Yes well that's something I considered unfortunate but not at all surprising from the moment I heard he was running for office in 2024 (this is his 2nd go around), he's literally a boomer (born 1955) and I would frankly have been astonished if it turned out he wasn't pro-Israel like the overwhelming majority of his generation regardless of whether they're boomercons/libs.
Welp, they can't all be Pat Buchanan (if that guy's even a boomer, I don't remember his birthyear atm).
RIP one of the old great action stars & the vanishingly few (now fewer still) Hollywood stars who was an OK guy I can think of, as well as a memetic legend of my childhood and I'm sure many others'.
White people are also the reason why India even exists as a unified entity, instead of the mass of feuding shitholes (with the occasional fast-decaying empire, which however still couldn't unite the whole subcontinent as the British did, thrown in) it used to be until the British East India Company sailed in. Dinesh should be a lot grateful to the white man, who are the only reason he can even call himself an Indian at all instead of merely Konkani.
Well, in post-Assad Syria's case it's the Druze & Alawite (Assad's own sect, generally regarded as an Islamic heresy) massacres. While some Christians have definitely been killed by the victorious Islamists, the number is much lower than those other two sects: about seven confirmed Christian dead in the same coastal massacres in springtime where 1,500-2,000 Alawites were killed, and a slightly higher number in the summer massacres of Druze in Suwayda (I remember reading an article about a Christian preacher & his family being murdered in their home).
Still horrific of course, but it's a fact that (so far, anyway) Christians have avoided being targeted in large-scale massacres unlike the other two. Most likely has to do with a combination of Christians not being as hated by the Syrian jihadis because they kept a pretty low profile under Assad (and thus aren't viewed as 'sectarian butchers' against whom sectarian butchery would be fair game, unlike Alawites) and Al-Sharaa thinking that treating them with a lighter hand will win him some goodboy points with the Christian element of the GOP (probably why he made a PR stunt out of putting Christmas trees toppled by his most fanatical fighters back up when he first conquered Aleppo).
As for the Druze & Alawites, of course they're primarily hated for being heretics from 'true' Islam in the eyes of the Islamists, as is the default. However the Druze are especially hated now because they're seen as Mossad pawns - Hikmat al-Hijri, their theocratic leader who was previously loyal to Assad but started shifting sides around 2021-23 as the Syrian economy declined even further, has been shilling really hard for Israeli intervention & the creation of a Jewish-backed Druze state, while his men literally raised Israeli flags over their territory after the IAF bombed Damascus. Alawites are extra-hated because obviously they were Assad's sect, it's like a religious version of how Zimbabweans would look at Rhodesians or how the EFF regards Boers in South Africa.
In southern Syria right now it's looking like the Jews have managed to set up a win-win: the optimal outcome for them would be to fracture Syria entirely and establish that Druze client state Al-Hijri wants among other things. (The Druze are 100% reliant on Israel for survival atm, they've proven to be lousy fighters who can't win long term even with Israeli air support - which is why Bibi suddenly approved pushing for a ceasefire about 2 days after bombing Damascus supposedly to save the Druze from a genocide - and Jordan's border with them is still sealed because Al-Hijri is also a huge captagon trafficker.) But even if Al-Sharaa wins, he's made it clear that he doesn't want to fight for the Golan Heights (which Israel is deadset on keeping) anyway and the inevitable ethnic cleansing of Druze will allow Netanyahu to resettle them in Israeli-occupied Quneitra Governorate in far SW Syria (it's been largely depopulated since the 6 Day and Yom Kippur Wars) to lock that buffer-for-his-buffer down. It wouldn't terribly surprise me if we later find out that both Al-Sharaa and Al-Hijri are Mossad agents, or at least assets lmao.
On the larger scale and more relevant to America, I think the American defense establishment just wants to get out of the Middle East and finally pivot to contend with China in the Pacific, it's something they've been going on about since the Obama years. Betting on Al-Sharaa to be another one of their Sunni satraps and making the minimum effort to rein Bibi in from actually blowing up Syria (thereby destabilizing the region even harder) is probably another move in that direction, unsavory as it may be. (Especially for Trump, a New Yorker breaking bread with a 'former' AQ emir is as unimaginable even five years ago for me as other New Yorkers voting in a Muslim jeet, but here we are...)
Unfortunately, Generalissimo Franco clearly did not go far enough
In the Vatican's defense (sort of), they DID actually try to help out the Christian side in the Biafra War (southeast Nigerian Christians trying to secede from the country in the '60s, because at the time Nigeria had been hijacked by a Muslim military coup). It ended badly for their chosen faction, and the Biafrans have only risen again very recently.
