The Islamic Vortex (Note-9)


One man who understood the power of “Salafi jihadism” was Saddam Hussein, who according to Kyle Orton, writing in the New York Times, understood long before Obama that secular socialism was no match for a full-bore jihadism which had endured the test of centuries. “The Arab nationalist Baath Party, which seized power in 1968 in a coup in which Mr. Hussein played a key role, had a firmly secular outlook. This held through the 1970s, even as religiosity rose among the Iraqi people. But soon after Mr. Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, it began to change.”

To compensate for his shortcomings in governance, Saddam covered himself with the Koran. He also tried what Obama later attempted, an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, with disastrous results. Rather than beating Islam, the Baath began to be absorbed by it. “In 1986, however, the Pan-Arab Command, the Baath Party’s top ideological institution, formally reoriented Iraq’s foreign policy toward an alliance with Islamists. This was the first clear deviation from secular Baathism.”

The causal pathways in this area are easily obscured by ideological preferences.

ADDED: Throwing this in to store the link. (Some topic-bridging necessary.)

December 26, 2015admin 38 Comments »


38 Responses to this entry

  • The Islamic Vortex (Note-9) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on December 26th, 2015 at 5:10 am Reply | Quote
  • Apothecary Says:

    So is this Fernandez guy red-pilled?


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    If he is, he’s in the closet. But he saw a lot of ugly things in the underground, fighting Marcos, and he’s smart. My understanding is that he usually pulls his punches w.r.t. to Obama because he’s trying to persuade the marginal Obama supporters, and he thinks (probably correctly) that the best way to do that is to be judicious in his criticism. His commenters are less diplomatic.


    Mike Reply:

    You mean you’ve managed to get through the past one-eighth of a century without noticing Fernandez?


    Posted on December 26th, 2015 at 8:27 am Reply | Quote
  • The Islamic Vortex (Note-9) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on December 26th, 2015 at 9:52 am Reply | Quote
  • bomag Says:

    The Cathedral has pretty much bought off the world with drugs and porn; they figure the Salafists will come around.

    The Salafists are pretty much living off drugs and porn, but they look around and figure they can handle drugs and porn while the rest of the world slips into spiritual herbivore-ism. So, why not seize control while those around you are slack jawed and glassy eyed?


    Posted on December 26th, 2015 at 3:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    The effects of this have been known and public for years – that is that Saddam midwifed AQ in Iraq and the modern insurgency. John Robb was writing about this mid 2000s as were others. The NYT is recognizing John Robb [GG] at that time. Others in the media were writing during the mid 2000’s events about the Baathist Intelligence Service + Jihadists and Zarqawi’s group were AQ in Iraq.

    At the time too many people were busy turning their noses up at Bush to acknowledge such.

    It takes the NYT to sing the praises of the prophet John Robb while at the same time ignoring one of his most important conclusions.

    As the Russians, Hizb and Syrian Army are now proving again their absolutely not 10 feet tall and in a straight fight get crushed. That was what happened in the surge. The best quote at the time was hard to find but easy to kill. At the time they relied even more on torture, bribery and terror than they do now. Many of the gains in 2014 in Iraq reek of treachery not fighting prowess – such as when all the Iraqi Army Officers in Mosul suddenly took off just before the City fell.

    “Hard to find but easy to kill. ” The ones who are easier to find – not being Baathist intelligence Officers – are now being killed.

    Don’t overestimate them in the quest for what kills the West …oh er sorry Democracy. They’re only mighty in Treachery, Bribery and Terror and it doesn’t travel well.


    Posted on December 26th, 2015 at 6:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    More PJ media….former neocon David Goldman aka Spengler says time to throw neocons under the bus…
    and that Cruz is right to do so.


    Posted on December 26th, 2015 at 11:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Skilluminati Says:

    May the legacy of Henry Jackson never stop giving (tax money to neoconservatives).


    Posted on December 26th, 2015 at 11:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Stefan Molyneux did an absolute Tour de Force on the Middle East. Now has 211,000 views. Unravels the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, Balfour Declaration and carving up of the Middle East.

