what about the jews? i blame the christians, i blame the muslims. why don't i blame the jews?

well, first of all, nobody blames the jews. when the jews are to be blamed, we blame ze jews. 

i'm talking about colonialism, very explicitly, and in the context of this discussion, the jews really don't count. gentillism notwithstanding, and perhaps i am wrong, but i am not aware of a single example of a jewish state ever trying to conquer, convert or colonize anybody. the jews have needed to defend themselves throughout history, but israel never tried to conquer egypt or syria or arabia. there might have been a jewish kingdom north of the caucasus in the middle ages, but the stories told about it are dubious and it's existence is difficult to even prove at all. this would have been a majority turkish state, if it did exist. the story is that they adopted judaism to counter the christian russians to their north and the muslim arabs to their south, so they didn't have to be absorbed by either, and could play them off against each other. there's perhaps a warning embedded in this that judaism could be a colonizing or imperial force, but the fact is that there is no actual clear example of that happening anywhere on the planet and anywhere in history.

except joshua. i guess. but they were joshing about joshua. that never actually happened.

if you look closely behind the scenes, there's often some sneaky jewish oligarch making plans for aristocrats and generals. i have to give you that. however, that wasn't what the spread of christianity was really about. you can't blame christianity on the jews; it would be more accurate to blame it on the greeks, anyways.

it's hard to get your head into the mindset of the political, social, religious and military leaders around the collapse of a decaying empire, and what they might have imagined the outcome of forcing this religion on everybody might have been, but the writing they have left behind (the bit that was vandalized and rewritten repeatedly rather than just burned and forgotten) tells us they were trying to build a common culture to unify the empire. this is understandable, on some level. american culture, from cherry pies to hamburgers and rock and roll, is a pretty real unifying force across the pond, from the beatles' days in hamburg to the british invasion and beyond. we think we have a common culture, and we do, but it's not about a shared appreciation of shakespeare or voltaire, it's about the gramscian conditioning of american beliefs on the conquered peoples, and we've got this figured out way better than the romans ever did. the romans inherited pan-hellenism, and that worked in the east (it is the real culprit behind christianity), but the west was half carthaginian and half celtic and slowly being conquered by germans and there was no history of a unified culture or even a cohesive civilization in these regions, who had been dealing with greek and lebanese traders and settlers on their land for centuries and clearly didn't like it. something that happened repeatedly during the same period that christianity developed in egypt, syria and greece was that the gaulic west (britain, france, spain) tried to split away from rome and form an independent celtic empire. this independent celtic empire was roman and latin, to be clear, but it held to it's own customs, it held to it's own religion and it may have held to dialects of gallic, while not wanting to be completely cut off from the roman world (and it never had been. the primary source of tin in the west had been britain for hundreds of years previously. the city of marseilles was founded by greeks; barcelona was founded by lebanese. we don't know how far out to sea the egyptians or carthaginians made it. these regions were integrated into the trade networks, going back centuries.). so, the empire was falling apart and the social engineers wanted to find a way to extend panhellenism to the west of the empire to keep it together. you can't blame them for wanting to do that, but you can blame them for showing up with swords and ordering people around; that, however, was a pretty roman thing to do and not much of a jewish thing or much of a greek thing to do at all. the romans liked showing up with swords and ordering people around. the spread of christianity was just one of the many ways they did that, in the end.

so, i don't blame ze jews for christianity and i don't think christianity is even really that jewish. christianity is fundamentally platonic. islam breaks with christianity in being more about aristotle than plato, which is one of the reasons islam is so much worse than christianity.

the weird thing about ze jews is that they were basically indo-europeans anyways. judaism takes it's basic themes from zoroastrianism and is essentially a sky god religion, in the indo-european tradition. there is nothing much like yahweh in traditional semitic religion; yahweh is really more like thor or zeus. we know that existing judaism was reformed in the hellenic period to align with platonism itself, and we know it was heavily influenced by zoroastrianism on it's way out of captivity. the extent to which it may have mingled with greek invaders in the bronze age collapse is itself unclear. the stories that do have clearly semitic connections (like the flood) are general myths from the region and seem distanced from their origin by several layers. in a lot of ways, judaism is closer to greek or roman paganism than christianity is, and should seem less problematic to a pagan than christianity would.

but this is all very abstract.

the basic historical fact is that jews just don't conquer or colonize. they just don't. that's an islamo-christian thing.

there is a conflict of narratives in defining european identity. i get it.

this is the correct narrative:

https://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/07/how-european-true-identity-was-destroyed-when-christianity-moved-in/

one of the things i cannot tolerate about the contemporary fake left, and do not have common ground with them on, is their negation of a secular humanist narrative. i move beyond criticism of them on this point.

islam is basically the same thing as christianity, except 10x or 100x worse.

we won this fight already.

we don't want to go back to that.

the canadian government's issue with india has a number of layers. i don't think any of them are substantive and i don't think any of them should be supported by anybody, but trudeau's party machinery thinks attacking india is going to be populist for the following reasons:

1) trudeau has failed in securing a free trade agreement with india, and is lashing out like a four year-old child that didn't get what he wanted.

2) trudeau has been criticized for a trip to india he made where he and his family put on indian clothing, like a dress rehearsal for a play or something.

3) partly due to the absence of the free trade agreement, and in a reckless act of obliviousness regarding our relationship with the americans, the liberal party is trying to curry favour with the chinese by aligning against india, and by generally trying to create problems with india.

4) sikhs are a powerful lobbying group in canada with an incredibly disproportionate amount of power. that is actually true.

5) the liberals also seem to be specifically targeting indian students and scapegoating them for the housing crisis. there is some truth to this, but it's trudeau's fault not theirs and the messaging from the liberals on the issue has some dark undertones that have to do with their polytheism, which is seen poorly by powerful sikh and muslim elements in the party.

6) there has been a growing anti-india undercurrent in upper class fake left circles for the last several years that has to do with conflicts between the invading and colonizing muslim minority in india and the indigenous hindu majority, which seeks to protect it's culture and history from encroachment by muslim and arab (and iranian) colonialism.

it's the last point that i'm interested in because i think that the west (north america and europe) should be prioritizing india as a major ally because we have an indigenous cultural overlap with india that we don't have with the middle east, africa or china in the sense that indian religion is exceedingly similar to (and in many ways exactly the same as) the indigenous european religions of the celts, germans, slavs, romans, hittites, persians and greeks. we all speak dialects of the same language and we all had similar cultural and religious beliefs; further, we are all struggling against the effects of islamo-christological imperialism and colonialization by christians and muslims of middle eastern origin. buddhism is also a force in india, and we know today it was introduced by greeks after alexander and is not ancient, as was previously thought. indian historians understand the important role that hellenism played in india in the classical period. as a westerner, it is at the core of my culture and identity to stand in solidarity with indian nationalism against the effects of islamic colonialism, and to stand in support of deislamification in india, in parallel to the ongoing but largely completed process of dechristianization in europe and america. a close cultural relationship with indigenous indian religion can help us better understand who we are, as westerners and as europeans and as decendents of european settlers. 

a big part of the reason that india is being targeted is due to the ongoing attempts by muslims to colonize it. muslims tend to have a special level of disdain for hindus. this is coming out in the diaspora politics and identity politics in the liberal party.

this tilt towards islam and in conflict with indian polytheism has powerful lobbying voices but it is not the direction that we should go in in the west as it would be undoing the dechristianization process that culminated in the french revolution, which was our final break with the past. conservatives in europe tend to get confused about this or outright deny that europe was forcibly colonized in a violent series of wars and genocides that even included crusades in france and poland, the latter during what we would generally call the age of reason (that is, extremely late), and that even included an inquisition to burn the indigenous women, who held to their indigenous customs the longest. we have already fought this war, and it was a long war, a thousand year war, and we won it. christianity has been defeated in the west. let us align not with a new christian menace in the form of islam, but with our indigenous roots in indo-european polytheism.

for that reason, i am going to come down extremely harshly on the liberals if they push this stupid fight with india for stupid reasons that are not in the interest of canada and not in the interest of western civilization.

a re-embrace of polytheism also makes sense in redesigning our culture to embrace holistic meaning in the process of decarbonization. the garden of eden, and genesis in general, is a stupid and retarding myth that has screwed up how we approach resource management and needs to be thrown in the trash. indigenous and polytheistic cultures are less likely to see humans as unique or created to control or steward and more likely to see themselves as a part of a complex ecological web that needs to co-exist in nature rather than dominate over it. we need this change of mindset, and overthrowing the patriarchal hierarchical social model in the monotheistic religions is central to getting to that point.

i'm not exactly proposing that you believe in athena or shivu or vishnu or thor as actual real things, and it's not clear how seriously that was ever actually taken. what i am proposing is that this is exactly the shift in culture we need in order to survive and an indo-european compact and alliance based on shared indigenous beliefs and value systems is likely the best vehicle to actually do it.

trump might actually even win the popular vote.

that makes no sense. the democrats have demographic dominance, but their candidates consistently suck.

no.

israel is a strategic asset worth defending.

they should reroute money and resources from ukraine to protect israel, if necessary. yes, that is what putin wants, but it demonstrates the reality that going into ukraine was a mistake in the first place.

nato will eventually withdraw from ukraine with untold billions or trillions spent, and can only hope it hurts the russians more, which was the strategy but is an unclear outcome.

https://apnews.com/article/army-israel-thaad-air-defense-strains-e49a65aaaf3a4ff051b54eebb869f241

jd vance is beginning to identify himself as a classic demagogic fascist in waiting and i'm beginning to wonder if it's worth voting for harris to block him from office.

the main reason i endorsed hillary clinton in 2016 was to block pence, which didn't seem helpful, in hindsight. i'm apprehensive about falling into the same trap, but i think vance will be a more substantive pick in terms of function.

i can't understand why anybody would take a man that looks like a chimp and has the grooming etiquette of a dog seriously, but the thing about demagogues is that they're successful con artists because they find out what you want to hear and say it. i don't want to hear anything from a man like vance at all. somebody that's dealing with a mortgage they can't afford and food they can't buy might be more open to suggestion. it's the immense increase in inequality in the united states over the last five years that allows a vance to be possible.

i'm not there yet, but his ability to effortlessly produce not just bald-faced lies but incoherent bald-faced lies is very worrying. large amounts of what he says cannot be deconstructed at all because it is literally incoherent; he has a tendency of putting words together in a manner that produces no discernible meaning. this isn't hyperbole. he projects meaning between the words, but the words themselves frequently have no meaning, and if you stop to try to deconstruct it, you'll instantly run across this outcome. what?

there's enough in front of us to produce serious concern.