Said war also became a memetic sensation some years back because of the absolutely batshit insane alliances involved (somehow the US, Soviet Union, Syria and Saudi Arabia were all on the side of the Nigerian gov't while Biafra was backed by France, Red China, West Germany, the Vatican, South Africa & Rhodesia among others; Czechoslovakia helped Biafra until the Soviets buckbroke them in '68; and Israel sold weapons to both sides because of course the Jews would do that).
Wikipedia has naturally deleted all the fun from their article on the conflict some time after that video got made, but we might get to see something similarly hilarious if the present-day hostilities escalate.
The Nigerian Christians actually don't want to come to the West either. The Islamists are genociding them in such numbers precisely because they refused to give up & leave their rightful homelands after the first couple years of massacres, instead they dug in their heels and shot back.
This is also why MSM and left-wingers online usually try to frame the war as a herder-farmer conflict over resources & grazelands rather than a religious conflict; see, for example, the Wikipedo article on this subject. That effort started back when it became clear that the Christians weren't just going to roll over & die or flee without a fight, and the Fulani jihadists decided to play victim to combat the international sympathy their enemies were getting.
You can get a small insight into the Nigerian Christians' mindset just by listening to their songs. Silly & memey as African propaganda songs tend to be (and this is no exception), I think it's a good sign that the singer calls on his audience to continue fighting to defend themselves, their families & their homes instead of bailing out to the West or really anywhere else.
I was rooting for him last year, unfortunately he didn't make it through the Republican primary for that particular House seat (and the guy who did beat him & the other Republican contenders ended up losing to this Susie Lee anyway). Hope he wins both the primary & the actual House election next year.
NV's 3rd Congressional district is a purple one according to Wikipedo, so much so that not only have all but the first of Lee's victories been by pretty narrow margins (~3% each time) but Trump actually won it last year, so it could conceivably be won by a strong enough Republican. Here's crossing my fingers that Marty's that Republican.
I can't remember who said it but one of the arguments against America having a republic instead of a monarchy was "I would rather have one tyrant 3,000 miles away than 3,000 tyrants one mile away."
You're almost certainly thinking of the local colonial assembly scene from early in The Patriot, something like this line was said by Mel Gibson's character. He does end up fighting the forces of the 'one tyrant 3,000 miles away' anyway though. Also by the time of the Revolutionary War the British monarchs had no power, Parliament had become supreme in the aftermath of the English Civil War & the Glorious Revolution, so really the colonies were being ruled by '3,000 tyrants 3,000 miles away'. It's why the Olive Branch Petition sent to George III by the Continental Congress never could've worked even if the king had read & sympathized with it, the power was not his to give away and certainly Parliament wasn't about to cede their power.
Overall I think it's less a question of what specific system you need to have in place and more a question of local, decentralized vs. distant, centralized authority. Much of Western political history until about the 18-19th centuries (when the centralists won pretty much everywhere outside of the USA, and there their victories have been piling up through the 20th century instead) has been defined by the constant struggle between local elites vs. the elites in the metropolitan center of each country (London, Paris, etc.)
In hindsight, the rule of a local elite - nobleman, parish priest, etc. doesn't really matter as much as the fact that they come from & live in your neighborhood - is pretty much always preferable over that of the distant centrally-based bureaucrat and/or politician in the long run, often in the short run too, even if they are 'tyrannical'. A locally-based ruler is not only more accessible, but he has to be more responsive to their constituents' needs too, because he runs a much higher risk of being run out of town or lynched by said constituents if he pisses them off too much compared to the distant ruler. He is also much more likely to be familiar with, and interested in preserving, the customs & traditions of his community compared to said distant ruler (ex. in France, local Breton and Occitan lords spoke and didn't try to suppress their own regional cultures, that came after the Paris-centric modern French state bulldozed them and viewed the local cultures as threats to central authority & uniformity).
Now there are circumstances that make having an overarching central authority beneficial or even necessary, even before the Industrial Revolution and industrialization of warfare. The Founding Fathers acknowledged this truth, that's why the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. A fractious, hopelessly decentralized confederacy of de facto independent states dominated entirely by insular local interests would've been piss easy for great powers like Britain/Spain/France to divide, conquer & partition; you need only look at what happened to Poland around the same time to get a picture of what would've actually happened to a US that stuck to the Articles down the road.
But as a rule, it's generally best to decentralize internal governance & domestic policy down to as local a level (and thus, as close to the governed) as feasible. What 'feasible' looks like keeps changing with developments in society & technology though. Throw in the natural human ambitions of, as said, local vs. central elites in there and you have a constant struggle that must be fought generation after generation, but it is what it is - part of the human condition that we all have to live with until & unless some apocalyptic event that changes everything (whether it's the Second Coming, a Deus Ex-like technological singularity, etc.) happens.
