Tag: history

The First Color Revolution

A fascinating and very detailed article on how the first battle of the American Revolution appears to have been a somewhat of a failed green flag:

Early in this article, we listed reasons why British accounts of Lexington are more credible than American ones. So let’s reconstruct the event based on their reports. Bear in mind that the British were already under strict orders not to fire unless fired upon.

Lieutenant William Sutherland and Lieutenant Jesse Adair were riding ahead of the marching column. As they approached Lexington village, they heard shots to their left and right, but hearing no balls whistling, assumed it was a local alarm signal. Then they then saw a colonist aim his musket at them and pull the trigger – but it “flashed in the pan”; that is, the primer powder failed to ignite the charge in the musket.

Sutherland and Adair rode back and reported this incident to Major John Pitcairn, commander of the lead column. Pitcairn, who had already heard warnings along the road that a hostile force was waiting at Lexington, now told his troops to load their guns and fix bayonets. He then ordered them to advance, but not to fire under any circumstances without orders.

When the British troops spotted the militia on the green, they split left and right to flank them. At this point, the first shots at the green itself were fired. Quoting Lieutenant Sutherland:

We still went on further when 3 shot more were fired at us, which we did not return, & this is sacred truth as I hope for mercy These 3 shots were fired from the corner of a large house to the right of the Church.

The house Sutherland referred to is Buckman’s Tavern. (The “church” and the “meeting house” on the map are one and the same.) Since there were, of course, no repeating rifles then, this means three shooters. The first of these shots might technically be the “shot heard round the world.” But though the militias were noted for their marksmanship, all three shooters missed their targets.

Ignoring the shots, the British kept focused on the militia on the green. Major Pitcairn rode up toward them, and ordered them to throw down their guns and disperse. At this point, both British and American accounts concur that the militia began dispersing. However, according to the British, four or five of the militia suddenly dove behind a wall and fired:

Major Pictairn: “some of the rebels who had jumped over the wall, fired four or five shots at the soldiers.” Lieutenant Sutherland: “instantly some of the villains who got over a hedge [wall] fired at us which our men for the first time returned.” Ensign Jeremy Lister, writing an account several years later, reversed the sequence and said: “they gave a fire then run off to get behind a wall.” Since Pitcairn’s and Sutherland’s accounts were written shortly after the event, they can be assumed more chronologically accurate. Pitcairn’s report also noted that his horse was hit by shots fired from “some quarter or other” and “at the same time several shots were fired from a Meeting House on our left.”

(I would like to interject here that Major Pitcairn, who later died at Bunker Hill, was not a man to whitewash a report; he was widely known for his integrity and courage, such that even the Sons of Liberty paid him respect, a high compliment indeed.)

So, not counting the “flash in the pan,” we have three shots from Buckman’s Tavern, four or five shots by the men who jumped behind the wall, perhaps more from “some quarter or other,” and “several” from the meeting house. Based on the British reports, it appears that possibly upwards of ten shots were fired on the redcoats before they returned fire. According to all British accounts, their return fire was not based on orders given, but was a spontaneous, disorderly reaction to the multiple shots the Americans fired. The green now billowed with musket smoke, and the British officers had to restrain their men with considerable difficulty.

The three men who fired from the corner of Buckman’s Tavern surely knew they were jeopardizing the militia on the green. So must have the men who jumped the wall. It is noteworthy that Paul Revere – whose alarm brought the militia out in the first place – had been at Buckman’s Tavern only moments before the “shot heard round the world” was fired from that very place. The map details Revere’s path, which took him from Buckman’s right through the militia. Was he really there just to haul a trunk, or was he choreographing the incident, passing instructions as he moved along?

Of course, I don’t believe for a moment that the Lexington militiamen were planning to sacrifice themselves as cannon fodder, any more than the mob at the “Boston Massacre.” I suggest that only a few were “in the know” – the individuals who fired the opening rounds from protected places, leaving the men on the green to absorb the fury of British retaliation.

The astonishing thing is that it’s entirely possible that Paul Revere himself fired “the shot heard ’round the world”. The more closely one reviews history, the more obvious it is that only the conspiracy theory of history can possibly be the correct one.

