Sudan Back-Track

The Cathedral’s brilliant new plan — colonialism.

(Some initial ‘discomfort‘ (via))

January 8, 2014admin 8 Comments »


8 Responses to this entry

  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    its only natural, the degree to which the gnostic ‘progressive’ succeeds in his ventures is the degree to which they betray fundamental progressive principles. namely, embracing their powers of judgment, which is essentially hierarchical and anti-equalitarian.

    which is to say, the true ‘progressive’ has also never existed, only a range of increasingly unvirtuous beings.


    Posted on January 8th, 2014 at 8:52 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    We can’t fully address the young country’s failures with more peacekeepers or a power-sharing deal. Here’s why Washington should launch a joint venture with Juba.

    It’s a “joint-venture”, mind you.

    Does that mean the colonial power gets to share half of the government profits?


    Posted on January 8th, 2014 at 9:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    South Sudan is majority Christian. They do not need progressive colonialism. Maybe Putin can bail them out.

    Form a corporation that would run for office in third world hellholes. It would offer to run everything from top to bottom in the state, setting up a independent judiciary etc. It would be a for profit venture: deliver good government for a percentage of GDP. Form a virtual state (shadow government) and then offer services.


    VXXC Reply:

    The point of this is to destroy the Christians in the South Sudan, as we destroyed the Orthodox Serbs.

    Progs = HARM as motive, MALICE as method, DECEIT as Modus Operandi.


    Posted on January 8th, 2014 at 10:16 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Orthodox – the for profit humanitarian war is already a Cathedral cornered market.

    What you propose is entering into a partnership with a known sociopath ala Heath Ledgers Joker.

    You can’t get good out of these creatures, only Harm.


    Posted on January 8th, 2014 at 1:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    On a related note – public education – hopefully some of us will live to see the day when our posterity asks us why education being a law enforcement issue wasn’t a clue…


    Posted on January 8th, 2014 at 10:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:



    Posted on January 9th, 2014 at 2:10 am Reply | Quote
  • Igitur Says:

    This “oh the borders don’t match ethnic composition” stuff baffles me.

    Look at precolonial Africa. Dahomey was an actual viable imperialist power, subjugating its neighbouring former-independent entities — until the French, of course, acted (ostensibly) in defense of oppressed Cotonou. Gary “War Nerd” Brecher further elaborates on how, elsewhere, the supremacy of the Tutsi race keeps being shortchanged — in our days — by European defense of Hutus, militarily less developed.

    Border conflict, of course, is usually about natural resources, very unironically the plague of Black Africa. Natural borders should arise either of bloody wars that we let happen so we see emerge regional dominant powers, or a wielding of power in terms of setting borders for economic interest, not for race. No modern state is monoracial, after all.


    Posted on January 17th, 2014 at 10:08 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment