Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Here's what I think is going to happen in Kurdistan

for background, read http://seventhchapterofdaniel.blogspot.com
but even if all this is wrong, most of what I am about to say is
based on patterns evident now.

KRG Kurdistan in northern Iraq (southern Kurdistan) is inherently at
odds with PYD Kurdistan  of Rojava canton in Syria (west Kurdistan).
These two systems cannot mix, and the KRG has its own tradition
based corruption and nepotism and culture problems, that the PYD
has escaped.  PYD is allied to and same ideology as the Turkish
or northern Kurdistan PKK which was originally Marxist but went
to democratic federalism after Ocalan read a book in prison.

Right now, KRG is asking PYD/PKK to leave Iraq and stop helping
them against ISIS, because Turkey is bombing southern Kurdistan
to get at its PKK helpers along with the restart of attacks on the PKk
inside Turkey. PKK is still listed as a terrorist organization (not
islamist quite the opposite, but separatist).

Seems under a treaty at the breakup of the Ottoman empire the Kurds
WERE given a chunk of southeast Turkey, which Kemal Ataturk
took back, apparently the reason for Urfa being renamed Sanliurfa
in honor of some war that gained freedom for Turks or some such

Putin, wise to the plan of Erdogan  to restart the Ottoman Caliphate
and be Caliph and his use of ISIS/ISIL to do this, has told him in
exactly these terms to "go to hell" and threatened to destroy his forces
in Syria (apparently Erdogan is moving troops across the border? or
plans to do so). the proposed safe zone for Turkey is actually not a
buffer against ISIS but would be a safe zone  continuing the supply
lines for them that the Kurds of PYD have almost entirely cut, which
supply ISIS from Turkey.

I think the attack on the PKK in Turkey was the excuse to bomb them
(and as a result all other anti ISIS forces as collateral damage) in
northern Iraq, while making a nearly one time show of bombing ISIS
because a couple of Turkish soldiers were somehow killed by ISIS.

So, I think that at some point Russia will have boots on the ground in
Syria to block Turkey, and support Assad, since Putin now realizes
that the anti Assad move is part of a larger picture of Turkish imperialism,
and will definitely be a risk to Russia, already a target of jihadis.

As long as Turkey is in NATO,  Russia can't attack it. But if Turkey
outrages USA/NATO enough to get kicked out, it will be another matter.
At that point, Russia will mop up the floor with Turkey, and perhaps
elder Paisios' prophecy that the Armenians and Kurds and I think one
other group will get their desired homelands, will be fulfilled.

Iraq is too fragmented to be restored as single nation, and the KRG
has already cut Baghdad out of the loop in oil sales. Syria will maybe
continue as a rump state, with the Kurdish section independent.

But  the PYD Kurds and the KRG Kurds might be at war with each
other at some point, nothing unusual in the past.

As for eastern Kurdistan, west Iran, I have no idea.

But I think what eventually will happen, is that there will be a Northwest
Kurdistan (Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan), and a South Kurdistan (Iraq)
and maybe an East Kurdistan (Iran) or maybe not. But I don't see how
the dream of a single united Kurdistan can operate except perhaps as
autonomous elements under an umbrella government.

Is Kurdistan (with its four centers of gravity) or China the fourheaded
leopard? I don't know. But I guess its China, because it seems the PRC
has direct rule over FOUR municipalities, incl. Beijing, which would
fit the four head picture.

I think that China will play a bigger role than Russia in Southern
Kurdistan's independence. Whether it would broker a deal with IRan
about eastern Kurdistan would depend on what it could gain from
this and what Iran could gain.

China's main interests in the Middle East are oil (and such business
ventures as they do in Africa and South America), and stopping jihad
(which is raising its head in China).

The typical moslem may not grow up to be a jihadi, because they are
not that trained in islam, or have more sensible alternative interpretations
such that for instance fornication is recognized for what it is, and not
redefined as some tiny category of fornication and the rest okay.
earlier peaceful verses in the Koran, abrogated by later more violent
ones, are assumed to be not abrogated and are convenient for  modern
life most like. The demand for four eye witnesses to convict on any
crime is not in play in a secular government mostly. The evils of
shariah are not experienced daily or heard of daily, so the romantic
vague notion of shariah as perfect justice gets some play, which is
itself dangerous.


The Kurds have those among them who take islam too seriously and
some went jihadi, and there is some minimal type of female genital
mutilation among some such, but it is being driven out. Mostly they
have a tradition of favoring their own practices over hardline islam,
so that the women always moved about freely and almost never
went veiled, before modern times, according to travelers in past
centuries. in the 1700s the Kurdish Zand tribe in Iran had woman
warriors. This goes back actually to traces of Median (as in Medes
and PErsians) culture, which had woman warriors routinely.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

the REAL evil of freemasonry

the greatest evil evident in Morals and Dogma is not some misquote that looks explicit.
the TEACHINGS are themselves the seduction of satanism. Masonry is the outer court
so to speak of satanism of one form or another.
in its earlier ranks, its great word is the blasphemous JahBulOn which equates the
True God Jah or Jahveh (YH or Yah short form of YHWH) with the false gods He hates
and whose ways He hates. 
various grades  reduce prayer to a force, which is the essence of the word of faith heresy,
and focus on astrology and "ancient wisdom" which if pursued b y the initiate of masonry
on his own will lead to witchcraft and black magic. While piously denouncing various sins
like greed and cheating and so forth (which after all would be disruptive to any society,
including a brotherhood of some sort) "equilibrium" is taught.
Origen and Celsius are appealed to. The idea of the Bible being merely disguised truth
that the ignorant take at face value,  the keystone of many heresies and that led Origen
to his errors for which he was anathematized.
In the final degree it is reiterated that there is all this balance between God's power and
our free will, and between various natural forces, the universe is held to be without beginning
because God was always thinking and it is the expression of His thought, and finally in a
list of balanced opposites all of which are good there is good and evil and while the devil is
denied as being a coeternal with God opposition to God, the picture painted is that every
evil is a necessary part of creation so in effect  instead of being a potential within creation
if the creature decides to misuse its free will, it is a functional part. This of course means
that the individual to be complete might feel he should (or could) do all evil and all good.                     \
the quote regarding lucifer is a denunciation of him, as a false light, but equates this with
the superstitious worship of Christianity of any but the most stripped down protestant
version. Thus a near diabolist could comfortably hide in protestantism, and once saved
always saved and grace not works be promoted to excuse (and no judging to prevent punishment)
all kinds of evil done and "balanced" by good, NOT an actual Christian repentance from the evil,
NOT a permanent move in the opposite direction, but as an ongoing seesaw, never intended to
be any different. 
Masonry with these teachings is evil as hell, whether it ever did overtly recognizable satanic
rituals or made such statement as ascribed by Taxil or those looking for the overt.
Masonry is the front porch of an evil building the essence of which in its social presentability
and secret vileness and shared secrets not to be revealed is displayed in Eyes Wide Shut.
(I am not sure that movie follows the original book Traum Nouvelle but it doesn't matter. )
Notice that at the end, quoted in Latin (which despite denunciations of "superstition" is used
to make you feel important and elite like Latin speaking priests one envies?) is Proverbs 25:2
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."
BUT ONLY THE FIRST PART, "It is the glory of God to conceal."  the last word given to the highest
level is that one must conceal. and snoops and snitches are left out in the cold since the
second part of the sentence is left out.
THIS IS THE REAL EVIL OF MASONRY. It is the leading in stages into a state of mind and values
that makes any evil possible. At various stages, those in serious evil operating as such like a
brotherhood attached to masonry, not a mere political attachment like illuminism, but the
spring off secret brotherhood of social network that built the lodge system and looks for suitable
fellows, would spot those likely to be moving in their direction.
Masonry grooms you for evil. it gives you the key ideas to develop evil if you want to. it gives you
the social network to find evil people who have taken it to the extremes you are eventually
feeling okay to look for.
In Spain some men were accused of being masons, and the judge on finding out they led chaste
lives dismissed the charges because he had never heard of a mason who was chaste.
what does that tell you?

