A Discussion Of Gog In The Septuagint

As you may already know, there are differences between the older Septuagint and the much later Masoretic text from around 1000 AD. I've previously linked to videos that discuss differences concerning the lifespan of the patriarchs and other information important to dating the Exodus. But in this video, well known Biblical scholar, Joel Richardson, examines some of the references to Gog in the Septuagint that do not show up in the Masoretic text. He also explains from this that the Gog prophesied about in Ezekiel is the Antichrist of Revelation.  

 VIDEO: "The Hidden Identity of Gog (Buried in the Septuagint)"
Joel Richardson (15 min.)

History: "Why the CIA Secretly Operated an Airline in Southeast Asia for Decades"

 An article on Air America, an airline and air transport company operated in Southeast Asia by the CIA. The article opens:

    Air America was designed with deniability in mind.

    So don’t be surprised if you’ve never heard of the CIA-administered airline that employed more than 5,000 people, including hundreds of ex-military and bush pilots, to service America’s logistical needs throughout Southeast Asia campaigns from 1950 to the mid-1970s. 

    The CIA remained so tight-lipped about its biggest proprietary that for decades, many Americans only knew of Air America through press reports of daring pilots and alleged opium-running in Laos or via the eponymous 1990 action-comedy flick starring Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr. 

    However, a more comprehensive accounting of Air America, told eventually through declassified documents and carefully reported books such as William Leary’s Perilous Missions and Christopher Robbins’ Air America, shows how integral the CIA’s covert airline was to American servicemen and civilians in the region. 

Asking the Important Questions: "Were the Nazis socialists?"

The Quotulatiousness blog risks the gnashing and wailing of leftists as he answers the question: "Were the Nazis socialists?" Short answer is "yes". The longer answer:

    Many people assume Nazis could not have been socialists, despite all the time and energy they devoted to jumping up and down screaming “We are socialists!”, because they were “right-wing” and socialism is supposed to be “left-wing”.

    Except “right-wing” and “left-wing” don’t have rigid definitions outside the context of the French revolution. In any other context, they’re just a metaphor.

    So why did the NATIONAL Socialist German Workers’ Party and the INTERNATIONAL Marxist-Leninist Socialist Workers’ Movement hate each other so much?

    It’s pretty obvious when you look at the names.

    National.

    International.

    To Nazis, the race and culture of a people are everything. They are what the state is supposed to represent. Ein Volk, as they would say. The purpose of Nazi socialism is to control capital assets, subordinating them to the will and welfare of the ethnostate.

    But Marxist-Leninists seek to abolish all ethnostates. They are a globalist movement, seeking to place all capital assets under the control of a universal proletariat in theory, which is in practice represented by one world government.

    Thus, Nazis sought to use socialist policies for the welfare of the German people and Marxist-Leninists seek to abolish “German” as a meaningful distinction, along with all other cultures.

    The antipathy between Nazis and communists was a sectarian struggle within socialism. Same methods, but different sacred groups.

    Since the defeat of National Socialism by International Socialism in WW2, all modern socialism is pretty much of the international variety.  

NY Post: More Swastikas Spray Painted Across NYC

The New York Post reports: "More swastikas found spray-painted at parks across NYC: ‘We will not accept this as normal’." Nothing definitive on who was responsible. But I have to admit that when I read the article, my mind went back to an episode of Kolchak: The Night Stalker entitled "Horror in the Heights" where Kolchak investigates a spate of swastikas being painted everywhere in a certain neighborhood; but rather than neo-Nazis, the responsible party was a Hindu priest painting them to drive off a rakshasa. 

Sorry Gals, You Aren't That Special

Perusing the internet the other day I came across "How to Start Carrying as a Woman" by Grace Torrence. It is one of these articles that can be summed up as "don't listen to men because women are special." And it is encapsulated in this one sentence from the article: "Beginning this journey is a process, and it's one that looks different for women." 

    How does it look different? 

    Self doubts? Not really. She talks about concerns of whether the weapon was printing, whether she chose the right clothing, and whether it was safe (presumably to carry a loaded weapon). Men also have these concerns which is widely discussed by trainers, bloggers, and those commenting on gun boards.

    Comfort? Also no. She relates: "It was just the holster. I was testing my wardrobe and getting used to the feeling of something on my body… and it was still uncomfortable." Yeah, no kidding. I went through several holsters (and firearms) the first several years I was carrying before I found a combination that was reasonably comfortable and which I was confident did not print and yet provided good access. And it will continue to be an issue should you change your holster/firearm or use a different method of carry. 

    It feeling strange? A hard no. She writes: "I was comfortable at the range and I trusted myself with a firearm, but carrying one on my body in everyday life felt completely different." No kidding.