It’s also apparent that the same instruction book is being used over and over again. At this point, one has to look askance at any hysterical assertions about enemy atrocities, particularly those supposedly having targeted women and children.

DISCUSS ON SG

Free Trade and Strategic Crisis

Big Serge has an excellent post on the history of naval warfare that happens to touch lightly on the strategic crisis facing the USA today with regards to the production of steel and the post-WWII lack of industrial capacity that has weakened the US military.

At the core of the great naval developments occurring around the turn of the 20th Century was a systematic erosion of Great Britain’s strategic position. This strategic decay was of course a multivariate process which included the emergence of new great powers like Germany, Japan, and the United States, and the evolving industrial dynamics of the world. At its heart, however, the problem was very simple: in the latter half of the 19th Century, industrial technologies began to diffuse from Great Britain to the rest of the great powers, to the effect that British supremacy in industry and critical military technologies became an open question.

A brief perusal of the relevant economic statistics betrays a clear and sustained erosion of British supremacy. In 1880, Britain still accounted for nearly a quarter of global manufacturing output and was by far the leading industrial nation of the world. By 1913, it had fallen in absolute terms well behind Germany and especially the United States, which now boasted nearly 2.5 times Britain’s output. Already by 1910, Britain (formerly the world’s premiere steelmaking nation) produced only half as much steel as Germany and barely a quarter of American steel output.

The immense economic advantages enjoyed by the United States need little enumeration. America occupies a uniquely providential economic geography, being blessed with a pair of accommodating seaboards saturated with natural harbors, an internal Mississippi waterway that is both dense and far reaching to accommodate internal trade, superb growing regions, peaceful borders, and ample deposits of virtually every mineral resource thinkable. In short, it is a country with bountiful mineral and agricultural resources, internal waterways for moving them about, harbors for exporting them abroad, and no meaningful security threats.

The German case, however, bears closer scrutiny. Whereas the United States was characterized by boundless space, free of meaningful external security threats, Germany was intensely bounded in the middle of Europe, birthed into a firestorm of potential enemies all around it. German economic might was little like the American story, characterized by the uninterrupted exploitation of a vast geographic bounty, and more the product of powerful and aggressive German institutions – both of corporations and the state.

The German population grew rapidly into the 20th Century (German birthrates were forever a point of hand wringing for the French). The German population grew from some 49 million in 1890 to 65 million by 1910 – an increase of 32%, compared to an increase of just 3% in France (from 38.3 to 39.5 million) and 20% in Britain (37.3 to 44.9 million). Simultaneously, the consolidation of an impressive educational apparatus ensured that this growing population was highly literate and productive. Around the turn of the century, many European armies still reported high levels of illiteracy among recruits. In Italy, some 33% of recruits were deemed illiterate: the corresponding figure was 22% in Austria-Hungary and 6.8% in France, but a mere 0.1% in Germany. The rapid growth of such a young and educated population benefited not just the German army, but also the burgeoning roster of German industrial enterprises like Krupp, Siemens, AEG, Bayer, and Hoechst. Such firms dominated the emerging 20th Century industries like chemicals, optics, and electrics, and the intensive adoption of agricultural modernization and chemical fertilizers made German agriculture the most productive in Europe on a per-hectare basis.

The explosion of two industrial powers who could not only compete but even outstrip Britain (and one of them right in the heart of Europe) could have no effect other than directly undermining Britain’s strategic position. Matters were made worse, however, but the proliferation of advanced naval technology around the world – in many cases directly abetted by British firms.

In 1864, British military leadership had made the fateful decision to keep artillery production in the hands of the state-owned Woolwich arsenal, despite the emergence of private industrial firms, like the Armstrong company, who were capable of making state of the art naval artillery. Cut out of British government contracts, this let manufacturers like Armstrong with no choice but to seek foreign buyers. When Armstrong built an armored cruiser – the O’Higgins – for the Chilean government, it set off serious alarm bells about the basis of British naval supremacy. The O’Higgins was fast enough to easily outrun any capital ship of the day, but her powerful 8 inch guns made her more than capable of sinking targets in the lower weight class. This suggested a distinctive use case as a commercial raider, able to evade enemy battleships while preying on merchants. Chile, of course, was hardly a rival to Great Britain, but Armstrong’s exploits did not end there. All told, Armstrong would build 84 warships for twelve different foreign governments between 1884 and 1914, and frequently supplied technical systems more advanced than those in use by the Royal Navy at the time – for example, the powerful main battery of the Russian cruiser Rurik, launched in 1890.

The prospect of fast cruisers – optimized for speed and striking power at the expense of armor – was particularly alarming to Britain owing to emerging patterns of agricultural production. The advent of efficient steamships had drastically lowered seaborne transportation costs – a fact that was of the first importance for Britain, as it allowed for the mass import of cheap grain from places like North America, Australia, and Argentina, at costs far below the levels at which British farms could compete. As a result, between 1872 and the end of the century wheat acreage in Great Britain dropped by about 50 percent, and already by the 1880’s some 65 percent of Britain’s grain was imported from overseas. The prospect of swift enemy cruisers capable of intercepting grain shipments while evading the British battle fleets now assumed a potentially existential importance, as for the first time in history London contemplated the possibility that the interdiction of its trade could bring the island to the brink of starvation.

This raised the possibility of a dangerous asymmetry: might it be possible to nullify Britain’s centuries-old naval supremacy without building competing battleships at all? French naval theorists certainly thought so, and it was proposed that France could out-lever Britain on the seas with a fleet comprised entirely of fast cruisers and torpedo boats. Such a program had the additional advantage of being very cheap, with dozens of torpedo boats available at the cost of a single armored battleship. This financial calculus was particularly important to France: after the disastrous defeat at the hands of the Prusso-Germans in 1870-71, it was natural that building out the army should be Paris’s primary concern. Therefore, a naval program that promised to outmaneuver the British without eating into funds for the army had irresistible allure. In 1881, the French allocated funds for 70 torpedo boats (halting the construction of armored battleships), and in 1886 the new Minister of Marine, Admiral Aube, launched a new building program for 100 additional torpedo boats and 14 swift cruisers designed to raid enemy shipping.

Taken together, the decay of Britain’s naval supremacy is easy to sketch out. Great Britain had become uniquely vulnerable to asymmetrical warfare at sea, owing to its growing dependence on imported grain, at the same time that technical changes in the form of the torpedo and the fast cruiser gave her enemies the potential to exploit this vulnerability. To make matters worse, the diffusion of the industrial revolution to continental Europe and the United States raised the prospect that Great Britain might no longer be able to simply out-build her enemies. In a sense, the comforting and familiar dynamic of the blockade was now reversed: instead of a powerful British battlefleet insulating the home islands from invasion and blockading enemy ports, the home islands now faced starvation at the hands of fast and cheap enemy raiding vessels armed with torpedoes and modern naval artillery.

The parallels of British decline and the subsequent US decline should be fairly obvious. As Admiral Mahan wrote in The Influence of Sea Power Upon the French Revolution, “we may profitably note that like conditions lead to like results.”

DISCUSS ON SG

Projecting on Putin

Clown World propaganda outlet The Atlantic absurdly tried to pin the observable loss of faith in “democracy” across the West on Vladimir Putin:

Putin’s objectives were always clear: He craved less hostile leaders in the West, people who would work to dismantle NATO and the European Union from within. Above all, he hoped to discredit democracy as a governing system, so that it no longer held allure for his own citizens. Scanning this list, I’m dismayed to see how many of these objectives have been realized over time, especially in the first weeks of the second Trump administration…

The Russian leader’s rise wasn’t uninterrupted, but the ledger is filled with his victories, beginning with Brexit, an event he deeply desired and worked to make happen. That was a mere omen. His populist allies in France and Germany now constitute the most powerful opposition blocs in those countries. Within the European Union, he can count on Viktor Orbán to stymie Brussels when it is poised to act against Russian interests. Meanwhile, the European Union’s foreign-policy chief claims that the “free world needs a new leader,” and former heads of NATO worry for the organization’s very survival.