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

women clergy bad idea even if biblical

I won't make the biblical and historical case for women's
ordination. some others have done this, in some cases
flawed in other cases well. I agree with this picture, but
I oppose ordaining women. why?

Something can be biblically allowable but not a good
idea in a given context. Even if a woman priest were
doctrinally orthodox, even a traditionalist old calendar
no pews etc. priest or even bishop, even if she had the
mind of a man (as 1800s critics of women speaking in
public said some really sharp woman had), even if she
was of perfect virtue and humility, was post menopausal
so no disruption of service by periods or childbirth
and   40  days after that could occur,  there is one major
problem. the fact that she is female, and the message
this sends.

The move towards women's ordination has been primarily
one of moving with cultural trends that infect the church.
The typical seeker or recipient of ordination in the
protestant/evangelical and now episcopal scene, argues
for and satisfies the desires of those who think in terms
of, political and gender representation reasons.

A woman priest who does NOT think in these terms
is going to have to constantly denounce them and make
the case for her role instead of focusing on the Gospel
and lives of saints as examples for us and so forth,
because her presence in the altar is catering to such
feelings, and seeming to be a triumph of them.

Because of the packaging of women's rights with all
kinds of wickedness, such as "sexual freedom" that
no man should have either in fact fornication by a man
is a sin that was subject to penance in ancient times
and St. Paul said was grounds for what would later
be called excommunication. Now the idea is, that
the double standard is wrong (it is) and that women
should be as free to be sluts as men are sluts (no,
men should be forced to be chaste, by various legal,
ecclesiastical and social measures). Abortion is
another issue packaged as "women's rights" and
somehow the perverts get their rights listed as women's
rights because the female of the  pervert crew, the
lesbian, and the male to female transgender (who
is really just a eunuch and a fraud) are women, so
their "rights" or "issues" that wouldn't be an issue
if they weren't perverts, becomes "women's issues"
just because they are women.

So a woman priest  would be supporting all this
that she opposed (if she opposed it), because the public
mindset packages all these together.

Until this packaging can be broken up, and they are
all seen as they are, SEPARATE ISSUES, a woman
should not be ordained. this though done because of
her value in that role  for NOT her "feminine
qualities" but her priestly or episcopal quality,  what
is modernism and reverse sexism and lesbian and
abortion "rights" and the tired old capitalism vs.
Marxism argument can even be dragged into the mind
of the person observing her, when in fact these things
are both frauds.

So I do not support female ordination. Not only does
this send a wrong message even unintentionally, by
doing so it strengthens those who would modernize
things even more and gradually doctrine is chipped
away at. This is not inherently one package, but since
it is often presented this way, with gender neutral bible
translations for instance, and other things which perhaps
originated as an effort to add to the ranks of a movement,
the presence of female clergy regardless of what they
teach, gives a support to this kind of thinking, and the
next ordained woman may not be of priestly or
episcopal quality and may be shaky on doctrine and
down the road it is heresy.

This is SOLELY because of the social and political
context that any such female ordination would occur
in, if it happened today. Not because women inherently
bring this and that with them, but because  the mindset
around them does package them together.  Thus
loosening doctrine may be a situation some women
may find more helpful to get ordained in.  but in an
orthodox doctrinal scene, her presence giving an okay
to the  incoherent mentality of most people (it seems),
would make it easier to undermine doctrine later.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

existentialist nonsense

"Sartre posits the idea that "what all existentialists have in common is the fundamental
doctrine that existence precedes essence", as scholar Frederick Copleston  explains."
This is patently absurd. of course there are many meanings or applications of the
term "essence" but in terms of the essence of a thing, what it is, this neither precedes
nor comes after existence but comes into existence with the thing that exists. Sure
you can have an idea of some invention you want to make, but that idea is merely
descriptive of the essence of it, that essence doesn't really exist until the thing does.