    Man … EVERYTHING goes back to that Balfour Declaration — Iraq included. The same dynamic that gave this video 211,000 views is what is powering the Trump campaign’s staying power: The elites have lost monopoly control of media. Trump is the true reflection of the rubber hitting the road on this. One can also see it in the cratering ratings of the networks. (The implosion of the newspaper stocks was of course an early warning of what was coming.)

    We could be in the early stages of mass rebellion against the military industrial complex and US involvement in absurd foreign wars. There are now three prez candidates who have figured out the scam on Syria: Trump, Cruz and Paul.


    Erebus Reply:

    Sykes-Picot & the Balfour Declaration are what you’d call a fait accompli. If there are 100 year old injustices… well… it should go without saying that those are now utterly impossible to rectify. They’re not even worth discussing. Besides, the past few decades have clearly demonstrated that the Arabs are incompatible with the Western notion of “civilization”, and that all attempts to foist it upon them have been — and still are — doomed to failure. No matter how the borders were drawn, it would not have ended well.

    …Anyhow, I cannot find fault with the colonial English. I never will. It is not our place to question our ancestors, especially when what is certain is that they were better men — both harder and more benevolent — than we are.

    >”The same dynamic that gave this video 211,000 views is what is powering the Trump campaign’s staying power: The elites have lost monopoly control of media.”

    How is that the case here? The video’s sources are mostly Wikipedia — with some Chomsky, The Guardian, and articles from other mainstream and leftist media sources thrown in for good measure. The speaker has, on the whole, the exact same biases you’d expect of a young BBC reporter or an associate professor of the humanities at Cornell. In other words, the views and opinions expressed are typical and commonplace, and are nothing that the NYT’s editorial board would disapprove of.
    …So it’s Youtube and not an outlet of the traditional media. Is that the dynamic? Mundane information and political commentary migrating to the internet?


    vxxc2014 Reply:


    Military-Industrial Complex?

    Actually it was the Political-Diplomatic complex that gave us both neocons and the Iraq War. The military just obeys orders.

    We’re not in rebellion at present BTW against the military-industrial complex.

    We’re in Rebellion against the Financial-Political complex and Liberalism/Leftism/Prog Cultural Marxism. As of course are many muzzies.

    Islamism in the modern sense goes back more to the end of the Caliphate then Sykes-Picot and the end of the Caliphate was Ataturk’s decision. As far as the borders they simply recognized reality. Turkey had been the sick man of Europe for centuries.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Wow … these are not the responses I expected, though perhaps they should have been. Is a pro-Israel position somehow the standard NRx view?

    The notion that Israel/Palestine is 100-year-old history doesn’t hold up. Israel is fulfilling the Zionist project right now — jamming the Palestinians into the sea. Ben Gurion himself recognized that Israel was the aggressor in this situation.

    Perhaps the fundamental point of importance would be simply that the drivers of the Middle East conflict are definable and inter-locking:

    * Zionism + Balfour Declaration
    * US Neocons as fifth-column (US as client state of Israel)
    * US Military-industrial complex signing on with Neocons in order to get more business
    * Sykes-Picot
    * Oil boom giving Arabs the $$ to rectify past injustices.

    On this basis one might say the US lefties’ desire to push “democracy” in the Middle East is simply a function of their subsidiarity to Zionism, neocons and Lockheed. (There are 2,500 ex-generals & admirals now working for defense contractors.)

    I don’t see how one can properly think about the Middle East without recognizing that the US and Israel are fundamentally at fault here. This gets systematically obfuscated in the media, Hollywood and the schools. The history is simply never properly discussed in the US. (Maybe it’s different in Europe. Probably is.)

    So I contend that the Molyneux piece, far from being conventional, is actually an act of radicalism. Just putting that data out there and putting your name on it is an act of rebellion against the powers that be. The internet is the medium of rebellion. Again, it’s why Trump has so much staying power. All the scams of the elites (left and right) are now subject to autopsy and mass distribution. How can this NOT be a dynamic that leads to radical change?

    It sounds like you guys think core morality can be drowned out somehow. I don’t see it. Jews and Arabs lived peacefully together for 1,000 years in Palestine before the Zionists got their claws in it. Anti-zionist jews were shot for resisting the movement. Morality matters. People remember when they get screwed. They drive planes into the perceived screwers’ buildings.


