Islamic State - How about this idea? Please consider and comment.

[Karl]

In order to have a tribe or clan, you need an established marriage policy around a common ancestor. Tribal cohesion cannot be achieved without the one or the other kind of cousin marriage. As you know, empires always forbid cousin marriage, exactly because it makes it more difficult to pick individuals from the fray, as they would enjoy clan -or tribal protection. Imperial religion (such as Christianity) will therefore prevent cousin marriage. The same holds true in China and India. They cannot be tribal, because their marriage practices forbid this.

Even though tribal marriage is bad news for the National State, it is certainly a good thing for the individual. Most people would prefer strong solidarity between relatives. It is the natural state of things, unless marriage gets taken over and subverted by national statism. Seriously, as a staunch anti-statist, I use "tribe" or "clan" as a compliment for purity of religion and not at all as a negative label. The National State is so incredibly corrupt, evil, and perverted that it will even corrupt religion and control marriage practices, in order to better isolate and individualize the population, as such to increase its power over it, exact more taxes, suck them dry, and even more unreasonably tell them what to do. The National State is an utterly detestable thing.

The West has awoken an sleeping giant. I can almost not believe that they did not know what the result would be. So, I suspect that they actually knew. You see, if you cannot kill all your enemies, shooting a few, will make the remaining ones only angrier, and more willing to do what it takes to get even. So, I cannot imagine that they did not see this coming. But then again, like the situation is today, is exactly what I had expected that would happen, and really, it suits me absolutely fine. You can easily see what is going to happen next, and that suits me fine too. Ultimately, it is the One God who takes responsibility for the course of things. So, to an important extent, we can just watch and enjoy the show! ;-)

A tribe is different from a clan. A clan is a family like Clan Macleod or Clan Fraser. A tribe is more of a group of people with similar genetics. In Britain there are Vikings later named Normans, Angles, Anglo Saxons, Saxons, Celts etc. They have different family names.

"The National State is an utterly detestable thing". Yes it is but it is the only thing that works and it is far better than a one world government! Of course if I ruled the world it would be paradise

The West is gearing up for a big cull. That is what war is all about. Too many people and not enough resources. And when technology gets so advanced the rich wont need the poor anymore.

 

[Karl]

One thing that I cannot understand is why the West invites Muslims into it's countries and even looks after them as for refugees etc. And many Westerners even want to intermarry and mongrelize with them. Yet at the same time the West is Zionist and more or less at war with Islam and rants and raves against its tenets and beliefs. I cannot understand these contradictions. Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[kritikvernunft]

They are using their own methods to create a nation that conforms to their ideology, principles, and beliefs, and they have only one rule. "Live the way we tell you to or else."

They will certainly not be able to create a run-of-the-mill National State.

Islam cannot be used, or enlisted, to combat the tribes or the clans. It would require the National State to grab control over marriage practices in order to "forbid that what Allah has permitted". In fact, this is how the original first war in Afghanistan started against the Soviet-supported Afghan National State. The Afghan National State had created a marriage law "that forbade that what Allah has permitted", and were organizing a killing fest under the clergy in order to get them to accept their new marriage law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War
In 1978, the Taraki government initiated a series of reforms, including a radical modernization of the traditional Islamic civil and especially marriage law, aimed at "uprooting feudalism" in Afghan society. The government brooked no opposition to the reforms and responded with violence to unrest. Between April 1978 and the Soviet Intervention of December 1979, thousands of prisoners, perhaps as many as 27,000, were executed at the notorious Pul-e-Charkhi prison, including many village mullahs and headmen. Other members of the traditional elite, the religious establishment and intelligentsia fled the country.

The Soviet-supported Afghan National State grabbed the tribes by their throats by attacking their marriage practices. The only outcome possible in that situation, is exactly what happened next: The wholesale extermination of anybody even just loosely associated to the Afghan National State. They died like flies and dogs, and the One God knows that they had asked for it.

What you can see today in the Middle East, is exactly the same scenario. Western-supported National States, assisted by Western NGOs, try to grab the tribal populations by the throat by attacking their marriage practices. The outcome will obviously be exactly the same as in Afghanistan: The wholesale extermination of anybody even just loosely associated to the Western-supported National States. They are going to die like flies and dogs, and the One God knows that these people will have asked for it.

The people who have been re-labeled to "Al Qaeda" or "ISIS" are just tribal populations conducting insurgencies to protect their marriage practices. All they need to do for that, is to insist on Islamic Law. The very reason why tribal populations originally adopted Islam, is exactly because Islam is so compatible with tribal marriage practices. Islam is clearly both a goal as an instrument to achieve this very goal.