Existentialism also posits that "the individual's starting point is characterised by what
has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in
the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world." (same link.)

now, I suppose a child waking up to its new environment at birth may feel like this
at the sudden transition, but it adapts quickly unless there is something wrong with
the environment. As it develops consciousness in the womb it probably doesn't have
confusion about anything. It just floats along. The sense of meaninglessness or
absurdity probably requires a prior sense of meaning and rationality that has been
disrupted,  a rapidly changing social and political environment would do this, and
this was going on when these ideas got going. One eventually meets the reality of
death, usually someone else's or an animal's death before one's own. This may raise
questions. A kind of gut level knowledge of God may exist also. Converting all
this into verbally expressable thoughts is when you get philosophical speculation.

One can just take it on faith that there is a bigger picture, just assume it as part of
your core ideas, or you can base the sense of meaning and rationality on short term
issues like family and nation and world current events, and then if there is a
disruption you will get a sense of meaninglessness and absurdity.  

The disruption of death may raise questions. but the existential despair is a product
of external conditions. your sense of "meaning" you had before may merely have
been a sense of certainty that  dinner will be served on time. granted if you have
worked at planting a garden and a tornado (or runaway herd of animals) tears it up
you may feel it was all for nothing, but a little more thought and you can see it was
not nothing while it lasted, you can try again and so forth. what is this "meaning"
everyone blithers about? seems to not even be defined the same way by everyone,
especially since some seek it in drugs, drugless drug trips (meditation) and crazy
ideas.  Perhaps it adds up to a sense of being okay, which in fact may be a delusion.

Seek God and resist sin and don't give into it, take note of Ecclesiastes whose end
conclusion was, fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole of life.
Do all for Jesus Christ, and if some garden gets torn up, or if after you die, you think,
the next owner of the property will tear it all up to make a parkinglot, while the
garden lasted God was hopefully happy with it, and remembers it.

Saturday, June 13, 2015

refutations of myths of the militia/patriot movement


from the article: (for links in it, go to the linked page itself)

the idea that Militias are in anyway necessary or good for a free State has no historical justification, especially in the modern era. ... A historical analysis reveals that Militias are typically the gateway to tyranny, not the safeguard against it. ...
  1. Our own Revolutionary War shows militias are effective at protecting liberty.
  2. Militias promote liberty.
  3. Armed populations deter tyrants while unarmed populations are defenseless.
  4. Disarming a population is the gateway to genocide.
All of these arguments are false. Let’s first look at our own Revolutionary War.
The idea that militias are the bulwark against tyranny typically begins in a faulty reading of American History. The Revolutionary War was not won by Militias, but rather the Continental Army with considerable help from the French. While it is probably an exaggeration to suggest that the Militia was completely worthless during the War, that is far closer to reality than the myth promulgated by some pro-gun advocates. And the Militias that did significantly contribute to the cause were organized by the states and represented a well-disciplined, cohesive fighting force that mirrored the Continental Army, not the minutemen of lore.
Moving to the modern era, Militias have a terrible history of creating tyranny, even when fighting against foreign powers. Militias that have been successful in warding off foreign aggression overwhelmingly opposed democratic rule. A few examples are Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, Somalia, Iraq, and southern Lebanon; in none of these countries did the militias promote a free State. Add to this list countries where militias have ripped apart society in tribal states or civil war (such as Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Colombia, and the Palestinian Territories) and we can form an even clearer picture of militias. ...
... Every democratic country, with the exception of Costa Rica, has a standing army to defend it, not militias.
For examples closer to home, we can easily see that the Klu Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi elements, and the Black Panthers (all of which are or were unregulated militias) have done little to promote a free society. Perhaps the best example in America of the influence militias have on society is “Bloody Kansas” during the 1850s. Pro-Northern and Southern settlers, armed to the teeth, streamed into Kansas in order to sway whether the state became free or slave. The constant skirmishes killed 56 settlers, out of a total population of 8,000. It is safe to conclude that the sudden explosion in the number of armed men did not contribute to a democratic process.
... Yemen is currently the second most heavily armed country in the world (per capita), and it is currently a battlefield between a Western dictatorship and various Jihadist organizations who have no love for a free State. Saudi Arabia and several other Arab countries are heavily armed, with what can only be described as tyrannical governments. Iraq before the 2003 US invasion is perhaps the best example. Saddam Hussein falls under any definition of a tyrannical dictator, yet the Iraqi people were very heavily armed with a gun culture mirroring that of the US. How armed a population is appears to have no empirical bearing on how free that society is.

Hitler took the guns

If only to affirm Godwin’s Law, the most frequently used example of gun control leading to genocide is that of Nazi Germany. At a superficial glance, gun advocates do appear to have a point. After all, didn’t Hitler praise gun control? Hitler clearly lays out his beliefs here: “This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
However, like many widely circulated pro-gun quotes, this attribution is fake. There is no evidence that Hitler actually made these remarks. In reality, Hitler was relatively pro-gun. Most of the strict gun control was implemented by the Weimar Republic in direct response to rising street violence and to prevent an armed coup from either the Nazis or Communists. And to a small degree it was successful, as it prevented Hitler from seizing power by armed insurrection. The “gun control” law implemented in 1938, when the Nazis were fully in power, actually loosened restrictions on gun ownership. If the “armed populations prevent tyranny” maxim held, the Germans could have removed Hitler from office with relative ease.
When presented with these facts, gun advocates typically reply that their theory still holds, as Hitler did do his utmost to prevent Jews (as well as Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, communists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses) from owning weapons. Therefore, if they had been armed, genocide could have been averted. However, the notion that small groups of armed Jews could have succeeded where the entire Polish and French armies failed is completely inane. It took the combined might of the US, Britain, Russia, and our allies to finally defeat Hitler and his allies. Comparing this reality to the Red Dawn narrative of armed resistance gun advocates offer highlights how little merit the “guns prevent tyranny” hypothesis has. The few instances of armed resistance such as the Warsaw uprising were quickly annihilated.

Stalin took the guns

The hypothesis that a heavily armed Russian population could have stopped Stalin and communist rule completely overlooks the massive civil war (1917-22) that culminated in the triumph of communist forces. Lenin and Stalin didn’t need gun control. They simply annihilated any domestic threats to their rule. As Omer Bratov, a historian from Brown University, explains about Stalin, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.” It also defies logic that where the military might of Nazi Germany failed, scattered bands of Russian resistance could have somehow succeeded.

The Turks took the guns

It is true that the Ottomans/Turks seized the weapons of many Armenians. But the Turkish government also took the Armenian’s right to speech, property, livelihood, etc. Anything the Turks could take, they did. Seizing their weapons was simply one of many tools used by the Turks to carry out genocide, not the cause. The idea that a better armed Armenian population would have stopped the genocide is na├»ve. Although some Armenians were able to hold out versus the government (with the help of the Russian military or French naval forces), most batches of armed resistance were annihilated with artillery bombardment and overwhelming military force. As the Armenian National Institute explains, while the armed resistance was noble, it was ultimately the International awareness and pressure on Turkey that saved the remnants of the Armenian population.

Mao took the guns

Like the Russian case, the idea that Mao’s gun control allowed him to commit genocidal acts completely overlooks how Mao gained power in the first place: a massive civil war. If guns could have stopped Mao, they would have then, not at the height of his power. It also overlooks the fact that any type of gun laws would have had only a negligible influence of gun ownership as the vast majority of Chinese peasants (those bearing the brunt of Mao’s disastrous policies) were too poor to even consider owning a gun. Gun policy shouldn’t enter any meaningful discourse on Mao’s rule.

