Tag: history

“Muh Constitution,” he cucked, cuckingly

Alex Rawls has absolutely no idea what the U.S. Constitution is or for whom it was written:

The CONSTITUTION does not define a white ethnostate. It is no contradiction of the constitution to welcome many of those from other races that share a commitment to liberty under law and to Christian morality (which most religions other than Islam do in large degree).

Alex is absolutely and utterly wrong. The Constitution doesn’t define a white ethnostate, it clearly establishes a BRITISH ethnostate. It exists solely to defend the rights and liberties of the genetic descendants of the Founders and no one else. It does not welcome anyone and it does not indicate any interest in any other race or nation regardless of their commitment to anything, much less “liberty under law” or “Christian morality”.

The purpose of the Constitution is laid out in the Preamble:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them.

The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant.

The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and there never will be any such thing.

The myth of the Cold War

Paul Craig Roberts addresses the common misconception that Ronald Reagan sought to break the Soviet Union and win the Cold War rather than end it.

The myth is widespread that President Reagan won the cold war by breaking the Soviet Union financially with an arms race. As one who was involved in Reagan’s effort to end the cold war, I find myself yet again correcting the record.

Reagan never spoke of winning the cold war. He spoke of ending it. Other officials in his government have said the same thing, and Pat Buchanan can verify it.

Reagan wanted to end the Cold War, not win it. He spoke of those “godawful” nuclear weapons. He thought the Soviet economy was in too much difficulty to compete in an arms race. He thought that if he could first cure the stagflation that afflicted the US economy, he could force the Soviets to the negotiating table by going through the motion of launching an arms race. “Star wars” was mainly hype. (Whether or nor the Soviets believed the arms race threat, the American leftwing clearly did and has never got over it.)

Reagan had no intention of dominating the Soviet Union or collapsing it. Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, he was not controlled by neoconservatives. Reagan fired and prosecuted the neoconservatives in his administration when they operated behind his back and broke the law.

The Soviet Union did not collapse because of Reagan’s determination to end the Cold War. The Soviet collapse was the work of hardline communists, who believed that Gorbachev was loosening the Communist Party’s hold so quickly that Gorbachev was a threat to the existence of the Soviet Union and placed him under house arrest. It was the hardline communist coup against Gorbachev that led to the rise of Yeltsin. No one expected the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US military/security complex did not want Reagan to end the Cold War, as the Cold War was the foundation of profit and power for the complex. The CIA told Reagan that if he renewed the arms race, the Soviets would win, because the Soviets controlled investment and could allocate a larger share of the economy to the military than Reagan could.

Reagan did not believe the CIA’s claim that the Soviet Union could prevail in an arms race. He formed a secret committee and gave the committee the power to investigate the CIA’s claim that the US would lose an arms race with the Soviet Union. The committee concluded that the CIA was protecting its prerogatives. I know this because I was a member of the committee.

It’s kind of hard to argue with an eyewitness in the bureaucratic inner circle.

How Putin influenced the US election

The Saker explains how Vladimir Putin really did influence the recent US presidential election:

I will dare to speculate that Russia did play a role in the election of Trump. No, not by hacking emails or by recruiting Ron Paul (!!!) as an agent of Russian propaganda, but by openly and firmly confronting the USA on all fronts and showing that Russia would not bend her knee before the AngloZionist Empire. As I have written many times, Russia has been preparing for war for years now and while Russians were (and still are) afraid of war, they are also ready and willing to fight it if forced to do so. In his latest press conference Putin specifically referred to the will of the Russian people as a key element in Russia’s ability to defeat any aggressor when he said,

We are stronger than any potential aggressor. I have no problem repeating it. I also said why we are stronger. This has to do with the effort to modernise the Russian Armed Forces, as well as the history and geography of our country, and the current state of Russian society

and he is absolutely right. Sure, Hillary was probably stupid enough to try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, but the 200 or so generals and admirals who expressed their support for Trump probably understood what that kind of folly would entail. Furthermore, it appears that quite a few Americans are sympathetic to Russia and Putin himself. Again, in his latest press conference Putin referred to this and made some very interesting comments:

I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy. (…) It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win.

Putin puts it down to values, common values, between the Russian and the American people.

Personal sidebar: for whatever this is worth, I regularly interact with Americans who support Putin on the grounds that “he stands for American values unlike the SOBs in Washington”.