    Erebus Reply:

    >“[…] So I contend that the Molyneux piece, far from being conventional, is actually an act of radicalism. Just putting that data out there and putting your name on it is an act of rebellion against the powers that be. The internet is the medium of rebellion. Again, it’s why Trump has so much staying power. All the scams of the elites (left and right) are now subject to autopsy and mass distribution. How can this NOT be a dynamic that leads to radical change?”

    You’ve got to be joking with this. Surely you must realize that Chomsky and many others have been saying what Molyneux is saying — and they’ve been saying it for decades, to large audiences, and much more publicly. There’s absolutely nothing radical, nor anything original, about it. Frankly, I don’t think that it was radical back in the 70s. It has been utterly mainstream in the UK for at least a couple of decades now — see Robert Fisk, George Galloway, etc.

    >“It sounds like you guys think core morality can be drowned out somehow. I don’t see it. Jews and Arabs lived peacefully together for 1,000 years in Palestine before the Zionists got their claws in it. Anti-zionist jews were shot for resisting the movement. Morality matters.”

    Morality does not matter in the slightest. I simply don’t believe that it is relevant here. Gnon does not believe in morality at all. Reality and strength are what matters.

    In any case, there’s no way to right ancient wrongs — not without creating new ones. The declarations were passed, the agreements were made, the borders were drawn, and we can only thank the English and the French for it. They acted magnanimously enough; they couldn’t have known how badly things would turn out. (Never has the world seen a more benevolent Empire than the British Empire!) Besides, the matter is being decided now, in Syria and Iraq and Gaza, with fire and steel. To the victor, the spoils — to the defeated, vae victis! Morality means nothing next to this.

    >“People remember when they get screwed. They drive planes into the perceived screwers’ buildings.”

    One potential solution is to defeat those people utterly. The way Carthage was defeated. That most ancient and noble solution is, regrettably, not a viable option these days — thus we get all sorts of problems with defeated peoples as refugees, as undocumented migrants, in squalid camps, etc. The only politically viable solution (and just barely!) lies in preventing Islamic migration to the West, and forcibly removing all people already present who do not assimilate to their host cultures.

    …Now that’s radical, isn’t it? Not Elite-approved at all. And yet it must be done.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Okay I will give you most of that. A few addenda:

    1) There is a big difference between Chomsky (Cathedral communist) and Molyneux (right-wing anti-feminist). It matters who is doing the talking when thinking about how impactful (and to whom) the points will be. Molyneux says he has the most popular philosophy website on the internet. Some of his videos get 1,000,000 views. So this is about the best combo of highbrow thought and wide distribution out there.(particularly with regards to the Israel/Palestine argument he is making).

    2) The whole burn-it-like-Carthage option simply is no longer on the table. Thus what we are left with is two millennarian (Sp?) sects (Zionism and Islam) who view their opponents as worthy of death. The core Jewish texts say you can treat non-Jews like cattle and kill them at will. That is clearly happening. The core Islamic texts say the same about non-Muslims.

    3) As the power of destructive tech gets more advanced for individual destroyers, the odds start to rise geometrically of WMD events carried out by Muslims and Jews.

    4) The US is never going to go along with mass-incineration of Arabs.

    5) I grant that Molyneux’s ideas are more mainstream in Europe than the US. But of course it’s the US that really matters here, because we are their client state and we have the money and bombs.

    6) Anyway, I come back to my core point, which is that it matters that this history is now more readily available. And there is a relationship between that process and the rise of Trump. How that plays out … well … I guess we will see. .

    Kgaard Reply:

    Not to beat this to death, but one more point on Israel/Palestine:

    When one says “Gnon doesn’t care” that can too often be taken as shorthand for “Psychopathy is evolutionarily adaptive and thus fine.”

    That’s obviously flawed reasoning, because psychopathy is a minority trait, affecting perhaps 2% of the population. In the pre-agrarian days, enclosed communities had means for getting rid of psychopaths. They would go on hunting trips. Bob the Psychopath would have an “accident” and that would be the end of that problem.

    Today the world is a closed community thanks to nuclear weapons. Thus, YOUR psychopath is MY problem. Zionism is obviously at least partially a psychopathic enterprise. Thus, from an American perspective, Zionist psychopathy is a problem for the grass-roots, right-wing, god-fearing American. So is the military-industrial complex.

