Tag: history

As I have repeatedly observed, no matter how outlandish their theories may be, the conspiracy theorists are reliably far too conservative, as the historical reality is almost always more horrifying than the average individual is capable of imagining or even admitting:

VICTIMS of a warped social experiment in Germany where authorities deliberately placed troubled kids with paedophile foster parents are set to win compensation. Between 1969 to 2003, these homeless boys aged between six and 14 were handed over to paedos  — because it was thought the vulnerable kids might benefit from their attention.

The twisted logic behind behind the “Kentler experiment”— named after the leading sexologist Helmut Kentler who spearheaded it — was that paedophilia could have “positive consequences”. Astonishingly, in the late 1960s Kentler managed to persuade West Berlin’s ruling Senate that homeless boys would leap at the opportunity to be fostered by paedophile dads. It was successfully argued they would be “head over heels in love” with their new father figures.

About this time Kentler was publicly lobbying for decriminalisation sex between adults and children in West Germany. The academic argued youngsters “almost always more seriously damaged” by their abusers being prosecuted than by the abuse itself.

Don’t be surprised when similar projects in the USA and the UK are revealed. Adding P to the ever-growing sexual rights acronym has always been the end game of the human rights movement. The wicked will never, ever stop attempting to expand their so-called “rights” until they are able to legally a) have sex with, and, b) openly murder, children without fear of consequence or reprisal.

Once you understand that “the slippery slope” in this case is not a logical fallacy, but rather the straightforward observation of the step-by-step implementation of an oft-repeated process that has been attempted and resisted, implemented and eventually stamped-out, time and time again over the course of human history, you will understand why it should be stopped at the beginning of the process.

A critic apologizes for assuming my nonexistent heresy:

I wrote you a letter concerning the trinity of God and I want to apologize for scolding you. I have come to understand the revelation of The Bible better these past few days and I admit I jumped the gun in criticizing your argument about the trinity. There are apparent contradictions between The Bible and the teaching about The Trinity like many believe it. I think this stems from the wrong interpretation that the catholic church presents about God. I also went over your argument again and admit that there is a contradiction between The Word of God and this belief in The Trinity as it is many times taught in different circles.

Accepted. As I frequently point out, any time an argument is reliant upon an observable falsehood or deception, it is usually being made in defense of a false position. The mere fact that I am frequently and erroneously criticized for not subscribing to “the Nicene Creed” when I am in fact the one subscribing to the actual Nicene Creed of 325 as opposed to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 that most Christians wrongly believe to be “the Nicene Creed” should be sufficient to give the average critic pause.

It is also worth noting that the third Ecumenical Council of 431 reaffirmed the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed and rejected the later pseudo-Nicene version. And finally, you may wish to consider the fact that Sir Isaac Newton independently came to the same conclusion that I did. As for me, I could not care less if all the modern theologians from all the modern sects and churches and denominations declare otherwise. Given their assertions on various other theological matters, I tend to rather like our odds of being the party more in line with the truth.

It is their country now:

Two Muslim women with opposing views on a headscarf ban in schools clashed in a fierce TV debate in Sweden. The teacher told the politician that people uncomfortable with the veil should just leave the country.

The heated exchange between Naouel Aissaoui, a school teacher in the Swedish municipality of Skurup, and local politician Loubna Stensaker Goransson was over a ban on veils in public schools, which Goransson and other council officials enacted in December. The decision angered many educators, and Aissaoui is among those leading the pushback.

“Move away if it annoys you,” Aissaoui said during a TV debate after her opponent said she disliked seeing little girls wearing the veil. “This is my country, too.”

Move where? All they are going to do is follow you. Better to sink the ships, reject the refugees, end the subsidies, repatriate the immigrants, and stay where you are.

It is absolutely immoral to allow refugees to settle in your country. And the Bible is one long lesson about the horrific consequences of permitting even moderate numbers of foreigners to live among you, beginning with Egypt and Canaan.

Immigration is rather like free speech. Both are scams that are intended to convince the target to lower its natural defenses until the balance of power is sufficiently altered. Then the vital importance of minority feelings and cultural norms abruptly disappear.

Those are always just two options. And there is no guarantee the native population will win the latter:

An Indian minister known for fiery and inflammatory rhetoric has declared that India’s Muslims should have been shipped to Pakistan at the time of partition in 1947, arguing the move would have saved the country a lot of trouble.