But how did the Americans become aware of what values Putin and Russia stood for if not for the ceaseless efforts of Putin himself and the alternative media to convey these values to the general public? I think that by OPENLY denouncing the total hypocrisy of the AngloZionist Empire and by OPENLY offering a different civilizational model, Putin and Russia did have an impact on the public opinion in the West. To put it simply: Russia has scored an ideological victory over the AngloZionist imperialists. In other words, the Russian policy of standing firm against the Empire while openly challenging it on its ideological foundation was the correct one and it probably did have an impact upon the outcome of the election in the USA.

It wasn’t just the Democrats

In fairness, Obama left America in a weaker, more untenable state too:

The top candidates to lead the Democratic National Committee are positioning their campaigns as a repudiation of what they see as the political legacy of President Barack Obama.

Though they rarely mention the president by name or address his policies, Labor Secretary Tom Perez and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison have sent a clear message that Mr. Obama has left the party in a weakened state.

Messers. Perez and Ellison—along with state chairmen Jaime Harrison of South Carolina and Ray Buckley of New Hampshire, who are also candidates for chairman of the DNC—are seeking a mandate to reverse Obama-era tactics that cut funding and attention to local parties and left Democrats with far less power in Congress, governorships and state legislatures than when his presidency began.

Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. George W. Bush defeated Afghanistan and Iraq, although he blew the occupation. Even George Bush oversaw the fall of the Berlin Wall. Obama managed to lose a proxy war in Syria, turn Libya into a Somali-style failed state, and abetted the invasions of Europe and the USA.

I’m not saying he was the worst president ever; that disgrace probably has to go to LBJ considering that he was responsible for Vietnam, the Great Society, and the 1965 Immigration Act. But he wasn’t even mediocre.

The Mandela Effect

Keoni Galt remembers history differently. Have you, too, experienced the Mandela Effect?

When I searched for “Mandela Effect” on Infogalactic, I got automatically redirected to the page entitled Confabulation.


In psychiatry, confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a memory disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive.[1] Individuals who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from “subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications”,[2] and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence.[3]

Given the lack of any content of the Discussion page for the entry, I suspected the content and the auto-redirect of my search terms originates with Wikipedia’s propaganda information control psyops before Infogalactic forked it. So I did the exact same search at Wikipedia and sure enough, on the Talk page, I found the following:

I returned to Wikipedia to post my rejection to Wikipedia rewriting the definition of the term “Mandela Effect” to replace the meaning of the term with a critical explanation for it. I discovered that the page has been removed altogether and that the term now brings one to this article, which doesn’t even mention the term in it at all (yet this page is linked by the term.)  – Neurolanis (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Having only quickly skimmed over the topic after briefly encountering it while surfing through the fever swamps of my favorite haunts on the lunatic fringes of teh Interwebz, I decided to try and figure out what exactly this is all about.

The consensus has been manufactured and T.H.E.Y. have spoken. So let it be written re-written, so let it be done. If you clearly and distinctly remember the Berenstein Bears as I do, you must certainly be confabulating.

Certainly it can’t be an organized CONSPIRACY THEORY for the Government-Corporation-Foundation-NGO-Banking Cartel Industrial Complex and their useful idiot status whores and establishment cucks to collectively gaslight we the sheeple and make us think we are all losing our minds!

Snopes goes on to reference the more popular misformed disinformation memes that have been propagated to explain it all…the “woo-woo territory” that Snopes references involves ideas like parallel universes and virtual realities. It’s a whole new world of conspiracy theory for us Whackaloon Conspiritards to ‘sperg on!

According to the top Google search results, Wikipedia, Snopes, and the top meme’s found on a Google image search, it has ALWAYS BEEN The Berenstain Bears, and the only scientifically approved explanation for why you and I and so many other people remember it differently is mass mistaken memory!

I can’t speak for anyone else, but this is how I remember the following details:

  • Nelson Mandela did NOT die in prison during the 1980s. How would he have ever become President of South Africa if he had?
  • Han shot first.
  • Stormtroopers are clones of Boba Fett’s father. They’re not cowardly Africans.
  • Berenstein Bears. Why would anyone ever pronounce “stain” as “steen”?
  • Fruit Loops. I even remember the change as distinctly as if Kellogg’s were to change the name of another cereal to Special G tomorrow.
  • The line is “Luke, I am your father.”
  • The lion laying down with the lamb rather than the wolf living with the lamb in Isaiah 11:6. That being said, I don’t remember the verse per se, but rather the common phrase which could simply have been erroneous.

Anyhow, this is an example of precisely the sort of thought-policing narrative that is not acceptable at Infogalactic. Even if the correct explanation for the Mandela Effect is confabulation, it is absolutely false to claim that the two distinct concepts are synonymous, as at best, the Mandela Effect is a specific example of confabulation. The Mandela Effect page has been corrected.

Cuck to cuck

(((Ben Shapiro))) supercucks for David French, one-time standard bearer for the William Kristol virtual party:

For folks who don’t know what the alt-right is, it might be worthwhile to just sort of start at the beginning and talk about what the alt-right is—because there are a lot of these various definitions floating around, nearly all of which are wrong.

Basically, the alt-right is a group of thinkers who believe that Western civilization is inseparable from European ethnicity—which is racist, obviously. It’s people who believe that if Western civilization were to take in too many people of different colors and different ethnicities and different religions, then that would necessarily involve the interior collapse of Western civilization. As you may notice, this has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence. It has nothing to do actually with Western civilization. The whole principle of Western civilization is that anybody can involve himself or herself in civilized values. That’s not what the alt-right believes—at least its leading thinkers, people like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor and Vox Day. Those kind of folks will openly acknowledge that this is their thought process.

Got that? It is RACIST to believe that the European nations are an integral element of Western civilization.

The fact that (((Ben))) asserts that the idea that “anybody can involve himself or herself in civilized values” is “the whole principle of Western civilization” is one of the most shamelessly dishonest things I have ever heard a self-styled conservative say.

As for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they are latter-day consequences of Western civilization, the most certainly do not define it. Moreover, the Constitution was written specifically to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, not for immigrants, foreigners, or “the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions”.

Apparently (((Ben))) is not content that his forebears have attempted to redefine America, American, and Posterity, now he is attempting to redefine Western civilization as something that is non-European. Conservatives, is this really someone you are willing to accept as a conservative spokesman?

Notice that the interview is featured on Slate. It appears the cuckservatives are now publicly moving Left. And the interview reveals considerably more about (((Ben))) and his proclivities than one might like to know.

“As long as he’s a pure Aryan shtupping your wife, then you’re fine.”
– Ben Shapiro

So, (((Ben))) isn’t merely a political cuckservative, he’s a true cuck in the original sense of the word. Well, I understand Mrs. Shapiro can get Mike Cernovich’s number from Seth Rogen’s wife.

UPDATE: I thought this tweet from @SpiritOfTrump was more than a little relevant.

My civilization is more than a fucking piece of paper. It’s my blood, my gods, my land.

Great Man vs cliodynamics

A plethora of opinions are being expressed about the future of the Alt-Right in light of the God-Emperor-Ascendant’s disavowal. The Left has been emboldened; sensing a chink in the armor, the hasbaresque trolls are already out in force, doing what they always do, proclaiming inevitable victory and the imminent arrival of the worker’s paradise rainbow unitopia while attempting to demoralize their enemies by making absurd statements that push the current media Narrative.

But nothing has changed. Richard Spencer didn’t create the Alt-Right, he merely provided a nickname for an alternative right that has been around since William F. Buckley purged the John Birch Society. Hillary Clinton didn’t speak it into existence. Donald Trump won’t speak it out of existence.

Nothing has changed. Conservatism still hasn’t conserved anything. The wall still has not been built. The melting pot is still a self-serving immigrant myth. The United States is still a white nation founded by and for whites, as even Slate admitted yesterday. The Alt-Right will remain a potent and rising force throughout the West because the ebb and flow of historical patterns, patterns that scientists and historians developing Structural Dynamic Theory have traced back as far as ancient China and Rome, are still observably playing out through events today.

Consider what Yuji Aida wrote in the Chicago Tribune:

Americans are proud of their melting-pot heritage. But as blacks, Hispanics and Asians gradually come to outnumber whites, that ideal will fade. Like the Soviet Union today, the United States will have to deal with contentious ethnic groups demanding greater autonomy and even political independence. That could prove to be industrial America`s undoing. Many Americans, however, feign ignorance of the problem, partly because of the official ideology. The United States sees itself as a pluralistic, multi-ethnic society with a single national identity based on the principles of freedom and democracy. In fact, discrimination is rampant, but the illusion of equality is vital to maintain a sense of unity. Nonetheless, it is only a matter of time before U.S. minority groups espouse self-determination in some form. When that happens, the country may become ungovernable.

That was written not long after I returned from Japan, in 1991. The failure of the official ideology, the fictional nature of a “national identity” based on principles and propositions rather than genetics and language, was already obvious 25 years ago. As for the irrelevance of the individual actors, consider an article that I wrote back in 2004 about Tolstoy, Prechter, and socionomics:

It is easy to mistake Leo Tolstoy’s massive book, “War and Peace,” for a novel. It is not. Instead, it would better be considered the world’s longest satirical polemic, in the vein of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” From beginning to end, Tolstoy’s classic work is intended to illustrate the arrogant incompetence of human understanding and the inability of human reason to explain even the simplest of social phenomena.

With unrelenting precision and distinct overtones of mockery, Tolstoy dissects the notion that men dictate events. In one specific example, he examines, with minute detail, the four specific orders Napoleon gave to his army prior to the battle of Borodino:

These dispositions, which are very obscure and confused if one allows oneself to regard the arrangements without religious awe of his genius, related to Napoleon’s orders to deal with four points – four different orders. Not one of these was, or could be, carried out …

And it was not Napoleon who directed the course of the battle, for none of his orders were executed and during the battle he did not know what was going on before him. So the way in which these people killed one another was not decided by Napoleon’s will but occurred independently of him, in accord with the will of hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the common action. It only seemed to Napoleon that it all took place by his will.

In the second epilogue, Tolstoy goes on to brutally abuse both specific and universal historians, demonstrating how their explanations of various historical events is not only inevitably contradictory, but often constructed on base premises that do not withstand a moment’s reflection. Tolstoy further underlines his case by the choice of the two heroes of the novel within the polemic, Pierre and Kutozov, both of whom achieve their respective dream of inner peace and Russian victory only by submitting their will to the great forces moving around them.

This is not, as one skeptic rather amusingly put it, “a reliance upon the inevitable forces of history and the methods of material production”. (That did make me laugh; though.) Marxism is the groundless and unquantifiable application of incorrect economic theory to the future. Cliodynamics is observing what has already happened and is happening today, then drawing rational conclusions about how the various patterns and cycles observed will play out next. At the moment, I’m reading Ultrasociety, by Peter Turchin. It is an excellent book, and although its primary subject matter is largely tangential to these patterns of history, a passage I read yesterday struck me as entirely apt.

There is a pattern that we see recurring throughout history, when a successful empire expands its borders so far that it becomes the biggest kid on the block. When survival is no longer at stake, selfish elites and other special interest groups capture the political agenda. The spirit that “we are all in the same boat” disappears and is replaced by a “winner take all” mentality. As the elites enrich themselves, the rest of the population is increasingly impoverished. Rampant inequality of wealth further corrodes cooperation. Beyond a certain point a formerly great empire becomes so dysfunctional that smaller, more cohesive neighbors begin tearing it apart. Eventually the capacity for cooperation declines to such a low level that barbarians can strike at the very heart of the empire without encountering significant resistance. But barbarians at the gate are not the real cause of imperial collapse. They are a consequence of the failure to sustain social cooperation.

There is more, considerably more, than this restatement of what John Glubb and Edward Gibbon and Polybius, and other historians have noted would appear to indicate. But the point is, the eventual significance of these events will be determined by how well they flow with the historical patterns, not the opinion of any one individual, not even the God-Emperor Ascendant himself. The fate of the Alt Right does not depend upon one of its media-christened figureheads, but upon its willingness to align itself with the observable patterns of history as they play out.

Because, as we know, our enemies are in the apocryphal position of King Canute, desperately attempting to hold back the waves with their false narratives and outdated theories about the way the world works. But everywhere, their narratives are failing. I just received translations of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right into Mandarin and Romanian last night; the Romanian translator added:

I recently got in contact with the ideas of alt-right. The logic behind it is clear since I am from Romania and I myself seen what happened to my country, even after it entered the European Union. It lost all its industries, even the strategic ones. Also, we lost much of the workforce to other countries. As alt-right correctly points “free trade” requires completely destroying the country. 

