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.
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.
(((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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
If Ronald Reagan were alive today, I wonder if he would still be a conservative.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Ronald Reagan address to the annual meeting of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce Mar. 30, 1967
We’re already at that point. At this point, our children already don’t know what it is like to live in a white country, and our grandchildren are likely to learn what it is like to have to fight a civil war.
That being said, Ronald Reagan is one of the individuals responsible for the USA’s current predicament due to a) signing the California no-fault divorce law and b) the 1986 Immigration Amnesty. As conservatives are wont to do, he stood up to the external enemy and surrendered to the internal enemy. As internal enemies are always more dangerous, he failed to fight when it counted most.
So, yes, upon further reflection, he probably would still be a conservative, attacking the Alt-Right for seeking to do what he wouldn’t.
I don’t know who “Publius Decius Mus” is, except in the Samnite War sense, but this is the best article I have ever read at the Claremont Institute. It very clearly makes the case for the need for the Alt-Right, if not for the Alt-Right per se. And in doing so, it also underlines the petty narcissism of the dwindling #NeverTrump crowd:
If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.
But it’s quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti may be taken as representative—indeed, almost written for the purpose of illustrating the point. Continetti inquires into the “condition of America” and finds it wanting. What does Continetti propose to do about it? The usual litany of “conservative” “solutions,” with the obligatory references to decentralization, federalization, “civic renewal,” and—of course!—Burke. Which is to say, conservatism’s typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction, immorality, and corruption? “Civic renewal” would do a lot of course, but that’s like saying health will save a cancer patient. A step has been skipped in there somewhere. How are we going to achieve “civic renewal”? Wishing for a tautology to enact itself is not a strategy.
Continetti trips over a more promising approach when he writes of “stress[ing] the ‘national interest abroad and national solidarity at home’ through foreign-policy retrenchment, ‘support to workers buffeted by globalization,’ and setting ‘tax rates and immigration levels’ to foster social cohesion.” That sounds a lot like Trumpism. But the phrases that Continetti quotes are taken from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, both of whom, like Continetti, are vociferously—one might even say fanatically—anti-Trump. At least they, unlike Kesler, give Trump credit for having identified the right stance on today’s most salient issues. Yet, paradoxically, they won’t vote for Trump whereas Kesler hints that he will. It’s reasonable, then, to read into Kesler’s esoteric endorsement of Trump an implicit acknowledgment that the crisis is, indeed, pretty dire. I expect a Claremont scholar to be wiser than most other conservative intellectuals, and I am relieved not to be disappointed in this instance.
Yet we may also reasonably ask: What explains the Pollyanna-ish declinism of so many others? That is, the stance that Things-Are-Really-Bad—But-Not-So-Bad-that-We-Have-to-Consider-Anything-Really-Different! The obvious answer is that they don’t really believe the first half of that formulation. If so, like Chicken Little, they should stick a sock in it. Pecuniary reasons also suggest themselves, but let us foreswear recourse to this explanation until we have disproved all the others.
Whatever the reason for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.
Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.
One thing that I expect has become clear to most readers here, whether of the Alt-Right or the conservative persuasion, is that conservatism is utterly unequipped to deal with the current situation. Even if conservatism were a coherent ideology – it isn’t, read Cuckservative – or if it were not partially culpable for the current situation – and it is – conservatives are both intellectually unarmed and emotionally unprepared to deal with the ongoing transition from ideology politics to identity politics.
A favorite phrase of mine is, “let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.” Conservatives correctly point out the ways in which American liberalism, Leftism, and progressivism all fail the test of experience. However, conservatives completely fail to recognize their own pie-in-the-sky thinking when they appeal to Magic Dirt, Magic Words, and the Zeroth Amendment. They do not understand the significance of the Supreme Court’s version of the US Constitution not being the same as the original written version of the Constitution, they are unaware that most immigrants, children of immigrants, and grandchildren of immigrants neither know nor care what any version of “the Constitution” is, says, or represents, and they ignore the very purpose of the Constitution as laid out in the Preamble.
Most importantly, they elevate a single phrase from the Declaration of Independence, a meaninglessly utopian piece of rhetoric which is not only contradicted by the Preamble, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the acts of the First Congress, but by subsequent phrases in the Declaration itself, and proclaim it to be the foundational core of both state and nation. To conservatives, “all men are created equal” is a Magic Spell of unlimited potency that is not only, contra literally ALL the evidence, historically definitional, but can even be invoked to instantly transform any individual, tribe, people, or nation into Americans.
However, neither the Magic Spell nor the Magic Words prevented the Civil War, or if you prefer, the Second War for Independence. And the Magic Words will not prevent Round Two, or if you prefer, the Third War for Independence, or what is considerably more likely to be the free-for-all that follows the general collapse of the US central state. Very few saw the Soviet collapse coming, and I expect even fewer genuinely see the US collapse coming, despite the profiteering of opportunistic media doomsayers who have never seen an Apocalypse, a Ragnarok, or a Rapture they didn’t like.
Where conservatism has proven intrinsically fragile and self-contradictory, the Alt-Right is anti-fragile and intellectually consistent. A nation has considerably more ruin in it than a state; the state cannot survive long without a single dominant nation but as the Jews, the Kurds, and many other peoples have proved, a nation can survive indefinitely without a state. The architects of 4GW theory and the globalists alike have chronicled the way in which we are coming to the end of the Westphalian period where the state held a monopoly on violence. Therefore, it should surprise no one that as the international state system is in the process of coming to an end, the ideology politics that arose within it and subsequently dominated it should also be in decline.
So, conservatism is not merely incoherent, it is now as entirely irrelevant as a biplane during the Battle of Britain. Neither a Balanced Budget Amendment nor pledging undying loyalty to AIPAC nor deciding to “rededicate ourselves to the notion of liberty for which generations of Americans fought and died” are going to even begin to address the implications of the post-Westphalian shift to identity politics, much less prevent the collapse of the USA.
Action: It is our duty to preserve our nations for our children.
(((Reaction))): redefine “preserve”, “nation” and “children”.
What most Americans don’t realize is that (((globalist propagandists))) are now pushing the same deceitful game of redefinition in their attack on the nations of Europe that they successfully pushed in the United States in the 20th century.
But even the dumbest, most maleducated and historically ignorant American, who blithely accepts the idea that George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin believed their posterity to consist of Bantu tribesmen, cannibals from Papua New Guinea, and Chinamen in founding “a nation of immigrants”, will tend to raise his eyebrows in befuddlement at new and outlandish claims about “Britain is a nation of immigrants”, “the Judeo-Christian identity of the Swedish nation” and “all nations are nations of immigrants”.
I cannot stress this enough. All four of the following phrases are ahistorical lies, and moreover, they are lies that are now being recycled to attack Europe in the same way they were used to destroy the genuine historical concept of the American nation.
The melting pot
A proposition nation
A nation of immigrants
Judeo-Christian values
“all men are created equal” means “everyone is an American”
And the European nationalists all know it too.
“If we could just get our definitions straight I’m sure we’d find we actually AGREE on the important points” – Saint Cuck the First