Guatemala took the guns

The rationale for Guatemala’s wanton slaughter of the Mayan population was to eliminate the threat of Marxist rebels by removing their support base. Guatemala’s genocidal acts were a response to an armed threat, not an opportunistic assault to take advantage of a recently disarmed population as some gun advocates suggest. The tactics to remove this armed resistance, unfortunately, involved the slaughter of unarmed civilians, and was spurred by decades (if not centuries) of pent up racial tensions. It was the presence of armed resistance, not the absence of it, which led to further atrocities.

Idi Amin took the guns

... Had the population not been “disarmed,” the people of Uganda could have stopped the reign of terror. However, this analysis completely overlooks two very basic facts. First, the gun law implemented in 1970 was mostly an extension of a colonial firearms law dating back to 1955, meaning the number of gun owners would not have changed substantially. Second, the idea that the gun law was stage one of genocide is not viable, as the law was implemented in 1970 and Idi Amin did not seize power and begin killing people until 1971.

Pol Pot took the guns

The claims of Cambodian gun control leading to genocide is, like the Uganda case, a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that conveniently ignores the fact that there was a massive five year civil war from 1970-75 in which the Republican forces protecting the “one million educated people” were decisively defeated. As Robert Spitzer, the author of “The Politics of Gun Control” states the idea that gun control led to genocide in Cambodia and the other countries mentioned represents “a cartoonish view of the complex events” and the people touting these ideas “don’t know comparative politics, they don’t know international relations, they haven’t studied war.” ....


  • Militias were largely ineffective in our own Revolutionary War.
  • Militias in the modern era have overwhelmingly fostered tyranny, not liberty.
  • Liberty and the degree of gun ownership in a society are uncorrelated.
  • Even if they were positively correlated, the idea that gun control leads to tyranny is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
  • Even if this thought process wasn’t fallacy ridden, the historical examples gun advocates supply don’t hold up under closer scrutiny.
  • Even if the historical cases displayed what gun advocates contend they do, the argument would still fail as applying the lessons from the examples to the US overlooks massive cultural and socio-economic differences.

Saturday, June 6, 2015

for all you antisemites out there who think "the Jews" is a monolithic term.....

From Constance Cumbey's blog comments section today

Anonymous said...

Not that I expect it will be remembered beyond this post itself, it is pretty obvious that readers know little about Jews and Judaism more than what they are given to think about, primarily by those who need someone to blame for all of the troubles in the world. http://www.jewishboston.com/Ask-A-Rabbi/blogs/6883-ask-a-rabbi-how-is-the-jewish-community-organized

When it comes to the religion of Judaism, there are basic lessons based on the Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament. From there on it's commotion. Utopians knew the religion would be hard to remove from having an effect on morality started to destroy it from the inside in the late 1780s. Until then the Jewish community was held together by what is now called Orthodox Judaism. They began by pulling Jews away from the main group under the label Reform. When that didn't work they started another branch called Conservative. All this can be found in the books written by Rabbi Antelman. Well Jews, being a stiff-necked people, didn't want to give up leadership. Now we have many different religiously bound together groups in the Orthodox community as well as the liberal ones with names like Reconstructionist, Humanist, etc.

t's interesting that the site comes out of Boston where there is a famous doggeral.
And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots,
And the Cabots talk only to God.[2][3]

Like Christian Protestants, many of the Jewish groups think they are the only ones who speak to God, that their interpretations are the best of all. The Orthodox, the very conservative religious and political group, don't associate much with the other groups. The Reconstructionists, it seems to me, are very New Age, even though they adapt the customs and garb or the Orthodox. Their formation came out of a very, very liberal political group. Since Jews stay among thinkers similar to their own ideas, they have no idea what is going on among other groups of Jews. Only when ugly antisemitism rears its head to they start to band together.

Then those who want more information can go to http://www.jewishboston.com/community_directory where 615 secular organizations are listed by their interests. There are larger organizations composed of groupings, but there is no one overall group where all groups belong. It's laughable when one Jew is expected to answer for all Jews when attacked for being a Jew. No one would expect a Southern Baptist to explain and defend all Catholic beliefs for instance, yet this is what all Jews are expected to do regarding other Jews.
10:37 AM