The controversial comment came from Giriraj Singh, minister of Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries, during a recent address in Purnia. He suggested that widespread unrest over two contentious laws – the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and a proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) – could have been avoided had Indian Muslims been deported to Pakistan when the country was divided from present-day India.

“It is the time to commit ourselves to the nation. Before 1947, [Muhammad Ali] Jinnah pushed for an Islamic nation. It was a big lapse by our ancestors that we’re paying the price for,” Singh said.

From Canaan to Byzantium to the USA to India, the lesson is the same: always, Always, ALWAYS sink the damn ships. As Australia can confirm, the rabbits are never good for the native species.

The Renaissance Mathematicus considers the importance that Galileo’s famously controversial work, Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, actually played in the development of modern astronomy:

What role did the Dialogo actually play in the ongoing cosmological/astronomical debate in the seventeenth century? The real answer is, given its reputation, surprisingly little. In reality Galileo was totally out of step with the actual debate that was taking place around 1630. Driven by his egotistical desire to be the man, who proved the truth of heliocentricity, he deliberately turned a blind eye to the most important developments and so side lined himself.

We saw earlier that around 1613 there were more that a half a dozen systems vying for a place in the debate, however by 1630 nearly all of the systems had been eliminated leaving just two in serious consideration. Galileo called his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, but the two systems that he chose to discuss, the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system, were ones that had already been rejected by almost all participants in the debate by 1630 . The choice of the pure geocentric system of Ptolemaeus was particularly disingenuous, as Galileo had helped to show that it was no longer viable twenty years earlier. The first system actually under discussion when Galileo published his book was a Tychonic geo-heliocentric system with diurnal rotation, Christen Longomontanus (1562–1647), Tycho’s chief assistant, had published an updated version based on Tycho’s data in his Astronomia Danica in 1622. This was the system that had been formally adopted by the Jesuits.

The second was the elliptical heliocentric system of Johannes Kepler, of which I dealt with the relevant publications in the last post.

Galileo completely ignores Tycho, whose system could explain all of the available evidence for heliocentricity, because he didn’t want to admit that this was the case, arguing instead that the evidence must imply a heliocentric system. He also, against all the available empirical evidence, maintained his belief that comets were sublunar meteorological phenomena, because the supporters of a Tychonic system used their perceived solar orbit as an argument for their system.  He is even intensely disrespectful to Tycho in the Dialogo, for which Kepler severely castigated him. He also completely ignores Kepler, which is even more crass, as the best available arguments for heliocentricity were to be found clearly in Kepler published works. Galileo could not adopt Kepler’s system because it would mean that Kepler and not he would be the man, who proved the truth of the heliocentric system.

Although the first three days of the Dialogo provide a good polemic presentation for all of the evidence up till that point for a refutation of the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian system, with the very notable exception of the comets, Galileo’s book was out dated when it was written and had very little impact on the subsequent astronomical/cosmological debate in the seventeenth century. I will indulge in a little bit of hypothetical historical speculation here. If Galileo had actually written a balanced and neutral account of the positive and negative points of the Tychonic geo-heliocentric system with diurnal rotation and Kepler’s elliptical heliocentric system, it might have had the following consequences. Firstly, given his preeminent skills as a science communicator, his book would have been a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate and secondly he probably wouldn’t have been persecuted by the Catholic Church.

Like Giordano Bruno and the Library of Alexandria, Galileo’s status as a secular saint and martyr rests almost entirely upon a false characterization of the historical events due to his utility in attacking the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity.

Men of the West apply Sir John Glubb’s stages of the life cycle of empires with the rise and ongoing fall of the USA:

Let’s look at the Glubb’s stages of the life cycle and see how they match up with the life cycle of the United States.

Stage I: Outburst.   This stage is the pioneer stage.  As Glubb states, over and over again in history, we see a small native people exploding and conquering large land masses.  To many, this will make them think of Manifest Destiny and the western expansion, but to my own eye, the outburst was the Revolutionary War.  Before the war, the colonies were insignificant on the world stage.  Then came the defeat of the English.  It is after all called the Shot Heard Round the World for a reason.

Stage II: Age of Conquest:  In this stage we see the great expansion.  This is where manifest destiny comes in.  Old weapons are mastered and improved, new weapons are invented, and massive lands are conquered.   While conquering and settling these new lands, massive amounts of wealth are generated.  Again, this should all be sounding familiar.

Stage III:  Age of Commerce:  Industrial Revolution, anyone?  All of that wealth ends up being put to use, as infrastructure in this stage explodes.  In this stage, we see art and luxury.  You see grand state buildings.  The rich build themselves palaces.  Now think of Mr. Vanderbilt’s Biltmore.  Is it not a palace? It should be noted in this stage the schooling of boys is still intentionally rough.  Fortitude and courage and honesty are all priorities.  I would note that American Football was developed during this period to drive those qualities home.

High Noon:   This is the peak of the Nation. It’s the point where the nation goes from growing to dying.   For the US, this was the 1940s.  WWII was won. Evil was defeated, and everyone relaxed.  Money was everywhere. The US was the most powerful nation in the world.  And now, for the first time, we had something to lose, and we noticed we may want to protect it.

The USA is not unique. No nation or empire are, their inevitable protestations notwithstanding. The historical trends are clear, and it is only a matter of time before China replaces the USA as the leading global power. The intriguing question that remains to be settled is whether China will resist the call of empire or not, although history strongly suggests that it will eventually succumb to the temptation to rule over others as most other powerful nations before it have.

As it is often said, societies are less often murdered than commit suicide.

In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted, though there were no long-continued wars or serious pestilences among us. If, then, any one had advised our sending to ask the gods in regard to this, what we were to do or say in order to become more numerous and better fill our cities,—would he not have seemed a futile person, when the cause was manifest and the cure in our own hands?

For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury. For when there are only one or two sons, it is evident that, if war or pestilence carries off one, the houses must be left heirless: and, like swarms of bees, little by little the cities become sparsely inhabited and weak.
– Polybius 140 BC

Read that, then think about how many Americans don’t have children because they a) fear divorce or b) fear being unable to pay for college educations.

Martin van Creveld, the Israeli military historian and one of the very few genuine geniuses I have ever met, observes that, contrary to what he was taught, his people are not unique:

Great books, like great teachers, are those which make you reexamine your assumptions. By that standard, there can be little doubt that Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century is a very great book. To help you understand why, let me start with a brief description of the way we in Israel have been taught Jewish history for so long.

Once upon a time—no one knows just when—there was a man called Abraham. Born in Ur, modern Mesopotamia, he was 75 years old when God revealed Himself to him and told him to move to Canaan, aka the Land of Israel, aka (much later) Palestine. Which country, He solemnly promised, would forever belong to him and his offspring. A relative handful of converts apart, it was from Abraham’s loins that all subsequent Jews were and are descended. Their history is like that of no other people; after many twists and turns, they were finally driven (almost all of them) from Canaan by the wicked Romans. Scattered in all directions, but held together by their unique religion, for close to two thousand years they lived without a homeland of their own. Now tolerated and exploited, now subject to pogroms and/or driven away from one country into another, always at the mercy of their non-Jewish neighbors, they somehow succeeded in retaining their identity like no other people on earth. Something not even Adolf Hitler, who set out to exterminate them and killed one third of their number, was able to change.

In comes Yuri Slezkine, a Russian born (1956- ) Jew who currently lives in the United States. The Jews, he explains in the first chapter of the book, are not unique at all. Instead they are one among a great many nations whom he groups together under the rubric, “Mercurian.” Including, to mention but a few, the Gypsies of Europe, the Persians and the Jain of India, the Copts of Egypt, the Fuga of southern Ethiopia, the Ibo of modern Nigeria, the Eta of traditional Japan, the Armenians and Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, the Nestorians in the Middle East, the Mormons in the U.S—an example Slezkine does not mention–and, above all, the overseas Chinese.

“Mercurian” peoples were and are distinguished from the rest—Apollonians, is what Slezkine calls them—in two principal ways. First, they regard themselves as a people chosen by God. Not just any God, but specifically their own tribal one. To retain that status they develop and maintain a different religion, a different language, a different culture, different mores—as, for example, in wearing turbans (the Sikh community of India) and eating only kosher food—as well as an often strictly enforced endogamy. Second, whether out of their own will or because of the restrictions under which they live, they tend to avoid production—first agriculture, later industry—in favor of other, specifically urban, professions. Including money changers, bankers, peddlers, traders, physicians, pharmacists (both in my family and that of my wife there were several of those), scribes, writers, musicians, actors, fortune tellers, matchmakers, agents, lawyers, and middlemen of every kind. The sort of people who, compared with their mostly rural neighbors, tended to be well ahead in terms of literacy and modernity in general.

Thus, contrary to what I and countless Israelis have been taught, we Jews are not unique.

Self-aggrandizing fictions notwithstanding, what Israelis are taught is still considerably more historically accurate than what Americans are taught about themselves. At least they are not taught that they are nothing more than the physical manifestation of an idea that anyone on the planet can adopt and thereby transform himself into a genuine American every bit as as baseball and apple pie as the direct genetic posterity of the Mayflower settlers and the soldiers of the Revolution.

Read the whole thing there.

It’s informative to see how many of the tactics and techniques of the former Communist states have been adopted in Israel and the United States since the fall of the Soviet Union:

Over the course of several months, ‘Diana’ inveigled her way into the Scream star’s life. Whether McGowan was in California or New York, Diana always seemed to be conveniently nearby.

They met for long walks, drinks and girls’ nights out. McGowan even told her ‘there was no one else in the world she could trust’.

But it was all a con. Just like Anna, Diana was merely a cover dreamed up by Stella, a spy working for the infamous Mossad-linked Israeli intelligence company Black Cube.

Weinstein had hired the firm in the months before his career and reputation were ruined by a welter of sexual allegations.

An extraordinary contract, dated July 11, 2017, between the mogul’s lawyers and the British arm of the Israeli firm show that Weinstein had tasked Black Cube with two primary objectives: to ‘provide intelligence which will help the Client’s efforts to completely stop the publication of a new, negative article in a leading NY newspaper’, and to ‘obtain additional content of a book which is currently being written and which includes harmful negative information on and about the Client’.

To achieve this, Black Cube promised a dedicated team. As part of the operation, codenamed Parachute, the organisation introduced Stella to Weinstein.

Her main objective was to befriend McGowan, obtain a draft of her memoir – and discredit it. And she was tasked with finding out about and blocking other allegations about Weinstein – just like the stories Ben Wallace was working on.

It may also be informative to contemplate the way in which the same people who claim Judeo-Christianity is not only real, but the foundation of Western civilization, also claim that Judeo-Bolshevism was just a figment of the early-20th-century German imagination.

Even those who are not – to the best of my knowledge – Christians now understand the intrinsic falsehood of Shapiru, Prager, Crenshaw, and other neoclowns attempting to sell the “Judeo-Christian” lie and how they are attempting to redefine and undermine Western civilization:

Shapiro is probably the smartest of the con-men deployed by Conservative Inc., but he is also the most thin-skinned. Any push-back is met with a childish tantrum. Like Charlie Kirk, it suggests he is a hothouse flower, carefully protected by his handlers, in order to maintain the charade.

If you pay attention to his act, what comes through is he has a deep, subconscious hatred of white people. Take for example his promotion of the dubious claim that European civilization is defined by Judeo-Christian tradition. For most of Western history, Christianity and Judaism were at odds. In the early medieval period, Jews and Christians competed for converts. When the term Judeo-Christian came into use in the 17th and 18th century, it was as a Pauline pejorative against Catholicism.

Putting aside the history, what he is doing is rewriting the European past in order to make it dependent on his religious and ethnic traditions. You can have your Christianity, as long as it is accepting of Jews, which neuters the theologically. You can also have your Western chauvinism, as long as you make sure Jews are central characters in the narrative. Ben Shapiro’s view of Western civilization is colonial, as if he is allowing white people to have some conditional cultural heritage.

This becomes clear when Shapiro says “white civilization is nonsensical.” He says that “civilization is defined by culture, history and philosophy.” He is divorcing what he calls Western civilization from the people who created it. Like his sleight of hand swapping out Catholicism from the heart of European history, he is turning Western civilization into a gift inexplicably granted to the people of Europe. It is not something European people created, but something they received, like hitting the lottery.

There is an obvious implication to this train of thought. If white people are just lucky recipients of civilization, then they are not really deserving of it.

Reject the lies and those who push them. The lie is the loose thread that, when pulled, eventually reveals the inversive evil underneath.