That Kevin Barrett guy in the interview I linked above is a philosophiweeb. He's a Muslim convert. A traitor. I don't care how "based" he is; a white man who converts to Islam is a traitor. If you don't have a deep, abiding hatred for the presence of Islam in the West, your head isn't screwed on straight.

To build on Charlemagne’s point here, the type of person that supports Islam in the West because it’s “based” views religion as a utility and not as truth and heritage. The only way a white westerner can reach the conclusion that “Islam is based unlike those christcucks so we should all become Muslim hellholes like Syria” is if they have no care for the concept of god, let alone the actual God. Same too with the concept of heritage and their actual heritage. It’s all just philosophical fetishes for them.

From my business law class

I find this interesting. There’s a lot of patterns here.

Supposedly I belong to a church claiming the entire lineage of Christianity from the creation of the world till now, yet things like this are published and I’m having the most difficult time imagining this taught anytime before, say, 1930 and maybe even 1910.

We’re also at the point where our synod president is so focused on showing how the left are the real racists that he’s kindly speaking about racial communists from another era

Later on we have an open admission that positions on crime, poverty, state assistance, immigration, and climate policy are amoral so the clergy can just sit back and let the sheep fend for themselves

And don’t worry all you good anti-racists out there, the LCMS is anti-racist too! But not too far!

We here at the LCMS think that the Revolution can just be halted in one comfortable area without progressing to all the nasty stuff.

Here’s the infuriating contradiction. We can’t offer specific policy because that’s an overreach and wording on policy is hard.

But we can condemn “discrimination.” What is meant by this? They sure won’t tell you. It could be anything from hateful choices to family preference.

And finally our synod president ends the article declaring that the church is above petty secular politics and that it doesn’t follow the world.

And in the next breath it condemns “racist” policy.

I can’t think of a more fitting end to this article.

I'm afraid I've participated in a grave disservice to the broader dissident right wing by helping convince people that the US is strictly evil and lies about everything on the Cigar Streams.

I was on a lot of these Cigar Streams with Charlemagne saying the exact same things, and I was careless. I didn’t take into account that the internet thinks in black and white.

I could preface what I say with “extrapolate nothing beyond what I say,” but that still doesn’t fix the problem. I now realize I can’t just say “The USG is evil,” because a large contingency automatically thinks “everything US must be evil.”

I understand the impulse to embrace non western things, but the China worship within the right and increasingly within catholic circles is becoming truly disgusting. China sucks! I don't know if you've noticed, but people die in industrial accidents all the time, the pollution is horrible, and nobody gives a shit about human life.

I think this is a reaction to Boomers saying things like “the commies are our #1 enemies forever and only.”

It is impossible for a group of people to be 100% wrong. Just because the Boomers dislike China does not mean that the Right needs to embrace China. In fact, we have much better reasons than the Boomers to dislike China.

Watching Claremont and other conservative establishments give Jack Murphy a platform and voice doesn't surprise me, but if I wanted to watch someone sodomize themselves I'd just watch the GOP speak at AIPAC.

A couple people have already jumped on this, but I see a very interesting detail here:

“100% corrupt”

Why do I find this detail interesting? “The reason why it’s hard to conquer a country like Turkey is that there are no barons to invite you in and you can’t expect anyone to make your invasion easier by rebelling against the king. This follows naturally from the situation as described above; since all subjects are the king’s servants and indebted to him it’s hard to corrupt them, and even assuming you do manage to bribe someone he’s not likely to be much help because he can’t bring any local people along with him, this again for the reasons I’ve explained. So, anyone attacking this kind of country has to reckon that he will find it united against him and hence has to rely on his own armed forces rather than on any mutiny in enemy ranks.”


To take the inverse, an empire can only be 100% corrupt in one point in time, specifically immediately before it collapses.

https://t.me/BertieBassett4Life/8010

Why did I care so much about the evangelical streams that I did, and why did I focus on the details that we spent hours on? So that hopefully someone in our audience doesn’t go on to believe this hogwash.

If you thought that last excerpt from my homework was outrageous

From G