Tag: history

George Soros is going to his grave knowing that he was ultimately a massive failure:

In London in the 1950s, Soros was a student of the expatriated Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, who championed the notion of an “open society,” in which individual liberty, pluralism and free inquiry prevailed. Popper’s concept became Soros’s cause.

It is an embattled cause these days. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has reverted to autocracy, and Poland and Hungary are moving in the same direction. With the rise of Donald Trump in the United States, where Soros is a major donor to Democratic candidates and progressive groups, and the growing strength of right-wing populist parties in Western Europe, Soros’s vision of liberal democracy is under threat in its longtime strongholds. Nationalism and tribalism are resurgent, barriers are being raised and borders reinforced and Soros is confronting the possibility that the goal to which he has devoted most of his wealth and the last chapter of his life will end in failure. Not only that: He also finds himself in the unsettling position of being the designated villain of this anti-globalization backlash, his Judaism and career in finance rendering him a made-to-order phantasm for reactionaries worldwide. “I’m standing for principles whether I win or lose,” Soros told me this spring. But, he went on, “unfortunately, I’m losing too much in too many places right now.”

With Putinism and Orbanism on the rise and the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall approaching, there is renewed debate about the import of the events of 1989 and whether Russians, Poles and Hungarians really intended to embrace the full menu of Western liberal values. Francis Fukuyama is among those who have doubts today. “There’s now a lot of evidence that a lot of that turn toward liberal democracy in the early days, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, really was driven by a kind of educated, very pro-Western elite,” he told me recently. But less-educated people who lived outside large urban areas “didn’t really buy into liberalism, this idea that you could actually have a multiracial, multiethnic society where all these traditional communal values would have to give way to gay marriage and immigrants and all this stuff. That they definitely did not buy into.”

In his annual state-of-the-world speech in Davos this year, Soros said Trump “would like to establish a mafia state, but he can’t, because the Constitution, other institutions and a vibrant civil society won’t allow it.” He also characterized Trump as a “purely temporary phenomenon that will disappear in 2020, or even sooner,” and predicted a Democratic landslide in the 2018 midterm elections. Five months on, he was sticking by those predictions. “For every Trump follower who follows Trump through thick and thin, there is more than one Trump enemy who will be more intent, more determined,” Soros told me. He is doing his part to shorten the Trump era: In advance of the midterm elections, Soros has so far contributed at least $15 million to support Democratic candidates and causes.

Soros is evil, influential, and utterly wrong. It’s downright inspiring to feel the palpable sense of gloom emanating from the decrepit old monster. STILL NOT TIRED! And it’s going to be beautiful to witness the shock and horror that radiates from Soros and the other globalists when they belatedly realize that there isn’t going to be any Democratic landslide later this year, and that the God-Emperor is going to shatter the back of the Deep State they have so carefully established once and for all.

Now, who does this sound like? A non-ideological opponent of the extreme Left and the nationalist Right?

When I asked Soros to describe himself ideologically, he laughed. “My ideology is nonideological,” he said. “I’m in the club of nonclubs.” When I suggested that “center-left” might characterize his views, he demurred; he said it wasn’t clear where he stood now because the left had moved further left, a development that did not please him. “I’m opposed to the extreme left,” he said.

And what are his core motives?

Alex told me that for many years, his father had not been eager to advertise his Judaism because “this was something he was almost killed for.” But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew — unless you become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.”

Every single time. George Soros has spent his adult life trying to adulterate every single nation on Earth – including Israel – so that he can feel comfortable living wherever he wants. The converse of this is that every single nation will only be free to order its society to its own preferences when it doesn’t permit anyone like George or Alex Soros to live in it or fund organizations that operate inside it. Viktor Orban clearly understands this; the God-Emperor and the Neo-Tsar should follow his example and outlaw all Soros-funded organizations and activities.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that this article by Ron Unz on Judaism is going to prove highly controversial in conservative circles. But the truth is what it is, not what we would prefer it to be, so if you take any issue with it, or if you feel the need to run around shrieking about the anti-semitism of self-hating Jews, then I suggest you take it up with either Mr. Unz or Mr. Shahak. All I can say is that if you think this article is shocking, you don’t know religious history very well and you’re probably in for a real treat down the road. As I said before, it’s not merely non-Christians who are going to have a very difficult time with the light of truth being shined in so many dark places these days.