Putin is winning, because he’s cunningly exploited the advantages of autocracy. His near-total control of his own polity allows him to absorb the economic pain of sanctions, until the West loses interest in them. His lack of moral compunction allowed him to sacrifice bodies on the battlefield, without any pang of remorse, an advantage of expendable corpses that Ukraine can never match. Confident in the permanence of his power, he has patiently waited out his democratic foes, correctly betting that their easily distracted public would lose interest in fighting proxy wars against him.

What’s most devastating about Putin’s reversal of fortune is that he read Western societies so accurately. When he railed against the decadence of the West and the flimsiness of its democracy, he wasn’t engaging in propaganda, he was accurately forecasting how his enemy would abandon its first principles. He seemed to intuit that the idealism of American democracy might actually vanish, not just as a foreign-policy doctrine, but as the consensus conviction of its domestic politics.

This is revisionist and characteristically-inversive nonsense. The idealism of “American democracy” has vanished, not due to Putin and Xi cunningly exploiting the advantages of autocracy, but because so-called “representative democracy” has repeatedly and reliably proven itself to be aggressively opposed to the will of the people.

In fact, “Western democracy” is explicitly anti-democratic; genuine democracy that accurately expresses the will of the people is castigated as “populism” or worse. Every time the will of the people is democratically expressed, it is overturned and overruled by the elite’s captive courts; one little-realized consequence of the failure of this faux democracy as a governing system is the way that it has underlined the intrinsic corruption of the court systems which have even less respect for genuine justice than the “representative” institutions have for genuinely expressing the collective will of the people they supposedly represent.

The Founding Fathers were always rightly dubious of democracy. But their intricate tripartite system designed to achieve some of its benefits while avoiding some of its costs has turned out to be even more corruptible, and even worse, than they could possibly have imagined.

The astonishing and observably reality is that both the Russian and the Chinese systems are now superior to the wicked corruption of Western democracies, in both the moral and material senses. And this is not the result of anything the Russian or Chinese leaders have done, it is the direct result of the complete abandonment of the historical principles of Christendom that made the West great.

DISCUSS ON SG

We are the Ghost Dancers

The realization that Americans are the Indians now is gradually dawning on more and more people now that the influence of the Boomers and their memories of the 1950s and 1960s are fading away:

At best, at best, we might hope to plant seeds, that our children, and more likely our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, may once again live in a thriving and functional society that does not hate them. We ourselves, we who are live now, are the lost children of history, abandoned and betrayed by our feckless elders, stripped of our patrimony, cursed to have lived to see the last dying embers of the golden age that has now passed, fated from now to know only a darkness that will just become deeper and colder as we live out the rest of our lives. We are Spengler’s Roman soldier, guarding his outpost in Pompeii’s threatening shadow.

I do not say that is what the future holds, only that this is the prevailing sense: things suck, and the suck will only suck harder from here on out. We train and read and pray, not because we think we can roll back the suck, but only to have the strength to endure it, and maybe to carry some small fragments through that will be worth passing on to whoever comes next. We gather to the old symbols because they remind us of who we are, provide some anchor to our identities as the whirling maelstrom seeks to dissolve us into posthuman madness. We practice clean living – insofar as we do practice it, which I think is not very far, let’s be honest – because we know we are under attack, and the drugs and the poisoned food are one of the enemy’s primary weapons.

Irrational hope is a dangerous thing, but to abandon all hope is more dangerous still. The zombie junkies dying in our streets are where the abandonment of all hope leads. Things are unlikely to improve for we Westmen in the near future, or even perhaps in our own lifetimes. Too much is arrayed against us, most especially including our worst enemy: ourselves. Yet the examples of the Ghost Dancers, the Boxers, and the Zealots need not lead to despair. The Amerindian has not regained his lands, but he is far from extinct, and in Canada at least is growing rapidly in numbers, wealth, and political influence. The Han most certainly did regain their country, and while they endured a century and a half of massacre and madness, they have once again taken their place as one of the world’s great peoples. And as for the Jews, say what you will of them, but the destruction of the Temple was certainly not the end of their story, either.

So be it. If we dance, then at least we’ve got some killer beats and grooves to fuel us. But there is no reason to give up hope, however irrational it might seem. The Chinese persisted and got their country back after centuries of foreign rule. The Spanish endured five centuries of foreign rule before expelling all the Muslims and Jews from their country.

We have nothing to complain about except the foolishness of our recent forebears and the innocent stupidity of our youth. Others have faced far more difficult challenges. So start laying the foundation for the next round of Reconquistas. Greatness awaits!

DISCUSS ON SG

The Mysterious Omission

Ron Unz delves into the French Revolution and discovers a very interesting omission from Simon Schama’s popular history of that revolution:

Given its great length, Schama’s account provided an enormous amount of detail on the French society of that era and the course of the revolution that suddenly upended it. But his narrative very conspicuously lacked any direct explanation of why that colossal upheaval occurred, instead suggesting the French Revolution resulted from a combination of unforeseen, contingent factors and events. Two years of bad harvests had driven up the price of bread and the blunders of the king and some of his ministers provoked the spontaneous political combustion that brought down their thousand-year monarchy, while further mistakes gradually moved the revolution in an increasingly radical and bloody direction.

This constituted the major contrast with Webster’s account, which instead presented a very different interpretation of roughly the same historical facts. She portrayed the French Revolution in strictly conspiratorial terms as the deliberately planned outcome of particular political plots.

Some of her theories seemed quite unlikely. Her book was written during the height of the anti-German propaganda of the First World War. Therefore, on the basis of extremely thin evidence, she suggested that prior to his death in 1786, Frederick the Great of Prussia had sought to weaken the French monarchy and its Austrian alliance by promoting Masonic propaganda against Queen Marie Antoinette, the daughter of Austrian Empress Marie Theresa, who for decades had been his foremost geopolitical adversary.

But the main conspiracy that Webster described was hardly an implausible one, with neither the motive nor the means being outlandish, and she drew heavily upon contemporaneous sources for her analysis. The individual whom she fingered as the primary orchestrator of the French Revolution had also been discussed by Schama but only given glancing coverage.

As I had mentioned earlier, Philippe, the enormously wealthy Duc d’Orléans, was the king’s cousin and a close heir to the throne, ranked just behind the youngest brother of Louis XVI. Yet rather remarkably, he became one of the major early patrons of the revolutionary movement, even officially renaming himself “Égalité” as a sign of his support.

Among his large personal holdings was the Palais-Royal estate in Paris. Both Schama and Webster emphasized that he allowed it to be used as a hotbed and staging area for revolutionary activism, its private grounds being off limits to the French police authorities. Schama treated this as merely due to his liberal, open-minded tendencies, but according to Webster it was only one of the many actions he took deliberately aimed at destabilizing the ruling monarchy and then replacing his cousin on its throne. Whether or not her analysis was correct, the important role of the Palais-Royal in the early stages of the revolution appeared on dozens of pages of Schama’s text, and indeed many members of the National Assembly later described it as the “birthplace of the Revolution.”

One of the earliest cases of mass urban violence in Paris was a major riot at a wallpaper factory, leading to more than two dozen deaths, and this important story was covered at length by both Schama and Webster. Philippe visited the scene during that incident and threw small bags of money to the cheering rioters. Their attack on the factory was initially blocked by government troops, but after the latter were forced to open their lines to allow the carriage of Philippe’s wife to pass, the rioters poured through that gap and destroyed both the factory and the home of its influential owner. Both authors reported all these same facts, but only Webster treated them highly suspicious.

According to Webster, this was only one of many such examples. She argued that Philippe deployed his vast wealth to recruit thousands of violent brigands, who launched attacks against government facilities and civilian infrastructure, all aimed at fostering the spread of lawlessness, violent unrest, and the resulting wild rumors that would weaken the hold of the king and provoke an uprising. In fact, at one point Schama freely admitted that “later generations of royalist historians” had claimed that many of these incidents were orchestrated by Philippe and his fellow plotters in order to undermine government authority and allow him to seize the throne. But the author then made no effort to either explore or refute those accusations.

A couple of months after that first large riot, Philippe played a crucial role in leading the political revolt of most of the traditional French parliament against monarchical authority, and these members soon formed the new National Assembly in its place.

Later that same year, a mob of Parisian protesters led by women marched on Versailles and violently stormed the residence of the king and queen, who narrowly escaped with their lives. Philippe was later accused of having planned their murder by funding those rioters, who allegedly chanted his name as their new king. Once again, Webster heavily emphasized these facts, while Schama minimized them.

Webster also noted that the colors adopted early on by the revolutionary forces—white, blue, and red—happened to exactly match the colors of Philippe’s Orléans family. Perhaps this was mere coincidence, but perhaps not.

Given her future areas of historical interest, Webster also naturally emphasized that Philippe served as the Grand Master of French Freemasonry, presumably giving him a great web of hidden influence over the elite elements of his society, something obviously very helpful in overthrowing a regime. Schama entirely omitted that potentially important fact, and instead explicitly dismissed all such conspiratorial notions in just a few sentences:

To counter-revolutionary writers, looking back on the disaster of 1789, the proliferation of seditious and libelous material seemed even more sinister, evidence of a conspiracy hatched between godless followers of Voltaire and Rousseau, Freemasons, and the Duc d’Orléans. Was not the Palais-Royal after all one of the most notorious dens of iniquity, where even the police were forbidden from pouncing on peddlers of literary trash? Understandably, modern historians have steered clear of anything that could be construed as subscribing to the literary conspiracy theory of the French Revolution.

Wikipedia is notorious for representing the establishmentarian perspective on historical events and shying away from any questionable conspiratorial claims. But although the page on Phillipe makes no mention of Webster, the factual account it provided seemed closer to her analysis than that of Schama.

We should also not entirely ignore an interesting historical echo that came decades later. After the final defeat of Napoleon, the Bourbon monarchy was restored in France, and two of Louis XVI’s younger brothers then successively held the throne. But in the Second French Revolution of 1830, Charles X was overthrown and replaced by his cousin Louis Philippe d’Orléans, Philippe’s surviving son, who thus finally achieved the goal that his late father had allegedly sought.

Judging Webster’s work and weighing her conclusions against those of Schama is obviously difficult for a non-specialist such as myself, but I can certainly understand why her book was so highly regarded by at least some scholars when it appeared in 1919. Her main historical analysis seemed solidly based upon reliable sources of that era, many of which were only available in French, and she made an effort to weigh these against each other and evaluate their credibility. Her text included well over 1,000 footnotes to such crucial source material, while Schama’s provided none at all, instead merely listing the main works he drew upon for each individual chapter. So to some extent, Webster’s book represented new academic research, while Schama had produced what amounted to a very hefty synthesis and presentation of preexisting material.

All of this raises the interesting question of why Schama’s massive volume so casually dismissed and ignored the conspiratorial analysis that had been advanced by Webster more than three generations earlier.

The answer, of course, is that in order to get published and become the primary English language reference on the French Revolution, it was vital for Schama to conceal the involvement of The Empire That Never Ended.

I’ve read Schama’s work twice. I’ve never read anything by Webster. But I have absolutely no doubt that Webster’s work is more historically accurate and reliable, simply because Schama had to omit what has been, over the course of recorded human history, one of the most important actors and drivers of events, which is the intersection of supernatural and material evil that Philip K. Dick identified as The Empire That Never Ended, that AC calls Cabal, that Vladimir Putin calls The Empire of Lies, and which we label Clown World.

The Romans called it Carthage, demanded its defeat, and sowed its grounds with salt. The Conquistadors called it the Aztec Empire and did their best to eradicate it forever. The Crusaders were corrupted by it. The Inquisitors did their best to root it out of Christendom and have been slandered for their efforts ever since. But regardless of what it is called, it will never die because it is not of human origins and the fallen rulers of this world will always find corrupt human spirits who are willing to serve them in return for the false immortality they are offered.

It’s not hard to understand why the wicked are so slavishly committed to the will of their evil masters. They fear death, as they well should, and they will do literally anything in their futile attempts to avoid their inevitable Divine judgment.

DISCUSS ON SG

Batting 1.000

Big Bear was right again. This time about John F. Kennedy. The F… well, let’s just say it didn’t stand for “Fitzgerald”.

In September 1953, she and Jack wed in a lavish ceremony in Rhode Island. By 1960, they were in the White House — and so was Lem, with his own bedroom in the private residence. Jackie confessed to Senator George Smathers, one of JFK’s closest allies, that she could barely stand it.

‘Just one weekend in my life,’ she said, ‘I’d like to have my husband to myself. But Lem is always there, bathing and massaging him, even putting on his shoes and socks.’

Whispers about JFK and Lem’s ‘special relationship’ flew through DC, the press corps, the FBI and CIA — the latter agency worrying that Russia and other enemy states could blackmail the president with such information.

Jackie understood. Her own father, ‘Black Jack’ Bouvier, was a womanizing bisexual. Very little shocked her, and she came to appreciate Lem’s loyalty and discretion, the ‘stress relief’, as Lem often put it, that he provided for Jack.

However, I don’t think this was the big release of the files related to JFK for which everyone was waiting.

UPDATE: I would be remiss if I did not provide a link to Big Bear presenting evidence to a Boomer concerning what the “F” in John F. Kennedy stood for.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Glorious History of GG

Grummz praises the OGGers and the consequences of #GamerGate.

It’s time to take credit.

Gamergate really did change the world.

It was the first time normies (like I and others used to be), woke up to how corrupt our journalism was.

We fought back so hard that social media spent millions developing censorship tools to stop us, which were then weaponized against the mass populace.

There IS a gamergate playbook and it is this: TRUTH. We used TRUTH and social media to spread the word, through epic meme battles and more.

We gave rise to the Right media. So many pundits on the Right came from GG and got HUGE.

We helped get Trump elected the first term, because Trump called the media “fake” and that was the GG banner. We wanted it fixed.

We crushed AAA gaming last year and forced Ubisoft to their knees.

We may not be called Gamergate anymore, we may have been smeared and pushed into a corner for years as social media banned us all, but we are the keyboard warriors of truth and we have won the long game.

Now let’s keep going!

Indeed. As it happens, the final track on the SOULSIGMA album is THE RIDE NEVER ENDS, a tribute to GamerGate and all of its leaders, of whom, of course, I am one.

DISCUSS ON SG

Freedom Isn’t Real

The Zoomers can see what the previous generations were unable to see at a similar age: the professed ideals of society are completely fraudulent. Democracy doesn’t express the will of the people, free trade doesn’t make the society any wealthier, and the free movement of people is just another name for invasion and occupation.

To our parents and grandparents, steeped in the baggage of the Second World War, ‘freedom’ is the ultimate democratic right. 

But many in Generation Z can see that our ‘free’ society has degenerated into instability and uncertainty. 

If ‘freedom’ means being unable to afford a home, to live in overcrowded and overpriced rented accommodation, to work soulless jobs in order to pay sky-high taxes, and to have no sense of belonging or identity, perhaps freedom is not what we need.

So it’s no shock to read that a recent survey commissioned by Channel 4 found that 52 per cent of Britons aged 13 to 27 have lost faith in democracy and would welcome a dictator – a strong leader ‘who does not have to bother with parliament and elections’. 

A third of my generation believe ‘the UK would be a better place if the Army was in charge’. 

Other polls have found that many of us are likely to back the death penalty, while a Mail on Sunday survey this week found that two-thirds of us favour castrating sex offenders.

These reports have caused much alarm among liberal commentators – for whom democracy and the social contract are sacrosanct. 

They don’t want to face the brutal truth that the social contract has been ripped up by a political class that has long refused to put the interests of ordinary British people first, or to deliver on our repeatedly expressed wishes at the ballot box – on immigration, crime, tax and much else.

Drug use, shoplifting and defrauding the state go unpunished. Millions of economically burdensome migrants from places and cultures vastly different from our own are invited in, housed and fed at our expense – and we are attacked and slurred as bigots if we complain.

The so-called “social contract” never existed. I never signed any social contract and neither did you. Moreover, the morals and mores of society have been subverted, and in many cases, even inverted. Modern society, in the UK, in Europe, and in the USA alike, has conclusively falsified the ideals of the Enlightenment, which were always aimed at the destruction of Christianity, one of the three pillars of Western civilization.