Being correct, and providing an operative, accurate predictive model upon which people can rely, will trump monkeys dancing in front of the media every single time.

The blessings of deportation

As usual, the media fails to draw the correct logical conclusion:

Donald Trump’s German grandfather begged the prince of Bavaria not to deport him from Germany in the early 20th century,  a newly uncovered letter has revealed.  Friedrich Trump, who built up a fortune through restaurants and boarding houses after arriving in America as an immigrant, was born in the Bavarian town of Kallstadt.

But according to German newspaper Bild, he decided to return to his hometown in 1901 along with his wife, Elisabeth Christ, only to be issued with a deportation notice a few years later. It is understood the notice was issued after the German authorities discovered he had never carried out military service before emigrating to America.

He was therefore banned from reclaiming his citizenship, local historian Roland Paul told Bild.

“The American citizen and pensioner Friedrich Trump, currently residing in Kallstadt, is hereby informed that he is to depart the state of Bavaria, or face deportation,” the notice states.

Mr Trump’s grandfather even resorted to pleading with the prince of Bavaria not to deport him, Bild revealed, in an emotionally-charged letter. He begged the “well-loved, noble, wise and just” monarch to make an exception and block the deportation order in the note, but a court would later deny the request. The Trump family was then forced to abandon Germany for good and move back to America in 1905, when Elisabeth was pregnant with the US president-elect’s father, Fred Trump.

The emergence of the letter has raised eyebrows in some quarters due to Mr Trump’s hardline stance on immigration.

Just think. If the USA fails to repatriate millions of immigrants, it may be robbing Mexico, El Salvador, or even Nigeria of a future national leader. We can’t take that risk! If even one nation is deprived of a future president, that is too many!

“Meritocracy” in America

Thomas Frank at The Guardian observes the way the Podesta emails reveal how America’s ruling class really operates:

This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should “come from the industry itself”. And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another’s careers, constantly.

Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the “Global CEO Advisory Firm” that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.

But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it’s all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren’t part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don’t have John Podesta’s email address – you’re out.

I don’t so much mind the corruption and nepotism. It has always been thus, in every human culture. Francis Fukuyama has even coined a term, repatrimonialization, to describe the process, and in his excellent The Origins of Political Order, argues that one of the chief challenges of a society, and one of the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, is the never-ending battle between the aristocratic class to increase its wealth and privileges at the expense of the common people, and pass them on to its children, and the state, which attempts to interfere with that process.

In the USA, the state, and the people, have clearly lost that battle, because the financial aristocrats captured the throne, which has historically allied with the common people against the aristocracies.

If only there was a solution

Whatever are we going to do about this army of Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police who are occupied with memory-holing history?

Last week, you could still find on Wikipedia two of Ms. Machado’s more recent misadventures:

In 2005, Machado was engaged to baseball star Bobby Abreu. During their engagement she was on the Spanish reality show ‘La Granja’ where she was filmed on camera having sex with another member of the show. Shortly after the video surfaced Abreu ended their engagement.

On June 25, 2008, Machado gave birth to her daughter, Dinorah Valentina. She issued a statement that the father of Dinorah was her best friend Mexican businessman Rafael Hernandez Linares after Mexican news sources, quoting the Attorney General, reported that the father was Gerardo Álvarez Vázquez, a drug lord.

But mentions of these imbroglios have since been memory holed on Wikipedia. Editors have offered bizarre excuses for deleting the most interesting information about Hillary’s heroine, such as that the diva is not a “public figure,” an assertion that would surely wound the actress more deeply than allegations that she’s a gangster’s moll.

That points out an answer to one of the more obvious questions about the plausibility of Orwell’s 1984: How can they afford that? Is it really fiscally feasible even for a totalitarian government to employ an army of salaried Winston Smiths to alter history?

Yet it’s naive to imagine that a government would have to pay people to do this kind of thing. In the current year, we now know that plenty of people would join the Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police for free.

How very unfortunate. Now, thanks to Wikipedia’s ever-efficient thought police, no one will ever know the truth about Ms Machado. It’s not as if there is anything we can do about it, right?