Tag: history

Mailvox: ideological ignorance

Jack Burroughs demonstrates his complete ignorance of virtually every single left-wing ideology, party, and movement in human history in seeking to argue that the Nazis Are Too White Right-Wing Christian Conservative Republicans.

Read the Munich Manifesto. The fact that you’ve swallowed the ahistorical revisionism doesn’t change history. The Mensheviks fought the Bolsheviks too, the SPD fought the KPD too, that didn’t make any of them parties of the Right.”

I have read it, Vox. The issue here is not my ignorance of history, but rather that you insist on approaching this question as an extremely narrow definitional argument, almost as if you can, through linguistic sorcery, magically define the Nazis out of the history of the Right. You don’t usually argue that way, but for some reason you do it with this question.

Yes, there are some Left wing elements in the National Socialist platform. I have never denied that. My point is that National Socialism is blatantly anti-egalitarian in spirit and racially supremacist at its foundation, and for that reason cannot be called primarily Left wing. It was a sui generis experiment in political hybridization that was unmistakably Right wing in spirit, while making certain concessions to the collectivist Zeitgeist as a means of preempting the Communist threat.

The Nazi’s ideological commitment to anti-egalitarian racial biology, along with their astonishingly vivid and imposing rallies and heroic iconography radiate Right wing energy like a fever dream. That is why people with Far Right tendencies are often drawn to Nazism, and that is why people with Left wing tendencies are universally repulsed by it.

The call for equal rights for Germans in the Munich manifesto was, in effect, a call for an organic meritocracy, with free and flexible social mobility, such that the most gifted people from the lower classes could rise, and the pseudo-elites at the top could be purged. It was also a declaration of social and political holism: every person, of every class, had value to the whole of the State.

But It was not in any sense a Left wing claim that everyone is basically alike, but for differences in economics and social circumstances.

My argument in this case is no different than my argument in every other one. Jack simply doesn’t know what he is talking about because he is a historical and ideological ignoramus. By his bizarre definition of the ideological Left, even the Leninists and Stalinists and Jacobins and Zapatistas and Nasserites and Khmer Rouge and Maoists were all right-wing. All of these major leftist movements were extremely conscious of the difference between their countrymen and everyone else on the planet. It will be interesting to hear how Jack tries to explain how Stalin and Bukharin’s “socialism in one country”, which became formal Soviet policy as early as 1925, and Nasser’s socialist Pan-Arabism, are somehow of the ideological Right.

Jack has no case whatsoever because he doesn’t understand what it means to be of the political Left. The absolute egalitarianism of globalism is a recent and extreme form of Leftism, it is very far from defining the historical limits of Leftism. It is well to the Left of both Trotsky and Stalin; even Trotsky’s “World Revolution” ideology openly acknowledged that everyone is not “basically alike but for differences in economics and social circumstances.”

And neither nationalism nor ethnocentrism is intrinsically of the Right either. As I pointed out in my debate with Greg Johnson, the national socialist parties that historically preceded and followed the German variant in China, Vietnam, and Egypt were also all of the Left. Jack’s equation of the Left with absolute global egalitarianism is not merely wrong, it is completely ahistorical. And when Jack talks about “an extremely narrow definitional argument”, he is observably projecting his own approach.

Better than Reagan

You may recall that I told you the God-Emperor would be better than Reagan. Trump will be known as the greatest US president since Lincoln by the time his first term is done. And he will easily win re-election in a Trumpslide.

The Trump administration has pursued policies that have hewed remarkably close to the recommendations of a leading conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, which found in a new review that nearly two-thirds of its ideas had been carried out or embraced by the White House over the past year.

Not one to dwell on the details of governing, President Trump has shown a considerable degree of deference to groups within the conservative movement like Heritage, leading to a rightward shift in social, environmental, immigration and foreign policy.

The results, Heritage found in its review, exceeded even the first year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, whose tenure has long been the conservative gold standard.”

Heritage began developing in 2016 a list of 334 policy prescriptions that a new Republican administration could adopt. It included a variety of actions, like reimposing work requirements for welfare recipients, ending the program that shields young immigrants brought here illegally as children, withdrawing from the Paris climate accord and eliminating certain gender identity protections.

Heritage said that 64 percent of those items were enacted by the administration either through executive order or another means of enforcement, or included in Mr. Trump’s budget, which has not been voted on by Congress.

In Reagan’s first year, only 49 percent of Heritage’s wish list items were embraced by the president or enacted. At the time, Heritage identified a familiar problem for why the administration’s policies were wanting. In almost every federal agency, Heritage said in November 1981, “delayed appointments, unqualified or misqualified appointments, or the appointment of individuals who are not committed to the President’s goals and policies” had delayed or thwarted policy changes.”

And yes, I know that Lincoln was actually a disastrous president and one of the worst in US history. I’m just utilizing the mainstream standard and stating that Trump will be publicly viewed as one of the four or five greatest presidents despite the entire media doing their level best to destroy him even before the start.

Me-So was right!

I stand corrected. Apparently Japan has had the ability to invade California all along:

With its official operational date fast approaching, Japan’s first Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade kicked off the bilateral Iron Fist 2018 exercise on Friday with an opening ceremony alongside its Marine Corps hosts. It wasn’t a time for long speeches.

Over the next month, 350 soldiers with the Japan Ground Self Defense Force will train closely with Marines to hone skills that will run the gamut from amphibious reconnaissance and fire-and-maneuver assaults to close-air support and staff planning. They will fire mortars and artillery, land on beaches aboard rubber boats and assault craft and attack and defend “friendly” land from foes in various training scenarios.

The soldiers are members of Western Army Infantry Regiment, a light infantry force that Japan has tasked with creating the first brigade of sea soldiers – with the goal to be ready by April 1, 2018 – that can conduct amphibious operations ultimately as part of a broader “dynamic joint defense force.”

This year’s Iron Fist exercise – it runs from Jan. 12 to Feb. 12 – marks the 13th iteration of the annual training that focuses on amphibious operations, with I Marine Expeditionary Force as a primary host.

Time to dust off those old Japanese internment camps. Well done, Michelle!

Mailvox: roles are not interchangeable

Szopen shares an important observation from recent Polish history:

One acute political commenter made once a remark, that great guerilla leaders do not necesarily make great generals in regular war, nor great political leaders in time of peace. He noted that in context of Poland: that to oppose the communism and fight it effectively, one had very specific mindset. Sniffing the enemy agents, conspiracies, be suspicious, not willing to make compromise etc. That were the great traits when you were in conspiracy – but later made awful politicians when communism was (somewhat) defeated. Most of the great leaders of so called “democratic opposition” went on to become leaders of infighting, low blows, unable to compromise over even tiny issues in order to defeat the recovering left. He proposed that leaders of the resistance should get state salaries, become cult objects and then put into solitary luxury mansions, with everyone trying very hard to make their lifes comfortable and as far from the current politics as it is possible.

I guess most of current leading figures of the alt-right, with VD, Milo and Molyneaux should get their million dollars when the right take over the institutions and win the culture fight.

Another thing, from my observation is that people fighting against all odds, who are constantly being called the worst names, either become broken and give up – or start to share also similar traits. Cejrowski was on of the few guys who influenced hundreds of thousands young Poles. I loved watching his programs. However, in his later age he became an unbearable, arrogant arsehole. There is something similar about few other “lone fighters”. They raised the generation of rightwingers, but they lost something of their soul in the process, carrying the load in the times when no one was appreciating them. They seem to gain “f* you” attitude about everything they did. That’s understandable; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to do what they did. But still, for me they look like old, battle-hardened veterans with scars all over.

It’s amazing that VD is able to still be able to be, at least sometimes, polite.

One thing that people consistently fail to understand about me versus my fellow “leading figures” for lack of a better word is that I have always been an athlete. Not only that, but I have excelled in both individual and team sports, and discovered that I vastly prefer team sports.

That is why I can work effectively with others, and why I completely refuse to even try to work with those I identify as being self-serving, attention-seeking, or simply incapable of playing well with others. As I often tell people, the best way to get to know a man’s true character is to play with him on the soccer field. Every characteristic, from courage and determination to laziness and a desire to avoid responsibility, becomes readily apparent to his teammates. You just can’t hide anything from them.

It’s disappointing when those who have been assisted and supported by others affect to have become too important for them and attempt to move on, but then, they will learn their lesson soon enough as the support they need will not be there for them when opposition arises, as it always does. That is why it is always vital to never forget either your base or your allies, or to fail to protect their interests as assiduously as you look out for your own. The more the Right learns to do that, the more effective it will become.

Wikipedia buries CNN scandal

This sort of thing is exactly why I put Infogalactic at the top of the priority list. Because we need a way of accurately preserving the history that SJWs are always trying to revise and rewrite:

CNN Blackmail Controversy Buried on Wikipedia with Help of Partisan Editors

Following CNN’s blackmail controversy, left-wing Wikipedia editors had the Wikipedia article on the incident removed and its contents buried at the bottom of a page on CNN controversies. Editors then proceeded to gut this article of roughly a third of its content about controversies at the network in the latest example of liberal bias at the online encyclopedia.

Roughly an hour after the article on CNN’s recent blackmail scandal was originally created, editor NorthBySouthBaranof started a discussion on having the article made into a redirect to a CNN controversies article with a small section about the incident. Baranof was previously one of the anti-GamerGate editors banned from edits about the ethics in games journalism controversy due to his aggressive agenda-driven editing.

Over the course of the discussion, 23 regular editors on the site expressed support for the move. Although a majority of editors supporting the move in the discussion have some history of editing in favor of progressive positions, most notable are a group of five (MrX, Volunteer Marek, Objective3000, Sagecandor, and ValarianB) who also participated in a discussion on deleting the article about President Trump sharing classified information on ISIS terrorist activities with Russia.

Standard operating procedure at the SJW-converged site. Rather like the BEA, which has retroactively eliminated the 2001 recession from the official GDP figures, SJW history reflects nothing more than their version of what it suits them now to claim happened then.

The collapse of the American nation

Selwyn Duke addresses the way in which the very concept of nation has been erased from American minds:

When hearing about invaders streaming across our border, often with a sense of entitlement, we should be filled with righteous anger motivating us to robustly defend the homeland. We’re not. Or not enough of us are. In fact, a good percentage of the country works against the common good, passionate about the wrong things and acting as traitors would. Too many of the rest are comfortably numb.

This is why invasion has been tolerated (and often encouraged), why we talk about amnesty for people who should be unceremoniously shipped south, and why there isn’t yet funding for a border wall despite a record Republican House majority.

The reason for this, sadly, is that we’re not a nation — properly understood. A nation is an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family; it’s defined by blood, faith, language and culture. For example, the Sioux Nation wasn’t a “country” or “state”; it was a very large family sharing the aforementioned elements.

This truth was once recognized and emphasized. It was mentioned among the Founding Fathers that we enjoyed the benefit of “consanguinity,” meaning, a relationship based on having the same remote ancestors. This became less of a reality after the waves of 19th-century immigration, yet emphasis was still placed on maintaining nationhood. For example, President Teddy Roosevelt said in 1907 that treating people with “equality” was not a given, but was “predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.”

He went on to say, “Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.” Now consider how many people will describe themselves as a/an _________-American or, worse still, will say “I’m _________” (fill in, Polish, Irish, Greek, Italian, etc.). They may not be bad people; they may mean well. But they’re unwittingly strengthening the all-too-prevalent internationalist mentality and are acting contrary to the cause of nationhood.

Nationhood was defended legislatively in 1921 with the Emergency Quota Act and in 1924 with the enactment of the National Origins Act, which used immigration quotas to maintain our country’s demographic balance. This is called “racist” today, even though some Europeans had greater quotas than other Europeans (and they’re the same race), but demographic upheaval is precisely how you destroy a nation. Ask the Tibetans, American Indians or the Ainu in Japan (if you can find any) about that.

It is the conflation of “state” with “nation”, combined with the “proposition nation” nonsense that was created to sell “the melting pot” that has resulted in this state. Only aggressive and fairly ruthless nationalism has any chance of saving the American nation now, and the more time that passes, the less likely it becomes.

It’s understandable why Americans embraced civic nationalism after the horrors of the Civil War. But that doesn’t change the fact that they were wrong to do so, and that it has had consequences that have destroyed the Union far more thoroughly than the Confederacy ever could.

They knew all along

Ronald Reagan and the Queen of England discussed economics and the prospects for the future in 1991.

The footage begins with the former president asking if the coffee being served is decaffeinated. The Queen calls replies ‘No, it’s ordinary’ before calling over a waiter to request some, then telling Mr Reagan ‘We try our best. It’s coming.’

Their conversation then turns to economics.  Mr Reagan, who finished his second term as president in 1989, told the British monarch: ‘Now if you’ve got two thirds… paying for the bureaucrats and give only one third to the needy people, something’s wrong there.’

The Queen responded by saying that ‘democracies are bankrupt’ because of such policies.

‘But you see all of the democracies are bankrupt now, because of the way the services have been planned for people to grab,’ she told him.

‘I know, we tried to get some of these things changed and reduce them,’ said Reagan.

‘For example, we have a rule to this day, that a supervisor’s salary is based on the number of people he supervises,’ he continued.

‘Well now, you have a group of people that have no interest in reducing the payroll, even if they can, because it will reduce their salary.’

The Queen, who had hosted the event for Florida’s grandest society including another former US president – Jimmy Carter – agreed.

‘Obviously, yes. It’s extraordinary, isn’t it? I think the next generation is going to have a very difficult time.’

The answer, obviously, was to flood the West with credit and third world immigrants, because monetary and population inflation are good for the economy. It’s interesting, though, that both public figures already knew that which eluded the public and most opinion-leaders for another 17 years.

That’s because you’re not American

Sarah Silverman explains how she was shaken and scared by the sight of a young man flying an American flag.

I had a boyfriend many years ago, he was my first boyfriend who had his own house, and one day I went outside to see what he was doing, and he was hoisting an American flag up the flagpole in his front yard. And I instantly felt very weird. It didn’t make sense, but I felt this feeling of like, um, I felt scared – yeah, I felt scared. So I was like, ‘Uh, what are you doing?’ and he said, ‘Raising the flag,’ and I was like, ‘Why?’ and he’s like, ‘Um, because I love America?’ and I was like, ‘Right, right, of course.’ But inside I was shaken.

And then I calmly walked to my car and I got inside and I called my sister Susie to tell her what happened. Now, maybe you’re thinking, ‘What do you mean what happened? Nothing happened, your boyfriend put an American flag up at his own house.’ No, you’re totally right, I had no idea why I was freaking out. I just – I had this very visceral reaction and my sister, who knows shit because she’s a rabbi in Israel, explained to me, she was like, ‘Dude, nationalism is innately terrifying for Jews. Think about it: flags, marching, blind allegiance? These things tend to ring a bell for us.’ Right. Of course. Duh. It made sense.

I would be very interested to hear how those who genuinely believe that Jews are Americans to explain this reaction. Especially if they can do so without resorting to civic nationalist historical revisionism.

Then, for an encore, I’d like to hear how Japanese are true Englishmen and Dalits are true Brahmins.

What the civic nationalists and Israel uber alles crowd don’t seem to recognize is how fundamentally offensive, racist, and anti-American their false narrative is. In order for their revisionist myth to be true, there can be no genuine American nation. There can be no heritage America. There can be no American people and there can be no American history. Which, of course, is precisely why revising and destroying history has been one of the primary goals of the Fake Americans for more than 100 years.

“Ethno-nationalism” is a redundancy. There is no nationalism that is not ethnic and a more proper term for “civic nationalism” is “civic statism”. “Ethno-nationalism” is just anti-nationalist propaganda, and it is such an intrinsically false concept that it did not even exist before 1955.

Mailvox: do not “correct” me

I so despise the sort of midwit who leaps upon every possible opportunity to “correct” someone in order to show off how smart he is, and in doing so, demonstrates his own ignorance. Add in a dash of smug passive-aggression if you want to maximize the annoyance factor. Here is a suggestion: if you think I’ve gotten something wrong, look it up. If the 14 years of this blog serve as a reliable guide, there is about a 98 percent chance you are wrong.

VD: We can only hope that he will treat them in much the same way Sulla treated his political opponents

valiance: The way *Marius* treated his political opponents, surely?

VD: No.

From Infogalactic: Sulla

At the end of 82 BC or the beginning of 81 BC, the Senate appointed Sulla dictator legibus faciendis et reipublicae constituendae causa (“dictator for the making of laws and for the settling of the constitution”). The “Assembly of the People” subsequently ratified the decision, with no limit set on his time in office. Sulla had total control of the city and republic of Rome, except for Hispania (which Marius’s general Quintus Sertorius had established as an independent state). This unusual appointment (used hitherto only in times of extreme danger to the city, such as during the Second Punic War, and then only for 6-month periods) represented an exception to Rome’s policy of not giving total power to a single individual. Sulla can be seen as setting the precedent for Julius Caesar’s dictatorship, and for the eventual end of the Republic under Augustus.

In total control of the city and its affairs, Sulla instituted a series of proscriptions (a program of executing those whom he perceived as enemies of the state). Plutarch states in his “Life” of Sulla (XXXI): “Sulla now began to make blood flow, and he filled the city with deaths without number or limit”, further alleging that many of the murdered victims had nothing to do with Sulla, though Sulla killed them to “please his adherents”.

“Sulla immediately proscribed eighty persons without communicating with any magistrate. As this caused a general murmur, he let one day pass, and then proscribed two hundred and twenty more, and again on the third day as many. In an harangue to the people, he said, with reference to these measures, that he had proscribed all he could think of, and as to those who now escaped his memory, he would proscribe them at some future time.” -Plutarch, Life of Sulla (XXXI)

The proscriptions are widely perceived as a response to similar killings which Marius and Cinna had implemented while they controlled the Republic during Sulla’s absence. Proscribing or outlawing every one of those whom he perceived to have acted against the best interests of the Republic while he was in the East, Sulla ordered some 1,500 nobles (i.e., senators and equites) executed, although it is estimated that as many as 9,000 people were killed. The purge went on for several months. Helping or sheltering a proscribed person was punishable by death, while killing a proscribed person was rewarded with two talents. Family members of the proscribed were not excluded from punishment, and slaves were not excluded from rewards. As a result, “husbands were butchered in the arms of their wives, sons in the arms of their mothers”. The majority of the proscribed had not been enemies of Sulla, but instead were killed for their property, which was confiscated and auctioned off. The proceeds from auctioned property more than made up for the cost of rewarding those who killed the proscribed, making Sulla even wealthier. Possibly to protect himself from future political retribution, Sulla had the sons and grandsons of the proscribed banned from running for political office, a restriction not removed for over 30 years.