They are not interested in anybody else to live their way. Islam does not lend itself to imposing your own views onto others. In the end, what you have, is a list of forbidden behaviours in which you are not supposed to engage. Besides that, you are free to do as you please. They will not be able to use Islam for that kind of goals, that is, forcing people to live their way, because it would be much easier for their enemies to also use Islam, but then against that. Furthermore, it is exactly this freedom that the tribes use to organize their marriage practices as it suits them and as it protects the tribes and the clans. Reducing freedom, requires adding new forbidden behaviours to the existing list. The Islamic doctrines simply do not allow for that kind of "innovation".

Therefore, these populations just want to protect their tribal way of life and marriage practices, and hence Islam itself. Of course, they will not hesitate to unceremoniously knock out the West, if that is what it takes, in order to achieve their otherwise very legitimate tribal goal.

Instead of a National State, which would just degenerate into the play toy of the dominant tribe, and eventually get knocked out by the other tribes, they may just do as before and recognize a slave as their sultan, a gang of slave girls as his wives, and let the sultan purchase a gang of slaves, with preferably no attachments to the tribes whatsoever, for his government, bureaucracy, police force, and army. Unless the tribes find another way to make a tribal state work -- which I doubt -- it could perfectly be that the tribes will just be governed by slaves again.

 

[kritikvernunft]

A tribe is different from a clan. A clan is a family like Clan Macleod or Clan Fraser. A tribe is more of a group of people with similar genetics.

Well, both are about having a common ancestor. Tribes do too. The common ancestor may be dead for millennia already, such as Yavuth ("Jacob") and his four wives, but still, tribes do have a common mythical ancestor. In fact, their marriage practices -- especially cousin marriage -- almost guarantee that it will really be like that. The Arab tribes also claim a common ancestor (Ismael, son of Hagar, half-brother of Isaac), but I somehow suspect that they just like the idea of explicitly giving such common ancestor a name, and therefore would even invent one if need be -- or why not -- grab leftover stories from the Jews and handily re-purpose them. ;-)

Yes it is but it is the only thing that works

No, not true. Government by slaves works absolutely fine too. The Ottomans did it like that. The Mamluks too. Government by slaves is more than a practical joke. They managed to keep that going for almost a millennium, without laughing their heads off all the time! ;-)

And when technology gets so advanced the rich wont need the poor anymore.

Actually not really true, because self-defeating. Wealth is the possession of things that other people generally need, so that you can trade with them in order to acquire what you would need. In the absence of such trade, you are not wealthy, because there is nobody who would need that of which you would have much.

You see, before people start whining about unemployment, someone first needs to explain to me why it is so impossibly hard to find a plumber, electrician, or carpenter, who has five minutes of spare time to work on things that I would need? Of course, the hoi polloi do not want to learn plumbing, electricity work or carpenting, because they want to push paper in a post office instead. But howdy ho, what if what we need, is a plumber, and not a paper pusher? Seriously, I am sick and tired of all these aspiring, unemployed paper pushers whining about the dearth of jobs in the paper-pushing industry.

Even in my field, say, software in general, we are not worried about any possible unemployment, but about who exactly is supposed to maintain in the future all the systems that we have built already, let alone improve them or even build brand new ones? Around 80% of the work is in maintaining and operating existing systems. All calculations and predictions say that we are even going to run out of available resources in India, and that the proverbial dirt is going to hit the fan quite soon. Seriously, on a global scale, over 50% of all programmers were drafted out of India, and we are busy exhausting whoever was still available over there. Millions were drawn in, and the entire stock is pretty much gone now. Furthermore, nobody in our field was born rich. Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, and so on. The list is endless. Who of these people were born rich? They just rolled out their otherwise weird idea, and then the users -- in large numbers -- wanted to use it, and started using it. So, the money just came falling out of the sky. So, if these people accumulated too much money, who is there to blame? The users, of course. For example, who forced the users to start using mobile phones by the billions? Nobody that I know of.

At the same time, there are millions of positions going unfilled, for jobs that do not amount to just useless paper pushing. There are also lots of self-employed positions not being filled, for people who prefer to work on their own. Almost every industry is facing shortages, but obviously only of people who would be doing something useful. The number one reason why not to do something nowadays or not to invest in a project, is simply because you would have to hire un-findable people to do it.

The real problem is that everybody wants a paper-pushing job at the Ministry of Useless Affairs. Hear them whining and complaining because they cannot find this dream job of theirs!

Furthermore, concerning unemployment, let's not forget that approximately half of the human population could perfectly-well survive just by producing reproduction services. Seriously, the most common business model is to make children with a particular man, obtain resources from him to do that, and otherwise not bother to do anything at all, in an economical sense. I do not see why we would go out of our way to invent other jobs for people who actually already could have one? In that sense, there is no unemployment or such problem for them, actually. If they do not want to fall back on the always available backup plan, then they can look for something else, but why would we see it as a problem that it would be hard for them to find something else? Where is the urgency? I really do not see any.