Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • Untitled

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/western-civilisation-at-risk-from-its-ignorant-young/news-story/693ec638c270af4f2788c6e7c6e5f189

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 21:35:00 UTC

  • Rousseau and Foucault were “Sexual Deviants” and french culture anti-masculine f

    Rousseau and Foucault were “Sexual Deviants” and french culture anti-masculine for historic anti-german reasons. Their philosophical bias, the pre-christian venus cult, the revolution’s revolt against white men in church and state, have created a conformist, feminine, hostile, anti-western civilization – at least in paris and in the intelligentsia. Meanwhile the population remains largely german in intuition. The british less so , the nordics less so, the germans less so the poles less so, and the russians least of all.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 08:49:00 UTC

  • Paternalism (Aryanism) Will Help You Love People Again

    PATERNALISM (ARYANISM) WILL HELP YOU LOVE PEOPLE AGAIN —“The more I learn, and ‘see’ what I learn in people and in the world, I can feel arising in me a tendency to just see most other people as non self aware, selfish actors who simply act (almost deterministically) according to their incentives, within the scope that they can understand…. which usually isn’t very large. On one hand this gives a certain amount of peace, but on the other is the temptation to simply feel atomised and a bit apathetic. Is it possible to love people and love the world despite losing so many illusions about them? And if so, how would you suggest cultivating more of that emotional state?”—Rob McMullan Well, this is what I hope ‘the precious few’ achieve: the understanding that propertarianism is as revolutionary as was empiricism, and that it’s not that we CAN’t have relatively free will but that we DON’T have relatively free will, because we are just negotiating machines on behalf of our genes using incentives. So, where you say ‘pathetic’ I”ll use the term “dehumanizing” which is how the christian world reacted against the findings of science, and in particular heliocentrism and darwinism. But once you ‘adapt’ to your new understanding, you will love people like I do, and like generals love their soldiers, like kings love their people, and mothers love their children. The miracle of it all is that IT WORKS. I mean, we actually manage to evolve and live together and drag ourselves into godhood despite being nearly automatons in doing so. It’s wondrous!!! I found I had an amazing sense of power (mindfulness), and i suspect otehrs do too. the problem is you can’t go around and change the world with the knowledge all that easily. It’s got to ‘grow’ in influence. Hence why I”m so concerned not with people agreeing, but with using force to impose the law, from which they will learn by environmental pressure and incentives rather than exposition and understanding. Once you return to being an Aryan, and seeing mankind as children and us as gods, you will just love them. It’s the christian falsehood of equality that deprives you of the option of paternalism and love for fellow man.

  • Paternalism (Aryanism) Will Help You Love People Again

    PATERNALISM (ARYANISM) WILL HELP YOU LOVE PEOPLE AGAIN —“The more I learn, and ‘see’ what I learn in people and in the world, I can feel arising in me a tendency to just see most other people as non self aware, selfish actors who simply act (almost deterministically) according to their incentives, within the scope that they can understand…. which usually isn’t very large. On one hand this gives a certain amount of peace, but on the other is the temptation to simply feel atomised and a bit apathetic. Is it possible to love people and love the world despite losing so many illusions about them? And if so, how would you suggest cultivating more of that emotional state?”—Rob McMullan Well, this is what I hope ‘the precious few’ achieve: the understanding that propertarianism is as revolutionary as was empiricism, and that it’s not that we CAN’t have relatively free will but that we DON’T have relatively free will, because we are just negotiating machines on behalf of our genes using incentives. So, where you say ‘pathetic’ I”ll use the term “dehumanizing” which is how the christian world reacted against the findings of science, and in particular heliocentrism and darwinism. But once you ‘adapt’ to your new understanding, you will love people like I do, and like generals love their soldiers, like kings love their people, and mothers love their children. The miracle of it all is that IT WORKS. I mean, we actually manage to evolve and live together and drag ourselves into godhood despite being nearly automatons in doing so. It’s wondrous!!! I found I had an amazing sense of power (mindfulness), and i suspect otehrs do too. the problem is you can’t go around and change the world with the knowledge all that easily. It’s got to ‘grow’ in influence. Hence why I”m so concerned not with people agreeing, but with using force to impose the law, from which they will learn by environmental pressure and incentives rather than exposition and understanding. Once you return to being an Aryan, and seeing mankind as children and us as gods, you will just love them. It’s the christian falsehood of equality that deprives you of the option of paternalism and love for fellow man.