I must emphasize that I cannot directly vouch for Shahak’s claims about Judaism. My own knowledge of that religion is absolutely negligible, mostly being limited to my childhood, when my grandmother occasionally managed to drag me down to services at the local synagogue, where I was seated among a mass of elderly men praying and chanting in some strange language while wearing various ritualistic cloths and religious talismans, an experience that I always found much less enjoyable than my usual Saturday morning cartoons….. Essentially almost everything I had known—or thought I had known—about the religion of Judaism, at least in its zealously Orthodox traditional form, was utterly wrong.

For example, traditionally religious Jews pay little attention to most of the Old Testament, and even very learned rabbis or students who have devoted many years to intensive study may remain largely ignorant of its contents. Instead, the center of their religious world view is the Talmud, an enormously large, complex, and somewhat contradictory mass of secondary writings and commentary built up over many centuries, which is why their religious doctrine is sometimes called “Talmudic Judaism.” Among large portions of the faithful, the Talmud is supplemented by the Kabala, another large collection of accumulated writings, mostly focused on mysticism and all sorts of magic. Since these commentaries and interpretations represent the core of the religion, much of what everyone takes for granted in the Bible is considered in a very different manner.

Given the nature of the Talmudic basis of traditional Judaism and my total previous ignorance of the subject, any attempt on my part of summarize some of the more surprising aspects of Shahak’s description may be partially garbled, and is certainly worthy of correction by someone better versed in that dogma. And given that so many parts of the Talmud are highly contradictory and infused with complex mysticism, it would be impossible for someone like me to attempt to disentangle the seeming inconsistencies that I am merely repeating. I should note that although Shahak’s description of the beliefs and practices of Talmudic Judaism evoked a fire-storm of denunciations, few of those harsh critics seem to have denied his very specific claims, including the most astonishing ones, which would seem to strengthen his credibility.

On the most basic level, the religion of most traditional Jews is actually not at all monotheistic, but instead contains a wide variety of different male and female gods, having quite complex relations to each other, with these entities and their properties varying enormously among the numerous different Jewish sub-sects, depending upon which portions of the Talmud and the Kabala they place uppermost. For example, the traditional Jewish religious cry “The Lord Is One” has always been interpreted by most people to be an monotheistic affirmation, and indeed, many Jews take exactly this same view. But large numbers of other Jews believe this declaration instead refers to achievement of sexual union between the primary male and female divine entities. And most bizarrely, Jews having such radically different views see absolutely no difficulty in praying side by side, and merely interpreting their identical chants in very different fashion.

Furthermore, religious Jews apparently pray to Satan almost as readily as they pray to God, and depending upon the various rabbinical schools, the particular rituals and sacrifices they practice may be aimed at enlisting the support of the one or the other. Once again, so long as the rituals are properly followed, the Satan-worshippers and the God-worshippers get along perfectly well and consider each other equally pious Jews, merely of a slightly different tradition. One point that Shahak repeatedly emphasizes is that in traditional Judaism the nature of the ritual itself is absolutely uppermost, while the interpretation of the ritual is rather secondary. So perhaps a Jew who washes his hands three times clockwise might be horrified by another who follows a counter-clockwise direction, but whether the hand-washing were meant to honor God or to honor Satan would be hardly be a matter of much consequence.

Strangely enough, many of the traditional rituals are explicitly intended to fool or trick God or His angels or sometimes Satan, much like the mortal heroes of some Greek legend might seek to trick Zeus or Aphrodite. For example, certain prayers must be uttered in Aramaic rather than Hebrew on the grounds that holy angels apparently don’t understand the former language, and their confusion allows those verses to slip by unimpeded and take effect without divine interference….

And while religious Judaism has a decidedly negative view towards all non-Jews, Christianity in particular is regarded as a total abomination, which must be wiped from the face of the earth.

Whereas pious Muslims consider Jesus the holy prophet of God and Muhammed’s immediate predecessor, according to the Jewish Talmud, Jesus is perhaps the vilest being who ever lived, condemned to spend eternity in the bottommost pit of Hell, immersed in a boiling vat of excrement. Religious Jews regard the Muslim Quran as just another book, though a totally mistaken one, but the Christian Bible represents purest evil, and if circumstances permit, burning Bibles is a very praiseworthy act. Pious Jews are also enjoined to always spit three times at any cross or church they encounter, and direct a curse at all Christian cemeteries. Indeed, many deeply religious Jews utter a prayer each and every day for the immediate extermination of all Christians.

 And remember, this is the religion of Ben Shapiro, which is why it is patently obvious that there is not, and has never been any such thing as “Judeo-Christianity”, a “Judeo-Christian ethic”, or a “Judeo-Christian heritage”. It would certainly be very interesting to debate shifty little Benny and see just how much he knows about the faith he so publicly professes.

This is a new spin on the universal right to be an American. Steve Sailer rightly takes the spinners to task:

King John should have had Ilya Somin working for him doing spin at Runnymede in 1215. He would have shamed those aristocrats into giving up all their hereditary rights to the autocrat.

Do you ever get the feeling that, leaving aside minor details about what kind of economic system, the Soviet Union will eventually triumph over the United States due to the sophistic skills of ex-Soviets like Ilya Somin, Max Boot, Masha Gessen, and Julia Ioffe? They may not quite agree on what should replace the U.S., but they are united in being committed to propagandizing Americans into believing that America isn’t for “ourselves and our posterity,” no matter what it says in the Preamble to the Constitution.

After all, who would know more about how to organize a polity than somebody whose ancestors helped set up the Soviet Union? Who cares what Goodvernor Morris thought, when what matter these days is what the Somin family thinks?

And by ex-Soviets, Steve is being extraordinarily polite, because he’s actually referring to (((ex-Soviets))) who, by any other name, are still Trotskyite World Revolutionaries.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, these ex-Soviets have been trying to turn the USA into the new USSR for the last 50 years. And while they haven’t entirely succeeded, they’ve made a considerable amount of headway, thanks in no small part to libertarians and conservatives.

It’s really rather remarkable to see all the self-styled “conservatives” who suddenly develop a new predilection for creative linguistic interpretations worthy of a postmodernist disciple of Foucault and concocting ex post facto legal contortions to put the Warren Court’s “emanations and penumbras” to shame when the clear meaning of “Posterity” is pointed out to them.<

Let reason be silent when the dictionary and a comprehensive set of historical examples conclusively gainsay its conclusions.

The undeniable historical fact is that the U.S. Constitution was no more written to protect the interests of 19th century Irish immigrants and their US-citizen descendants than it was to protect the rights of people living in Iran, Libya, or Mexico today. The reason this fact still matters today is that to cede one claim is to automatically cede the other.

In which Overgrown Hobbit demonstrates that she is far too short and dishonest for this ride.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, Moammar Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Sarah D’Almeida de Almeida Hoyt to the logical conclusion that the contemporary United States is not a nation, but rather, an idea that belongs to all nations and that immigration to the USA is a basic human right.

If Vox Day does not care for people making up lies about him, he should not make them up about other people. Mrs Hoyt has stated on more than once that immigration into the United States is in fact a privilege; one that the United States may extend or withdraw at will.

A privilege, moreover that if the recipient is not properly grateful for, treating it as an adopted son would his admission into a new family and tribe, he does not deserve and ought not be granted.

Where she, and I, differ from Vox Day is that the founding principles of America are ALSO important, not just the land and the people. Liberty, rule of law rather than men, and a government that serves the people, in which all men are sovereign, are crucial to our identity as Americans. “Posterity” that lack it, are no true Americans, adopted sons and daughters that do are.