    What the internet allows is preference cascades AGAINST PSYCHOPATHY. These were much harder to achieve previously. So, here again, if the masses view the Zionists, Neocons and military-industrial Complex (also largely run by psychopaths) as now a problem affecting “us” rather than “them” (which it of course is), then one can expect preference cascades in this area. That now appears to be happening.

    Erebus Reply:

    The way I see it, the Zionists act in their own self-interest — as do the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese, the Burmese, the Egyptian military leadership… Of course, their interests are certainly not aligned with those of the American people. In a perfect world, the USG would align itself with those interests, solely, and quit trying to play heir to the British Empire. (Aside: I think that this is fairly similar to Trump’s own position.)

    Islam suffers from much more than psychopathy. It suffers from too much to list here. I don’t think that the Arabs are much better than sub-Saharan Africans — I don’t think that they’re compatible with our form of civilization. It certainly doesn’t come naturally to them, and they are absolutely incompatible with Democracy. (Which isn’t saying much, admittedly.) If the men behind Sykes Picot knew this, perhaps they might have done things differently.

    I do a lot of work for the military industrial complex. It’s not that bad or sinister, really. It’s actually disappointingly mundane. (Also very resistant to change.) From my vantage point, it’s mostly engineers, /w some old Army brass and MBA types at the upper echelons. And lots of “consultants” to smooth things along.
    …But, hey, at least we actually make stuff. It’s not just paper shuffling and financial sleights-of-hand, nor is it merely computer code, nor does it contribute to our degenerate “culture”. And let’s face it: The military industrial complex is the last industrial complex the USA has got. The rest have all moved away to greener pastures.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “Wow … these are not the responses I expected, though perhaps they should have been. Is a pro-Israel position somehow the standard NRx view?”

    I think most in NRx will agree that it’s wiser to leave a plot of land in the care of Abba Eban than Crazed Jihadist #250001.

    D. Reply:

    “Wow … these are not the responses I expected, though perhaps they should have been. Is a pro-Israel position somehow the standard NRx view? ”

    I would hope that NRxers are sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable that they wouldn’t refer to the Arab-Israeli conflict as “the Middle East conflict” while blithely ignoring the entire Cold War divide between US-backed Arab monarchies and Soviet-backed Arab republics. This divide has continuing ramifications today, as Putin supports Ba’athist Syria, the first Soviet ally in the Middle East, while the United States pretends that so-called moderate Islamists can defeat both Assad and ISIS.

    Further, I’d hope they’d be aware of the indispensible role of the United States and Britain in creating what you call the “Oil boom giving Arabs the $$ to rectify past injustices”. Although Iraq switched sides in the Cold War with the fall of its monarchy in 1958, Saudi Arabia has remained America’s oldest ally in the Middle East (benefits of this alliance to the US aside), an alliance founded by FDR in 1943 after Americans discovered large oil deposits in Saudi territory. And the smaller oil-rich Gulf States later transitioned from British colonies to US Cold War allies (with continuing British ties). The Gulf’s oil industry was built by the West, principally America.

    Also, rather than claiming that the US “military-industrial complex” (a term much beloved and abused by the Cathedral) has established an alliance with neoconservatives and Zionists to increase weapons sales, they would know that the United States sells vast quantities of weapons to the oil-rich Arab states, as well as considerable amounts to some poorer Arab states, due to longstanding military relationships established in the Cold War. US defense contractors have long made common cause with Arab lobbyists to ensure political approval for weapons sales to Arab states. For that matter, those in charge of Israel for the last 14 years hold a fairly realistic view of the capabilities of Arab countries and haven’t been supportive of American attempts to spread democracy in the Middle East, especially not in Egypt or Jordan which are the two Arab countries that made peace with Israel and where democratization would likely terminate these peace treaties. Of course, the oil-rich Gulf states likewise haven’t been supportive of democratization attempts; US attempts to spread democracy can’t be attributed to foreign interests.

    Finally, a description of Muslim-Jewish or Muslim-Christian relations as “liv[ing] peacefully together for 1,000 years” before WWI is what I would expect from the ridiculous Cathedral whitewashing of Islam, not from NRx. Where Arab Muslims ruled securely, with no threat from those who they ruled, the indigenous populations of the Middle East were replaced slowly over centuries. When their rule was under threat, Arab Muslims responded violently. Algeria cleansed all non-Muslims from their midst after the French retreated in 1962, while in Lebanon the former Christian majority has been reduced decade-by-decade with a lengthy period of outright civil war. The Arab Muslim world has been unable to reconcile itself to the success of Jews in winning independence and building a prosperous country, but this isn’t fundamentally different from how they’d react to another indigenous group winning independence (which incidentally is a sort of secession that NRx claims to favor).

    vxxc2014 Reply:


    Israel can take of itself. I want America to take care of itself. Pretty much exclusively.

    However…you have to go back to 1928 for the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Caliphate being disbanded by Ataturk is the equivalent of Catholics having no Pope. No Israel yet. I suppose you could blame Sykes-Picot but ….farther back in History of Islam….

    You have to go back to AD 657 for the roots of Sunni Puritanism …and this sect assassinated Ali.
    In Iraq. {== “those who go out”

    What we now call AQ – in Iraq in 657 AD.

    They are called by other Muslims today Takfiri – those who judge.

    I picked up the word Takfiri from Iraq. This is what other Muslims – their principal victims – call them.

    And of course there was no Israel at the time of the Islamic conquests, no Israel in 1453 when Constantinople fell, no Israel in 1683 when Islam was stopped last time at the gates of Vienna.

    I can live with the Zionist psychopaths as they’re only interested in the Levant and just a piece of it.

    I can’t live with the psychopaths in Greenwich CT however. Nor in Hollywood, Nor in Porn, nor in Law, nor on K-Street.

    I must say this sudden burst of Anti-Colonialism is strange. What brings this on?

    I can admit who I don’t like and it’s not Bibi, Likud or really the other humps in the Levant. It’s none of my business. What I don’t recommend is transferring legitimate beefs at home to some poor bastard Kibbutzer on the West Bank. They’re not our problem.


    Kgaard Reply:

    “What brings on this sudden burst of anti-Colonialism?”

    About a month ago I heard the 1961 Ben Freedman speech at the Willard Hotel for the first time.

    It totally changed my understanding of the 20th century. According to Freedman (and Molyneux makes the same point), WWI was going to end in 1917, either in a draw or a German victory, until the Zionists went to the English and said they would help them win (by bringing in the Americans) if England would give Palestine to the Jews. The result was the Balfour Declaration. The Zionists called up their men in the US, who turned Wilson pro-war and turned all the US media from pro-German to pro-English overnight. The result was the Allies winning WWI, imposing the 1919 peace, Hitler’s anger at the “Stab in the Back” by German Jews, WWII, the Holocaust, the Cold War, creation of Israel, endless Middle East war, rise of the Neocons, invasion of Iraq etc etc.

    All of 20th century history traces back to that one event. And we are never, ever told about it. Now I see how and why the US became a puppet state. This changes how I think about what I should focus on and where I should live. So it’s a big deal …


    D. Reply:

    Evidently, Jews really do have supernatural powers of persuasion and domination: the British government, the Wilson administration, Kgaard…

    nydwracu Reply:

    Wikipedia seems to agree.

    Posted on December 26th, 2015 at 11:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bob Says:

    The causal pathways in this area are easily obscured by ideological preferences.

    The irony of course is that it’s precisely the ideological preferences of Fernandez, The New York Times, and Kyle Orton, all of whom were or presumably were in the case of Orton, “an associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society¨, supporters of the Iraq War, that are obscuring the causal pathways here. These people are still trying to justify their support for the war and obscure their intellectual dishonesty, mendaciousness, and downright stupidity about it so that they’re not summarily dismissed and ignored in their latest round of calling for intervention.

    Fernandez, PJ Media, The New York Times, Orton, and anyone else who affiliates himself with the name of Henry Jackson unironically need to be carpet bombed, not ISIS.


    Posted on December 27th, 2015 at 12:32 am Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    About Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s piece—it could be more Cathedralist bluffing and OPEC may be bang on the money.

    Where’s the hydrogen supposed to come from?


    admin Reply:

    Hydrogen is a transmission medium, rather than an energy source. The menace to hydrocarbons is economic solar.