And now that Christendom has been weakened, the other two pillars, the European nations and the Greco-Roman legal and philosophical construct, are crumbling as well. What we have now is rule by deceptive foreign oligarchy, it is neither democracy nor freedom. Every and all appeals to those outdated, falsified ideals are false on their face, and the young men and women who see this are entirely correct to reject them as lies.

Even Francis Fukuyama admits that he was wrong. History never ended and so-called “liberal democracy” is not the only legitimate form of government.

DISCUSS ON SG

The New R-Word

In the aftermath of Team Trump beginning to cut off the massive funding to Clown World’s operations in Europe, the leaders of the European Right are beginning to find their backbone and actually say the R-word out loud. That’s right… they’re openly calling for RECONQUISTA and remigration.

Right-wing leaders from across Europe have called for a new “Reconquista” to defend the continent’s traditional values and cultural identity while criticizing the EU’s migration policies. On Saturday, the Patriots for Europe group, the third-largest political bloc in the EU parliament, gathered in Madrid for its first high-profile rally since the summer elections. Attendees included Santiago Abascal, the leader of Spain’s conservative Vox party; Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban; Marine Le Pen of France’s National Rally party; and other high-profile conservative and right-wing leaders.

The event was held under the slogan “Make Europe Great Again,” an explicit nod to US President Donald Trump’s campaign motto. The conference centered on the theme of battling Islam, EU bureaucracy, globalism and left-wing “woke policies” and diversity.

The term “Reconquista” echoed throughout the event, with Abascal comparing today’s political struggles to the centuries-long campaign by Christian kingdoms to free the territory of modern Spain from Muslim rule in the Middle Ages.

“We Spaniards are proud to be known for that extraordinary feat of our ancestors. We are ready to be that again,” Abascal noted. “We are ready to be that wall of Europe once again in the face of Islamist advance,” he said, vowing to fight against “global dictatorship,” including the one imposed from Brussels.

The idea of Reconquista was also mentioned by Martin Helme, the leader of Estonia’s Conservative People’s Party. “For Europe to be great again, we need to have a new Reconquista,” he said while accusing globalist elites of trying to “damage our Christian civilization and replace it with their sick satanic utopia.”

Do Europeans want Reconquista, remigration, and a return to Christendom or do they want to continue their sick satanic servitude that has seen hundreds of millions of them slaughtered in the last 111 years in the name of the Enlightenment, Liberalism, and Democracy? Because ELD is the foundation of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equality, which we already know is societal and civilizational suicide.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Case of the Gold Buddhas

This is the first I’ve ever heard about any of this. Don’t ask me if it’s legitimate or the plot of Chuck Dixon’s next action movie.

Now that we’re finally allowed to talk about conspiracies and USAID—can we talk about the CIA moving gold on ships?

Can we talk about how, before WWII, nearly every village in China had a gold Buddha filled with gems, serving as the local bank?

Can we talk about how the Japanese looted them all and launched a massive sealift operation to stash them in the Philippines?

Or how a farmer found ONE of these Buddhas—only for Ferdinand Marcos to steal it?

Or how a U.S. court valued that SINGLE Buddha at $22 BILLION in 1998?

Or how, if that one Buddha had been invested in the S&P 500, the farmer would be richer than
@elonmusk
today?

Can we talk about how Google raided libraries and archives, scanning every book to track it down?

Can we talk about how certain tech firms used this knowledge to leverage the US Government and CIA to work for them?

Or how most of that gold is STILL buried in the Philippines—
And how Taiwan is a distraction while China builds a massive Navy to take it back?

Or how at least one of the CIA’s secret ship registries was accidentally exposed in the USAID data dump?

Or how the CIA funded a History Channel program about all this—to paint anyone searching for the truth as a nutcase?

Or how the co-founder of Jeff Bezos’ starship company wrote a bestselling “fiction” book about this gold becoming the world’s Bitcoin reserve—nine years before Satoshi Nakamoto launched Bitcoin?

It does tend to strike me as an awful lot of interest in a barbarous relic. But how can one single gold Buddha be worth anything close to that much?

DISCUSS ON SG