    Confidence in a set up? Sorry, that also is common between men and women. Torrence states: 

It took time to trust my setup and figure out what actually worked for me. Now, many years later, I have confidence and trust in my setup. I’ve learned how to dress around my firearm while still keeping my personal style, and I continue to learn and develop my systems as a woman that carries daily.   

Not only did it take me several years to figure out what worked for me, but it has continued to evolve in the decades since. Everyone has to learn how to dress around the gun. If there is any difference, it probably is that men have less options than women on how they can dress in professional environments.

    Torrence also laments:

You may receive well-intentioned advice such as “get the largest firearm you can conceal…”, “just wear bigger and baggier clothes…”, and “get a small firearm.” The reality is that this is outdated thinking and doesn’t actually help us feel confident in our decision to start carrying a firearm. 

I'm not sure how this is different from men, unless it is that people are more willing to give women advice but don't really care enough to do the same for men. (Most of the "advice" I received was from reading articles on concealed carry). And complaining of being advised to "get a small firearm" is pretty rich coming from someone who settled on the P365X as her carry gun. Likewise, how is "just wear bigger and baggier clothes" any different from the author's advice for carrying at the 3 o'clock or 5 o'clock position: "It can still work with the right outfit, especially if you’re wearing a looser outer layer that helps cover the firearm."

    She then covers issues like being aware of state laws and obtaining the necessary permits. Since I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that excludes men from also having to obey the law and obtain required permits, I'm not sure that this supports her thesis that there is something different or special about women.

    She recommends training first, including trying out different firearms, before buying. That would be good advice for anyone new to concealed carry. She also adds: "The most important thing to remember throughout this process is that carrying is a responsibility, not an accessory." But there are men who fail to understand the legal and moral responsibilities of carrying a firearm everyday, and looking at some of the gun YouTubers, there are definitely some that seem to think of their firearm as a fashion accessory or marker of status. 

    In choosing a firearm for concealed carry, she complained:

The most common thing I heard was “Get the largest firearm you can still conceal.” This advice is likely based on the premise that larger firearms are typically easier to shoot because their mass may better absorb recoil. I followed that advice, and within a few months I sold that firearm. Not because it was bad, but because it wasn’t right for me. 

But that bit of advice is spouted off to all concealed carriers, not just women. At least once a week I come across it or its sibling maxim that "concealed carry is supposed to be comforting not comfortable." And I agree that it is anathema to good concealed carry practice because following those sayings results in your being less likely to carry a firearm regularly or for those quick trips to the gas station or convenience store. (I would also note that such advice generally comes from those who have a background in law enforcement and/or the military and, therefore, come to concealed carry thinking in offensive, rather than defensive, terms). 

    She then wades into the 9mm versus .380 ACP debate and concludes:

The bottom line is that for concealed carry, the caliber debate matters less than we think. What actually matters is whether you can shoot it well, train with it consistently, and feel comfortable and confident carrying it. Everything else is just noise.    

Again, that is good advice for both men and women. 

    Torrence then discusses carry positions and holsters. However, other than the possibility of "bra carry" I didn't see anything different from the advice that would be given to men. 

    She concludes with a some good advice on acclimating to concealed carry and common beginner mistakes. Yet even with my long background in concealed carry, I tend to try out a new holster around the house and yard, doing different tasks, in order to see if its is comfortable and will work out for me, although it is typically just a day or two rather than 30 days. But I figure a good day where I clean gutters, do yard work or other chores, crawl under a car, etc., will probably give me the information I need on whether a holster will work for me. 

    In short, this is a solid article for someone of either sex getting into concealed carry. But, other than the option of bra carry, the process is not one that looks different for women versus men. That is just marketing hype. Like a pink pistol. 

Israel: "Who? Me?"

Vox Day cites to an article from the Israel Hayom news site, entitled "Who really dragged whom into the war with Iran?" The author, Danny Zaken, claims that Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, are not to blame for the war with Iran. Rather, he blames U.S. Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth. Briefly, as Zaken summarizes in his conclusion, he contends:

The pointing of the finger at Israel as the party that pushed the US into the strike is therefore only partially correct. In practice, this was a purely American decision, based on an understanding that the regime poses a threat to America and the entire West, and certainly to US interests in the Middle East. Israel assisted with precise intelligence, on the nuclear and missile programs, on Iranian attacks against American targets, and on what happened during and after the protests. The clear convergence of interests with the US is what brought about the joint war, even if its end remains unclear.     

But Israel did more than provide intelligence--it led the charge of the actual attacks. 

    Day sees Zaken's article as a sign that the war is not going well, writing:

    I find this version of events less interesting for its attempt at revising history and more useful for indicating that at least some of the parties responsible for the war are attempting to avoid being held culpable for it, which is a very reliable indicator that the war failed to accomplish their goals and is expected to be considered something that is worthy of blame rather than praise.

    This, in turn, indicates that everyone involved in prosecuting it is going to be highly motivated to bring it to an end sooner rather than later. ...