Valencia was a stronghold of the left-wing Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, served as one of their temporary capitals (November 1936-October 1937, they moved to Barcelona after the dominant Stalinist faction defeated local anarchists for control of that other city) and was one of the last Republican cities to fall to the Nationalists. In hindsight clearly, as with too many other parts of Spain, Franco wasn't nearly as harsh on the place as he needed to be nor as they deserved.
Well unfortunately he did, he didn't throw nearly enough commies out of helicopters. Chile's incumbent president is a lifelong socialist activist (shit-stirrer) who almost succeeded in replacing the constitution and although the hard-right candidate's chances are looking good in the upcoming election next month, there's still a non-zero chance that he could be succeeded by a literal Communist instead.
Now Suharto, that man set the high score for commie-killing worldwide, and was so thorough with his work that Communism still hasn't been able to make a comeback in his country (Indonesia) 70 years later the way it has in places like Chile and Spain. The Suharto Solution would also be the optimal, and certainly most satisfying, way of dealing with creatures like this chomo Antifaggot Hampe & all his friends.
Well, of course the Church of Nice™ would do that, fuck them. I did like the immediate contrast between Kirk's widow Erika saying she forgave the assassin and Trump bluntly stating he hates his enemies & doesn't wish the best for them though. These concepts have been long-lost in translation between the ages, but Christian thought used to draw firm distinctions between forgiveness (which is for the wronged party, that they might move on with their lives without vengeance consuming them); mercy (which is for the guilty party and only to be dispensed under certain circumstances, not unconditionally); and justice (which must be administered before mercy can even be considered).
The widow forgave her husband's killer, fine, that's her personal decision. But the state, here represented by Trump, still has the responsibility of administering justice regardless of her personal feelings. And the only mercy Robinson deserves for the crime of murdering a man who had done him no wrong save spouting opinions to the right of Mao, in the exceedingly unlikely event that he were to repent, is a quick death rather than a slow and torturous one. I don't think it was intentional, but it was also a symbolic moment IMO when the grieving widow - after all her words of forgiveness - still ended up leaning on the man who symbolized the sword of lawful authority & had expressed his determination to seek unforgiving justice.
Christians would do well to remember the words executioners engraved on the blades with which they did their necessary duty in history: 'When this sword I do lift, - I wish the sinner eternal life as gift.'
Reminds me of Innokenty Smolin, the only known high-ranking Jew to fight against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War, and who by all accounts was one of the most competent & loyal officers in the service of the White leader Admiral Kolchak. Or the one Jew known to have fought on the Nationalist side in the Spanish Civil War, Emmanuel Rudolph Vischer (unfortunately unlike Smolin he got killed very early on, in the first year of the war, and probably by one of the many more Jews fighting for the Republican enemy).
Seems as though in every great generational sociopolitical struggle, you can still find at least one Jew who isn't a piece of shit. And I did like the combative tone of Miller's speech, draws the hard line between those who build civilizations & those who know nothing but to corrupt and destroy very firmly with zero ambiguity, and certainly promising nothing but bad things for the latter. That & Trump's 'I don't want the best for my enemies' line are exactly the tone the right should be striking in the wake of this assassination.
The Library of Alexandria had already been in severe decline for centuries before the Muslims burned down what little had survived into the 7th century. This shit would be more like the Mongols obliterating the House of Wisdom or the destruction of Constantinople's libraries in the 1200s, actual intellectual reservoirs (unlike so much of modern academia) getting nuked by outside forces at or shortly after their flowering peak.
Israel also recently bombed Syria (where they helped topple Assad in the first place) under the excuse of 'saving' the Druze minority in the country's southeastern corner (who are led by a drug-dealing, Venezuelan-born sheikh that supported Assad at first but turned against him due to the Syrian economy imploding under sanctions).
Of course, the only 100% surefire way to 'protect' the Druze indefinitely would be to turn all of southern Syria into an Israeli-occupied security belt, similar to how they dealt with Southern Lebanon from 1979 to 2000. And of course, literally one day after Assad fled the country, Netanyahu declared that all of Southern Syria had to be turned into a demilitarized zone (not for the IDF or their pets though, of course). In fact the whole Israeli scheme there is pretty much a beat-by-beat replay of their South Lebanon occupation, with the Druze taking the place of the Lebanese Christians as the 'vulnerable minority' providing them a fig leaf & local collaborators for the occupation; they've even filmed themselves raising the Israeli flag over the Syrian territories they control.
The only complications right now are that 1) said Druze pawn (Hikmat al-Hijri) immediately tried to ethnically cleanse his province of Bedouins the instant the IAF forced the Islamists to back down, calling down a horde of pissed off Bedouin tribesmen from all over Syria that he couldn't handle even with Israeli air power backing him up, and 2) Israel doesn't actually have a border with his province (Suwayda) - Daraa province, full of angry armed Sunni Muslims & the place where the rebellion against Assad began, is right between them. If it weren't for those factors Bibi would have his South Syria Security Belt Administration already instead of having to oh-so-graciously let the Syrians move troops back into the south of their own country just 2 days after expelling them for 'attempting genocide' & try to manipulate the situation further later.
'Divide and rule' - along ethnic lines, religious lines, sex lines, etc. - is THE cornerstone of the Jews' subversive SOP to gain & wield power over others. Look for fault lines within rival nations (whether they're the host of the Jew or an external enemy) and stoke the embers within those fault lines into a raging inferno which will keep said rival nation too busy with internal conflict to pay attention to the Jews. If they could get their preferred pawns into a strong position, from where they can continue to cause trouble for the rival entity indefinitely and be a real pain in the ass to purge even before dealing with the Jews (as with blacks in post-WW2 America, and with a hypothetical Kurdistan in the Mideast) then so much the better.
In the Middle East, the Kurds have long been a militant minority without their own country who have agitated for their own independent 'Kurdistan', an aspiration which puts them in direct conflict with the countries that that Kurdistan would have to be carved out of: Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. All of these except Turkey (sort of, but not really, and that's changing nowadays anyway as that country becomes increasingly Islamist) are/were Israel's regional rivals. Thus Kurds are the most convenient wedge lying around for the Jews to wield, well-positioned to cause trouble for pretty much all of their regional enemies at the same time (and already doing it even before Israel existed, at that).
On another note, the Kurds were also very heavily involved in the Armenian & Assyrian Genocides, with a lot of the footsoldiers directly doing the genociding being Kurds. As Israel is very friendly with Azerbaijan, the mountain Turks attempting to continue the bloody work of Enver Pasha to this very day, why would they not also be friendly to the descendants of the original genocidaires...
i am curious as to how much influence jews had in muslim countries a thousand years ago.
A lot. The Jews were rewarded for, as you say, throwing the gates of Toledo open to the Saracen in 711 with great wealth & influence in al-Andalus; they quickly became a powerhouse merchant class under the Arabs and had an active political lobby in the court of the Cordoban emirs/caliphs, some of their number even rising to become prominent government ministers and viziers.
This eventually blew up in their face though, as the Arab elite to whom they had fastened their fortunes declined & their power eroded, angry Muslim mobs (including many Berbers, the warrior class which was increasingly supplanting the Arabs) also attacked the Jews for their wealth & for generally being arrogant, power-tripping cunts that couldn't even pretend to not shit on the goys. After the last Jewish vizier to serve the Umayyads got crucified by said angry mob, a lot of the Andalusian Jews ironically fled back to the side of the Christians, especially flocking to the same Toledo their forefathers sold out to the Muslims. Suffice to say though, the Christian monarchs did not forget Toledo and as we know, kicked the Jews out of Spain the minute they were no longer useful vs. the Muslims (1492).
Under the Ottoman Empire, to which many Sephardic Jews fled after the Iberian expulsions, well. You know how Jews were massively involved in the Atlantic slave trade, especially in South America? Well that was also the case in Eastern Europe, the Middle East & North Africa under Ottoman rule. Even modern accounts written by Jewish scholars trying to make them out as not that bad had to concede 'extensive Jewish involvement in the slave trade' and that they specialized in domestic & sex slaves, overwhelmingly Christians or nasraniyye. Other Jews proved the Catholic Monarchs to be 100% right in expelling them by becoming Barbary corsairs, the guys most notorious for being turbo-murderous & rapey slavers and pirates in the Mediterranean.
By being dhimmis and praying their Muslim overlords wouldn't just kill & enslave them anyway, which is what happened quite often (especially when one Muslim horde toppled another, the new dynasty rarely if ever believed themselves constrained by any agreements made between Christian communities and the old overlords they just defeated).
Muslim rule, from the earliest Rashidun/Umayyad caliphs to the Ottomans, is the reason Christians went from being the majority population in most of the Levant to an insignificant minority in the Holy Land before the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 19th century. And why they went extinct entirely in other parts of the Mideast, also before the Jewish settlers got to the site of modern-day Israel (Tamerlane, for example, basically exterminated Iraq & southern Turkey's Assyrian Christians outside of the Nineveh Plain; that happened in the late 14th century and they still hadn't recovered by the time the Turks tried to finish his work during WW1).
Disdaining & hating Jews for their crimes is fair, defending & rooting for Muslims to own the Jews when you aren't a Muslim yourself though, that's just silly.
What I've read suggests that it's actually derived (as Kinahna in the Ancient Egyptian language, that's what they called it in the Amarna Letters) from the proto-Semitic root knʿ, meaning 'low' - as in 'lowland' - contrasting with Aram (modern-day Syria, that original name being derived from Aramu, meaning 'high'). An alternative theory is that the name came from kinahhu, the Akkadian word for purple cloth, the luxury good which Phoenician merchants were most famous for. The Hebrew word for 'merchant' is socher and the Aramaic equivalent was sachar, while in Arabic it's singl. tajir and pl. tajirun (some conection to ancient Akkadian tamkaru/tamkarum, in turn derived from the probable proto-Semitic root mkr, is suspected). None of these sound like they'd lend themselves to anything sounding like Canaan.
What you & this author are probably thinking of were the Phoenicians, who were a Canaanite people (as in, all Phoenicians were Canaanites, but not all Canaanites were Phoenicians) famous for their sailing & trading expertise. They founded a lot of colonies across the Mediterranean, eventually competing with the Greeks in doing so, with Carthage being the most famed example of such. They were also stalwart supporters of Moloch (the bull-headed baby sacrifice demon), with conclusive evidence having been found of their Carthaginian descendants also roasting children for Moloch, and the original Jezebel was a Phoenician princess (from Tyre, the greatest of their city-states) as was the mythical Carthaginian queen and lover of the Roman ancestor Aeneas, Dido.
Other than the Phoenicians, the Canaanite peoples (defined as the pre-Judaic natives of modern-day Israel, so tribes like the Amorites, Ammonites, Moabites, etc.) were not generally known as great traders, so it's a rather dubious theory that any word for 'merchant' would've been applied to the rest of their kind. If anything the Egyptians and Hittites both found them to be a very unruly people prone to banditry and rebellion, not enterprising or pleasant merchants, and a possible origin for the very name Hebrew - the word Habiru/'Apiru - refers to brigands and other malcontents on the fringe of society who resisted the rule of the outside great empires, basically the original terrorists.
Certainly true. Hell even the infamous 4th Crusade which targeted the Byzantines over their original Muslim target in Egypt was less retarded and more justified than is oft portrayed in pop-history. The Byzantines had killed upwards to 30x as many Latin Christians (mostly, but not entirely Italians) in a genocidal massacre targeting the latter than the crusaders killed Byzantine civilians in their own sack of Constantinople, some 20 years before the Venetians derailed the crusader army to get revenge.
And Enrico Dandolo, the Venetian Doge responsible for the above, also was himself blinded by the Byzantines, probably in the Constantinopolitan tumult of 1171-72. Little wonder why, after so many insults and direct attacks both upon his own person and his fellow Catholics/Italians, he would decide to take the first opportunity he could to take the Orthodox (who had also been trying to puppetize the crusaders from the very start and infamously abandoned the First Crusade once they started going off Alexios I's rails) down a bunch of pegs.
Well, the crusaders and inquisitors were indeed violent, that much I cannot dispute.
It's just that the context and circumstances which said violence occurred as reaction against 200% justified the aforementioned violence, facts which the powers that be have worked very hard to distort & obfuscate for a very long time as part of the general 'Christianity bad' agenda.
Man, it's too bad Marty lost his primary, would've been nice to have a gaming legend in Congress. And for all that, then the guy he lost to proceeded to lose the race for their Nevada district anyway.
Very possibly. Unfortunately even if that's true, Marty unironically seems like the most based Republican possible for his district. I've done some more reading into said district yesterday and it's pretty much the worst possible grounds for a truly based candidate to run in while still technically being a swing district:
All that and the last Republican nominee (beat Marty for the nomination in 2024) was some open borders 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal' lolbert who thought Trump was too extreme & aggressively distanced himself from the latter, only to end up losing to the Democrat currently being faced by Marty anyway. Trump, meanwhile, actually (barely) won the damn place!
So it does seem like being a basic boomercon is not only still an improvement over the last guy, it's as far 'right' as one can go while still having any chance of winning NV-03. Seems like a more downscaled version of the Maine Senate race where a more based candidate wouldn't even make it out of the primary (and to my knowledge, both Marty's primary opponents & the Democrat, Susie Lee are all pro-Israel too; according to AIPAC Tracker Lee takes the most AIPAC shekels out of all of NV's Dem reps at over $700k), much less have any shot in the general, just because of how the district is set up.