "marriage" this week, which absurdly is seen as the same as racial segregation and conjures up feelings of what the Confederate flag means to social "progressives."

Again, modernism - when bought into - is filled with irony. They want to erase (and only bring back the past when it's convenient) certain aspects of culture that irate them (and usually they have little to no experiences, if not understanding, with these aspects), yet they tend to replace it with something that is inferior.