    I have the impression, although it may be wrong, that Day believes that Zakem is predicting the fallout will be throughout the whole of the West--that is, all national leaders will be excoriated by their respective citizens. But Zakem's audience isn't the world, as a whole, but Israel. Thus, the fallout which Zakem foresees is not necessarily one applicable to all leaders in the West, but may be limited to Israel's military and political leadership. And it may be tied to the comments I noted earlier today from Netanyahu wanting to end Israel's reliance on U.S. financial aid. 

    That is, it suggests to me that however this war ends, it is going to cause a lot of backlash against Netanyahu inside Israel and he is trying to get out ahead of it. Here are two possibilities, although there may be more. First, he may be looking at a backlash because the war didn't accomplish Israel's war goals, and he intends to blame the U.S. for tying his hands, which was only possible because the U.S. holds the purse strings. Or, second, he may be facing backlash for declining support for Israel, for which he will blame the U.S. while at the same time weening Israel from its dependence on U.S. tax dollars for fear that the aid might be suddenly cut off by a future Congress or President that feels no obligation to subsidize Israel and its military. Or both. 

    In relation to this discussion, I would point out this piece by James Howard Kunstler, "The Earth Moves Just a Bit," which paints a far different picture of how the war is going:

Expect a consequential week. The Persian Gulf remains closed and colossal oil slicks leak out of Kharg Island while Iran blusters and stomps its feet. No one can even try to buy its oil anymore, not even China. The sanctions are too onerous. Iran’s wells must be shut in now. Imagine how the production chiefs out in the oil fields are howling at their insane IRGC overseers. Iran has no economy left operating. Iran’s domestic security force, the Basij (Sâzmân-e Basij-e Mostaz’afin, or “Mobilization of the Oppressed”) is strangling anyone who expresses discontent in the streets, not a good look for a regime that can’t survive without the pretense of popular support. 

Meme of the Day: Simon's Car Says "Feed Me"

Source: Barnhardt Memes

I like watching the Simon's Cat shorts on YouTube.  

Netanyahu Reveals Timeline for American Economic Decline

From "Netanyahu's shock plot to split with US as Trump's Iran peace proposal unravels sending oil prices soaring" at the Daily Mail. The article relates:

    Benjamin Netanyahu plans to 'wean' Israel off American financial support, just as Donald Trump's Iran peace proposal unravels and oil prices surge. 

    The Israeli prime minister was pressed on the financial support his country receives from the US during an interview with CBS News anchor Major Garrett on Sunday. 

    'Do you believe it's time for the state of Israel to reexamine and possibly reset its financial relationship to the United States?' Garrett asked, to which Netanyahu responded, 'Absolutely.' 

    'And I've said this to President Trump. I've said it in - to our own people. Their jaws drop,' the leader continued. 'I want to draw down to zero the American financial support, the financial component of the military cooperation that we have.'

    Netanyahu went on to say he wants to begin the drawdown immediately rather than wait for the next Congress, phasing it in over the next decade, a push that comes as American support for Israel declines. 

In other words, within the next 10 years, he does not see the United States being wealthy enough to support Israel at the level it is accustomed to. 

Ya Think?

"Spanish police fear Islamist terrorists are taking advantage of left-wing PM's decision to open the door to 500,000 migrants and creating fake identities" reports the Daily Mail. 

    Spanish police have warned that Islamist terrorists could exploit the government's mass migrant legalisation programme, as reports of lost passports and identity documents surge among applicants. 

    Spain's socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez approved a major initiative last month to grant legal status to half a million undocumented individuals, causing significant political backlash and triggering a 'collapse' in social services across the country.

Isn't "socialist" just a synonym for traitor? Anyway, the article continues:

    And now, an internal memo from the National Police's General Commissariat for Immigration and Borders revealed that complaints over missing documents have continued to rise sharply among migrants seeking to benefit from the scheme.

    According to the document, seen by Spanish outlet La Gaceta, the most dramatic increases in lost document reports have been recorded among Pakistani, Algerian and Moroccan nationals. 

    Police noted that the nationalities most frequently linked to the missing document complaints overlap with profiles that have previously appeared in investigations related to Islamist extremism.

    The internal document orders officers to intensify identity and background checks in these cases because of what it describes as the difficulty - and in some instances impossibility - of reliably confirming applicants' true identities.

    The issue is unfolding while Spain remains under its long-standing level four anti-terrorism alert - one step below the maximum.  

Is It Really Only A Conspiracy Theory?

Anonymous Conservative often offers up examples of politicians and aspiring media personalities offering themselves and/or their children to the wealthy and powerful in order to attain "success". So the following article from the New York Post caught my attention: "Sarah Ferguson was allegedly ‘friends with benefits’ with Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs, took teenage Princess Eugenie to his yacht party."