The idea the these values make her the same as a damned commie or a Muslim is slander.

It is as false as claiming that because Vox Day is wrong about race trumping culture in IQ, and because he claims that IQ is a necessary requirement for civil society, that he also believes that IQ determines virtue.

He owes Mrs. Hoyt an apology for that calumny.

First, I didn’t make up any lies. Second, the fact that I can draw more accurate conclusions from Hoyt’s statements than Hoyt herself can makes her logically incoherent, it does not make me a calumnist. Third, Hoyt and Hobbit are both factually wrong and historically revisionist. Fourth, Sarah Hoyt is not merely a Fake American, she is openly anti-American. And fifth, you always know that someone is intellectually dishonest when they edit a quote in such a way that leaves the statement grammatically incorrect. This was the full statement that Overgrown Hobbit disingenuously cropped.

It’s going to be very interesting to see which conservatives finally abandon their ahistorical equalitarian-based civic nationalism and which follow Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, Moammar Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Sarah D’Almeida Hoyt to the logical conclusion that the contemporary United States is not a nation, but rather, an idea that belongs to all nations and that immigration to the USA is a basic human right. 

Overgrown Hobbit was trying to disguise the fact that my statement did not address what Hoyt says on the subject, but rather, the conclusions that logically follow from her statements. Which, in this particular context, does happen to render her no different than the particular damned commie and pair of Muslims referenced. So, what has Sarah Hoyt actually said on the subject?

I Was Born American

Yes, I was born in another country of foreign parents who would no more become American than fly unassisted, (and who desire it less than they wish to have have their heads shaved by a warthog) but I figure that was an accident of circumstance.  What really matters is that I was an American in my heart.  I just had to get here and become one in truth. (And that, by itself, is an American attitude.)

This week while talking to a friend about his foreign SO, I found myself explaining that other people, in other countries, have a hierarchy in their heads all the time — who is powerful, who isn’t, what attitude is proper.  You can find it (if you know where to look) even when reading British novels.

We’re not like that.  Whether we were born elsewhere or here, Americans — those of us who are proud of the name —  are rebels, revolutionaries, something new under the sun: a people who believe people should be equal in their right to life, the right to liberty, the right to pursue their happiness undisturbed by either inimical neighbors or oppressive “betters.”… Those beliefs make me American. 

The idea that one “had to get here and become one in truth” is actually an intrinsically not-American thought, by definition. It is, rather, a common attitude among Fake Americans who want to lay false claim to the inheritance that belongs to the Posterity of the original We the People. But the belief that she is an American, however sincere, no more makes a Portuguese woman an American than the belief that she is male would make her a man. It gets even worse in a subsequent piece, where Hoyt actually denies the existence of America as a nation of blood and soil.

I was born in Portugal, of Portuguese parents, and so far as I know (it’s hard to stand on the marital faithfulness of people you never met even if they were your ancestresses) have no American ancestor, ever.  I probably have British blood, somewhere.  Being from the north of Portugal it is virtually impossible I don’t, when you consider trade going back to the 4th century B.C. and a tendency for well-to-do British families to send their remittance men to the area before there was an Empire.

What does this have to do with being American? Despite the genetic ignorance of people who claim that America is a nation like old Europe of “blood and soil”? Clear nothing.

I’ve been known to say I was born American, it just took me a few years to make it official. Is this strictly true?  Kind of.  If you squint and shake the magic 8-Ball.

Of course, I didn’t know the name for what I was or what I wanted.  I had not read that “immortal poetry” of the Declaration of Independence.  All I knew is that I wasn’t precisely right where I was, and while I loved my family and the village in which I grew up, all my impulses — indeed, my way of being — were at odds with the local culture and the local beliefs….

As almost everyone here should be aware, being an American – not just fitting in the culture, and because that’s regional it means I’ll need to learn to talk and walk again if I move across the country again – is an ongoing process, an ongoing fight between liberty and totalitarian impulses which exist in every society and possibly in every human.  And it is a struggle to free yourself from the inherited nonsense that has plagued other societies too: ideas of class and inherited rank or ability.

Lest you think I am reading too much into Hoyt’s denial of the very purpose of the U.S. Constitution, rest assured, she is consistent in denying and rejecting it.

We are a radical experiment, a nation not of blood and genes, but a nation of heart, of mind, of belief. 

Now try to square that statement with the preamble that defines the purpose of the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to… secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Posterity, as I have conclusively proven, means “direct genetic descendants”, not “future history” or “succeeding generations” or anything else. Paper Americans, Fake Americans, absolutely love the idea that America is not a material nation like every other nation in the history of Man. That allows them to claim that they are not just Real Americans, they are Better Americans than the real thing, even as they preserve their national identities, endlessly lecture their “fellow Americans” about the way things are done back in the “old country”, and attempt to change American society to be more to their liking. And notice that like so many Fake Americans before her, indeed, like Overgrown Hobbit, Hoyt is openly deriding both the genuine American nation as well as the very purpose of the Constitution to which she claims to have sworn herself. Now, here is the statement by Overgrown Hobbit that proves my original point about the Proposition Nation propagandists and shows that Overgrown Hobbit is intrinsically anti-American herself.

Liberty, rule of law rather than men, and a government that serves the people, in which all men are sovereign, are crucial to our identity as Americans. “Posterity” that lack it, are no true Americans, adopted sons and daughters that do are.

I must have missed the bit about Proposition Policing in the Constitution. If this is adoptive gratitude, I can’t imagine what a lack of it would look like! And idea that one should apologize to a Fake American like Hoyt, an immigrant who exhibits open contempt for both the historical We the People as well as their direct genetic descendants, for accurately characterizing her anti-American views and the conclusions that are logically drawn from those views, is absurd. She is no more American than I am Italian, Argentine, or Zulu. Of course, we can’t expect Sarah Hoyt to understand what Posterity means, or grasp the core purpose of the U.S. Constitution, or to accept the fact that America is an actual blood-and-soil nation and not a mere idea to which anyone, anywhere in the world, can profess allegience, any more than we can expect any other Portuguese, any other immigrant, or any other descendant of immigrants to do so against their own self-perceived interests.

John Locke warned us of people like Hoyt and Hobbit. Even though nothing gives them the right to dispossess the American posterity and turn those Americans out of the inheritance which ought to be the possession of them and their descendants to all generations, they are indeed apt to think themselves the masters.

Lest you are under the illusion there will be anything substantive left of America once the replacement population is sufficiently in control, consider this rejection of an important American children’s writer by a literary award:

Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name is set to be removed from a major children’s book award after concerns were raised about the “Little House on the Prairie” author’s depiction of certain races in the early-to-mid 20th century.

The Association of Library Service to Children’s (ALSC) board voted unanimously on Saturday to rename the “Laura Ingalls Wilder Award” as the “Children’s Literature Legacy Award.”

The association, which took the vote at its board meeting in New Orleans, said the vote “was greeted by a standing ovation by the audience in attendance.”

Wilder is best known for her “Little House on the Prairie” novels, which the ALSC has stated “includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values” based on Wilder’s portrayal of black people and Native Americans.

This sort of gesture is an intentional public insult to American history and heritage. As a Native American, I am not offended by Wilder’s portrayal of the Indian tribes that lived where she and her family settled, but I am greatly offended by this gratuitous insult to a woman whose literary contribution to American history will likely survive the country itself.

That’s what I tell SJWs before they make their architectural contributions to my abode. I like to think that it helps them feel a part of something bigger than themselves:

Some conquistadors wrote about the tzompantli and its towers, estimating that the rack alone contained 130,000 skulls. But historians and archaeologists knew the conquistadors were prone to exaggerating the horrors of human sacrifice to demonize the Mexica culture. As the centuries passed, scholars began to wonder whether the tzompantli had ever existed.

Archaeologists at the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) here can now say with certainty that it did. Beginning in 2015, they discovered and excavated the remains of the skull rack and one of the towers underneath a colonial period house on the street that runs behind Mexico City’s cathedral. (The other tower, they suspect, lies under the cathedral’s back courtyard.) The scale of the rack and tower suggests they held thousands of skulls, testimony to an industry of human sacrifice unlike any other in the world. Now, archaeologists are beginning to study the skulls in detail, hoping to learn more about Mexica rituals and the postmortem treatment of the bodies of the sacrificed. The researchers also wonder who the victims were, where they lived, and what their lives were like before they ended up marked for a brutal death at the Templo Mayor.

“This is a world of information,” says archaeologist Raùl Barrera Rodríguez, director of INAH’s Urban Archaeology Program and leader of the team that found the tzompantli. “It’s an amazing thing, and just the kind of discovery many of us had hoped for,” agrees John Verano, a bioarchaeologist at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana, who studies human sacrifice. He and other researchers hope the skulls will clarify the role of large-scale human sacrifice in Mexica religion and culture—and whether, as scholars suspect, it played a key part in building their empire.

It’s always good to know that one is maintaining a long-standing historical tradition. It also tends to put a new spin on the Mexican reverence for La Señora de la Santa Muerte.

And as a result, it’s mostly fake. That’s the only conclusion that can be honestly reached in light of the fact that the single most famous experiment in social science turns out to have been a fraud:

One of the most famous and influential psychology studies of all time was based on lies and fakery, a new exposé reveals.

The Stanford prison experiment purported to show we are all naturally inclined to abuse positions of power – after volunteers randomly assigned to act as prison guards began abusing volunteer inmates in a mock prison.

But now a report from author and scientist Dr Ben Blum claims the research was all a sham. It points to recordings found in archives at Stanford University which show the study’s author Professor Philip Zimbardo encouraged guards to treat inmates poorly.

Also, one volunteer prisoner has now admitted to faking a fit of madness that the study reported was driven by the prison’s brutal conditions.

The revelations have sent scientists into uproar, with some calling for the experiment and its findings to be wiped from psychology textbooks worldwide.

We certainly live in interesting times. I knew that most “scientific” economics was a fraud, and I’d concluded that all “scientific” evolution was a fraud, but it is clear that the rot begins in physics and goes all the way down through the softest social sciences.

The central problem is simple enough, as it is the result of the gap between the theory of scientody and the reality of scientistry. Scientistry doesn’t incentivize or require replication, so no one even bothers trying to replicate the vast majority of studies and experiments.

Not only did Albert Einstein rip off and take credit for the work of Newton, Poincare, Lorentz, and De Pretto, but he was a Chinese-hating racist as well:

The publication of Albert Einstein’s private diaries detailing his tour of Asia in the 1920s reveals the theoretical physicist and humanitarian icon’s racist attitudes to the people he met on his travels, particularly the Chinese.

Written between October 1922 and March 1923, the diaries see the scientist musing on his travels, science, philosophy and art. In China, the man who famously once described racism as “a disease of white people” describes the “industrious, filthy, obtuse people” he observes. He notes how the “Chinese don’t sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse.”

After earlier writing of the “abundance of offspring” and the “fecundity” of the Chinese, he goes on to say: “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary. A peculiar herd-like nation, often more like automatons than people. I noticed how little difference there is between men and women; I don’t understand what kind of fatal attraction Chinese women possess which enthrals the corresponding men to such an extent that they are incapable of defending themselves against the formidable blessing of offspring”.

At least we know the drill. Tear down the statues, remove his name from everything, and retroactively strip his Nobel prize. And, of course, bring up the fact that he was a horrible racist every single time anyone mentions his name.

The fifth Voxiversity video is now live! This is the topic selected by the backers in March and is called Why Western Civilization Needs Christianity. As the subject turned out to be a rather large one, this is part one of two.

Episode Five: Why Western Civilization Needs Christianity

• BitChute
• DailyMotion (HD)
• YouTube
• Facebook