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    Thanks Nick, looks like I’ve got to do some reading. Either way though, I wonder how sustainable the maintenance of solar infrastructure is without burning hydrocarbons?


    Posted on December 27th, 2015 at 3:50 am Reply | Quote
  • frank Says:

    If history of coal consumption has one thing to teach us, it is that breakthroughs in energy do not condemn previous technology to oblivion. So OPEC’s petroleum demand expectations are historically justified. We can reasonably expect to see petroleum consumption ease off in the west, and soar in Africa and Asia, causing an overall increase in the total consumption. They’ll keep making good money off black gold, but they’ll lose their strategic relevance.


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    True enough, I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t see any breakthroughs on the horizon as relevant as petroleum was at the beginning of the 20th century. I see the “petroleum consumption ease off in the west, and soar in Africa and Asia”, as a relative thing, unless we do see an asymmetric economic collapse starting with the West.

    As for solar-to-chemical; herculean infrastructure requirements with an energy density that isn’t there, so I can’t see it being as relevant as petroleum was.


    frank Reply:

    As demand explodes for batteries, we can expect to see exponential improvements. With two or three breakthroughs, solar-to-chemical becomes a viable paradigm for small scale applications. So it’ll probably start taking off in western countries – slowing down petroleum consumption – and in 40-50 years, due to the exponential nature of improvements, it might become the dominant paradigm in the west. It’s a matter of putting engineering hours into it. Hydro-carbon engines had 200 years of innovation to become this efficient. But I agree that 5-10 years is not a realistic timespan to expect a revolution. Even petroleum didn’t become the primary energy source until 60s.


    Dave Reply:

    “As demand explodes for batteries, we can expect to see exponential improvements. ”

    Just because you expect exponential improvements does not mean that engineers can deliver them. Let’s see, what element has the highest ratio of ionization energy to atomic mass? Oh yes, lithium. Think how much more energy a kilogram of battery could hold if it used lithium instead of lead!

    In the physical world, growth follows this curve , which in its early stages resembles an exponential. We’re not in the early stages anymore.

    The only “exponential” improvement in the last 50 years has been in computing, and even that has run into hard physical limits. In the Intel Museum in Mountain View, I saw a 5-inch wide model of a jetliner with the text, “If air travel had improved at the same rate as computing, a flight to Paris would take two seconds and cost five cents”. Well sure, but the seats on the plane would be no wider than a human hair.

    Posted on December 27th, 2015 at 5:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Methinks somebody got robbed for Christmas….

    And we know who to blame….

    It’s ISRAEL!!


    Posted on December 27th, 2015 at 11:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    The Default NRxn position on the JQ isn’t Pro-Israel.

    Putting it mildly.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Israel is pretty much a perfect NRx society.


    frank Reply:

    JQ and Israel are very different issues though.


    Posted on December 27th, 2015 at 11:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Oriental Neoreactionary Says:

    Saddam had to deal with Shia Islamists, which was supported by Islamic Republic of Iran. He also had to deal with Sunni Turkmens, which is the fifth column of Turkey, and Sunni Kurds. He could not hold together Iraq without Sunni Islamism.


    Posted on December 28th, 2015 at 1:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    “All Islam did was out-stubborn Christianity, which won thanks to its stubbornness. For, before Islam, the original spread of Christianity in the Roman empire can be largely seen due to… the blinding intolerance of Christians, their unconditional, aggressive and proselyting recalcitrance. Roman pagans were initially tolerant of Christians, as the tradition was to share gods with other members of the empire. But they wondered why these Nazarenes didn’t want to give and take gods and offer that Jesus fellow to the Roman pantheon in exchange for some other gods. What, our gods aren’t good enough for them? But Christians were intolerant of Roman paganism. The “persecutions” of the Christians had vastly more to do with the intolerance of the Christians for the pantheon and local gods, than the reverse. What we read is history written by the Christian side, not the Greco-Roman one. ”

    – from Taleb’s ‘Skin in the Game’, work in progress. Just in case others hadn’t had a squiz at his latest yet.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Also shades of MM:

    ” Perversely, the autocrat is both freer and –as in the special case of traditional monarchs in small principalities— in some cases has skin in the game in improving the place, more so than an elected official whose objective
    function is to show paper gains.”


    Posted on February 20th, 2016 at 11:52 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment