patrick.net

gabbar says

Muslims will not assimilate with the majority; they would want the majority to assimilate with them because they are superior because of their religion.

Yes, and this is another point of similarity between the US and the Roman Empire.

The Romans were successful at assimilating most people, but they found the Jews indigestible and ultimately crushed them. Yet in the long term, an offshoot of Judaism (Christianity) colonized Rome.

America is successful at assimilating most people, but Muslims are similarly indigestible. It will be interesting to see what happens in the long run.

Muslims do not assimilate anywhere or get along. While minority they talk Equality, once majority they kill off whole culture, historic buildings , etc.

About 200 to 600 years ago afganistan , Pakistan, Indonesia, bangladesh were all diverse non Muslim now 100% Muslim. Few years back they were destroying 5 story Buddha statues in afganistan.

Abrahmic religion jews, Islam n Christianity are at war for longest time.

KgK one says

About 200 to 600 years ago afganistan , Pakistan, Indonesia, bangladesh were all diverse non Muslim now 100% Muslim. Few years back they were destroying 5 story Buddha statues in afganistan.

Do you know why they did this?

Western nations were offering to help restore the statues, but Afghanistan had been at war with the USSR for years, and was desperately poor. They had starvation at the time, but the West wouldn't help, but they offered to protect the statues, but not help the people.

Our media never mentioned that.

The US was in Afghanistan before, and spent many hundreds of millions (billions today), since the 1950s.

There's footage of American Engineers and their families celebrating Christmas in Kabul with a decorated tree sometime around 1960.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan

King Mohammad Zahir Shah had ruled over Afghanistan that was large scale violence free (not including the usual clan wars) for decades and before that there was 200 years of Monarchy.

The USSR destroyed Afghanistan by sponsoring several Communist Revolutions (not every leader/cadre was to their liking) starting in 1973. However the "Prime Minister" Daoud Khan was not Communist enough for the USSR, and was too warm with the US and Pakistan, so in 1978 there was a second Coup by hardliners in the same party as Khan. The Soviets denied their support, but backed the regime. Then there was another coup between elements of the Socialist Party, and in 1979 the USSR invaded. Both post-Khan regimes were Communist and immediately began massive "land reform".

Interesting thing about Communist Activists, many seem to come from at least comfortable circumstances:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babrak_Karmal

AmericanKulak says

The USSR destroyed Afghanistan by sponsoring several Communist Revolutions (not every leader/cadre was to their liking) starting in 1973. However the "Prime Minister" Daoud Khan was not Communist enough for the USSR, and was too warm with the US and Pakistan, so in 1978 there was a second Coup by hardliners in the same party as Khan. The Soviets denied their support, but backed the regime. Then there was another coup between elements of the Socialist Party, and in 1979 the USSR invaded. Both post-Khan regimes were Communist and immediately began massive "land reform".

I'm glad the USSR is dead, but I can entertain the idea that the US was actually helping the country at that time, although I'm probably being overly optimistic about that, considering Operation PBSuccess and Ajax.

I don't think it's wrong to exploit a nation, PROVIDED that nation benefits mutually. It's cheaper to install a dictator and setup a secret police than it is to give a nation prosperity and that's what the US has been doing for a long long time. China is (sort of?) providing prosperity, because it provides LONG TERM benefit. You can setup a dictatorship, but it will only last for a few decades at most. Become a savior, and I think you get a friend for life.

The US war in Afghanistan had nothing to do about removing the Taleban or even getting binLaden, it was primarily about running oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/europe/pipeline100598.htm

That's from 1998. 9/11 was an excuse. The US had plans for Afghanistan long before 9/11. I don't agree with the Taleban's version of Islam, but it's their country. We shouldn't interfere. The Taleban opposes opium production, and they oppose bacha bazi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

However, they don't think females should have the opportunity for an education. I'm a westerner. It's an alien culture to me. Anyhow, 2 out of 3 isn't bad.

richwicks says

KgK one says

About 200 to 600 years ago afganistan , Pakistan, Indonesia, bangladesh were all diverse non Muslim now 100% Muslim. Few years back they were destroying 5 story Buddha statues in afganistan.

Do you know why they did this?

Yes, because they considered the statues "un-Islamic," and publicly said so. Just like how Stalin blew up cathedrals in the name of Communism.

HeadSet says

Yes, because they considered the statues "un-Islamic," and publicly said so. Just like how Stalin blew up cathedrals in the name of Communism.

No.

It was a protest in that the West was offering to help preserve the statues, but not preserve the people.

richwicks says

I'm glad the USSR is dead, but I can entertain the idea that the US was actually helping the country at that time, although I'm probably being overly optimistic about that, considering Operation PBSuccess and Ajax.

I mentioned the 200-year monarchy to show that Afghanistan wasn't ALWAYS a hellhole of large antagonistic groups (though always had low level clan fighting) as claimed.

Forgot to mention the USSR poured huge sums into Afghanistan to extract resources as well in the 50s-80s and built pipelines to connect to their 'Stans in the North.

AmericanKulak says

I mentioned the 200-year monarchy to show that Afghanistan wasn't ALWAYS a hellhole of large antagonistic groups (though always had low level clan fighting) as claimed.

I cannot say I know much of anything about Afghanistan prior to the 1950's, and not much about it in the 1950's, but I do know the Taleban is basically the Mujaheddin. Our government creates bullshit problems in order to come up with bullshit solutions.

AmericanKulak says

Forgot to mention the USSR poured huge sums into Afghanistan to extract resources as well in the 50s-80s and built pipelines to connect to their 'Stans in the North.

Well, to be fair, Afghanistan had a communist government at the time and asked the USSR for assistance, the US frustrated this by funding and arming Afghan "freedom fighters".

The US wanted to get into Afghanistan, in part, to put pipelines through from the Caspian sea - that's PART of why the US invaded. I am not a fan of the Taleban, but just fucking do some negotiation for once, America! Just once. They'll spend TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS and killed 100's of thousands because they are too retarded to just negotiate.

All the US has to do is make an offer that is good enough, with the threat of military force. Instead, we lost Afghanistan entirely and there's no damned pipeline anyhow. Our government killed 3000 people in NYC and a few in DC and got NOWHERE. The pipeline could have been operating in 2005.

I know the Taleban aren't good chummy guys, nobody is but they're still in power. The entire thing was a triple distilled class A fuckup. I can't believe that the people that engineered this bullshit, are allowed anywhere near power. Their latest disaster is Ukraine. Russia is not going to be significantly weakened by this war, they are NOT going to try to end the war any time soon, they are going to draw it out, because fuck Europe, they've tried to work with Europe for 2 decades, and Europe is just a bunch of American cocksockers, so they wouldn't. It would be mutually beneficial for Europe and Russia to work together, but they won't because all that delicious NATO money and I'm sure all their "leaders" or bought off by the US.

Ukraine might be the end of NATO, it might even be the end of the EU.

Look, nobody trusts the United States anymore, if you don't realize that's a problem, it is. LOOK at our media, look at our politicians screaming "Russian disinformation" when truth comes out. Do you think China, India, and Russia aren't looking at this and laughing? Our government REGULARLY calls the truth "propaganda" and propaganda "fact checks".

This would work if they used it sparingly, but they don't, they use it constantly. Meanwhile, Russia doesn't even BOTHER with propaganda (that I'm aware of) - what does it matter? Propaganda won't win or lose the Ukraine war and it won't change US policy.

https://notthebee.com/article/please-enjoy-tucker-and-russell-brand-handing-out-redpills-about-architecture



As Tucker rightly points out, those buildings are beautiful because the people who built them were all related to each other or at least knew each other.

In a highly diverse society, no one gives a shit because they are not related to each other and probably don't know each other.

Not sure if Europe is diverse or homogeneous? Depends on how u look at it. Mostly white, n Christian but various language etc.

But they are at war pretty much all the time. Rome vs Germany
French vs England
Ww1
Ww2
May be ww3 now

KgK one says

May be ww3 now

Is it to the advantage of Europe, any country in Europe, to go to war with Russia?

I almost think NATO will be broken up, the American occupation of Europe will end (that is what NATO really is!), and Europe may align itself with Russia and leaving the UK out of it which is interesting, because this is the fictional map of 1984:



https://www.openculture.com/2018/01/a-map-of-george-orwells-1984.html - yellow areas are "disputed zones", basically in anarchy, or possibly free.

The UK will align itself with the United States.

@VivekGRamaswamy

“Diversity” is not our strength. Our strength is what unites us across our diversity. Free speech. Self-governance. Meritocracy. TRUTH.

Boom! Another truth bomb from Ramaswamy.

Patrick says

VivekGRamaswamy

“Diversity” is not our strength. Our strength is what unites us across our diversity. Free speech. Self-governance. Meritocracy. TRUTH.

Boom! Another truth bomb from Ramaswamy.

they all know the right thing to say, but they always do their donor biddings. its marketing of a candidate.

Diversity works in favor of people who have money and power now, so they will support this agenda. But this is being spread in a toxic manner to the people (not the rich), there may be a better way for the rich to do this but this again depends on what is profitable. Imo

Yes, diversity divides the public so that they cannot agree on anything.

And when the public cannot agree on anything, they cannot control the rich and powerful via democracy.

Democracy is supposed to be above any elite class, but it doesn't work if there is too much diversity.

Yes it is more like tribalism

Truth over Tribalism

No more low standards, no more "math is racist", no more neo-Marxist policies, no more AntFa-style anarcho-tyranny

NO MORE !

Patrick says

Democracy is supposed to be above any elite class, but it doesn't work if there is too much diversity.

And such nations descend into chaos and deceleration of societal and national progress (has not happened in our country so far, probably, from a financial standpoint, thanks to brrrrrrrr).

ad says

NEVER going to happen. Never.

I took a term of Yiddish in college. We read a poem in class, which I can't find online, but started something like this (in my bad transliteration of Yiddish):

Alle menschen seinen brider,
Veise, schwartze, gele, broyne.
S'iz and oysgetrachte meise...

All men are brothers,
White, black, yellow, brown.
It's a made up fairy-tale...

The poem was about how people of different races will never get along and we're each better off with our own people.

If you haven't recorded your bloodlines all the way to Eve and the Snake, then you deserve what you get.

Patrick says

we're each better off with our own people.

.



.

https://covidreason.substack.com/p/a-personal-note-on-the-battle-of

No one emigrated to France to become French. No one emigrates to Italy to become Italian. It used to be that people emigrated to America to become “American.”

That last part is important. That used to be the glue that held us together. I fear we’re losing that.

In short, the fastest growing demographic in the modern world is also the one most opposed to liberal democracies and republics. That’s a problem.

Muslims make Mexicans look good by comparison. Mexicans have their issues with crime and violence, but as a rule they don't want to kill you just because you are not one of them. So Europe has a bigger problem than we do.

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1712457240517492869

... because it creates a pressure group inside each country that does that.

Patrick says

... because it creates a pressure group inside each country that does that.

wonder how Woke and AntiFa here in USA would respond to this ... maybe say Kissinger is senile ...

It blows my mind how people don't inherently KNOW this.