  • Contrary To Marxist History – A Conversation on Race.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgfWhlc3gQ CONTRARY TO MARXIST HISTORY A Conversation on Race Paul Craig Roberts We often hear that we need a conversation on race. Considering that Americans are a brainwashed people living in a false history, such a conversation would resemble the one the Russians were expected to have with the British in regard to the Skripal poisoning: “Yes, we are guilty. We will pay reparations. Where would you like us to send Putin for trial?” In other words, the only acceptable race conversation in the US is one in which white people accept the accusation that they are racist and offer to make amends. Considering that the only slavery experienced by any living black or white person is income tax slavery, race is an issue only because it has been orchestrated as an issue along with gender and sexual preference. These divisive issues are the products of Identity Politics spawned by cultural Marxism. In real Marxism, conflict is class conflict. Workers and capitalists have different interests, and history is a struggle between material interests. The capitalist is the villain and the workers are the victims. In the pseudo Marxism of Identity Politics, the white race is the villain, especially the white heterosexual male, and racial minorities, women, and homosexuals are the victims. There is, of course, no such thing as a white or black race. There are many different nationalities of whites, and they have done a good job throughout history of killing each other. Similarly, there are many different black tribes and Asian ethnicities who also have fought more among themselves than with others. But all of this goes by the wayside, along with the fact that in the world the “racial minorities” are actually majorities and the “white majority” is actually a minority. There are more Chinese or Indians alone than there are white people. But orchestrated histories are not fact-based. The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as “the Trump deplorables,” is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism has been stood on its head. The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. The ruling elite favors a “conversation on race,” because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded “black history,” “women’s studies,” and “transgender dialogues,” in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These “studies” have replaced real history with fake history. For example, it was once universally known that black slavery originated in slave wars between black African tribes. Slaves were a status symbol, but they accumulated beyond the capacity of tribes to sustain. The surplus was exported first to Arabs and then to English, Spanish, and French who founded colonies in the new world that had resources but no work force. The socialist scholar Karl Polanyi, brother of my Oxford professor Michael Polanyi, told the story of the origin of the African slave trade in his famous book, Dahomey and the Slave Trade. The first slaves in the new world were white. When real history was taught, this was widely understood. Movies were even made that showed that in King George III’s England, the alternative to criminal punishment was to be sold as a slave in the colonies. See, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgfWhlc3gQ Among the first New World lands to be exploited by the Europeans were the Carribean Islands, which were suitable for sugar and rice production. The problem was that the white slaves died like flies from malaria and yellow fever. The Spanish lack of success with a work force of natives of the lands they conquered led those in search of a work force to the slave export business of the black Kingdom of Dahomey. The demand for black workers rose considerably when it was discovered that many had immunity to malaria and resistance to yellow fever. This meant that a plantation’s investment in a work force was not wiped out by disease. The resistance of blacks to malaria is due to the protective feature of the sickle cell trait that, apparently, only blacks have. See: https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/sickle_cell.html Slavery existed in the New World long before the United States came into existence. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are today written off by Identity Politics as racists simply because they were born when slavery was a pre-existing institution. Slavery had existed for many centuries prior to the Confederacy. Yet, in some accounts today one comes away with the impression that the South invented slavery. As the tale sometimes goes, Southern racists so hated blacks that they went to Africa, captured blacks at great expense, only to return them to the South where they whipped and abused their investments to the point of death and demoralized their work force by breaking up black families, selling children in one direction and wives and husbands in the other. This tale is not told as an occasional abuse but as the general practice. Economically, of course, it makes no sense whatsoever. But facts are no longer part of American history. Northern states held slaves as well. However, the predominance of slaves were in the South. This was not because Southerners hated blacks. It was because the land in the South supported large agricultural cultivation, and there was no other work force. The South, like the United States, inherited slavery from the work force that European colonists purchased from the black Kingdom of Dahomey. Why wasn’t there an alternative work force to slaves? The reason is that new immigrants by moving West could take land from the native Americans and be independent as opposed to being wage earners working on someone else’s land. The Western frontier did not close until about 1900. At the time of the War of Northern Aggression the Plains Indians still ruled west of the Mississippi River. It was Lincoln’s Northern war criminals, Sherman and Sheridan, who were sent to exterminate the Plains Indians. Ask the American natives, or what is left of them, who the racists are: the Northerners or the Southerners. Black studies has even corrupted other aspects of history. Consider the so-called “civil war.” The name itself is an orchestration. There was no civil war. There was a War of Northern Aggression. A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The South had left the union and had no interest whatsoever in controlling the government in Washington. The only reason the South fought was that the South was invaded by the North. Why did the North invade the South? As was once understood by every historian and every student, Abraham Lincoln invaded the South in order, in Lincoln’s own words, expressed time and time again, “to preserve the Union.” Why did the South leave the Union? Because it was being economically exploited by the North, which, once the North gained the ability to outvote the Southern states, imposed tariffs that benefited the North at the expense of the South. The North needed protection from British manufactures in order for the economic rise of the North. In contrast, the South’s economy was based on cotton exports to England and on cheap manufactures imported from England. Tariffs would bring the South higher cost of manufactured goods and retaliation against their cotton exports. The economic interests of the North and South did not coincide. Slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with the war. Lincoln himself said so over and over. Prior to his invasion of the South, Lincoln and the Northern Congress promised the South Constitutional protection of slavery for all time if the Southern states would stay in the Union. Historians who have read and recorded the war correspondence of both Union and Confederacy soldiers to relatives and friends at home can find no one fighting for or against slavery. The Northern troops are fighting to preserve the union. The Southern ones are fighting because they are invaded. Nothing could be clearer. Yet, the myth has been established that Abraham Lincoln went to war in order to free the slaves. In fact, Lincoln said that blacks were not capable of living with whites, who he said were superior, and that his intention was to send the blacks back to Africa. If America ever had a “white supremacist,” it was Abraham Lincoln. What about the Emancipation Proclamation? Didn’t this order by Lincoln free the blacks? No. It was a war measure on which hopes were placed that, as almost every able-bodied Southern male was in the front lines, the slaves would revolt and rape the Southern soldiers’ wives and daughters, forcing the soldiers to desert the army and return home to protect their families. As Lincoln’s own Secretary of State said, the president has freed the slaves in the territories that the Union does not control and left them in slavery in the territory that the Union does control. Why did Lincoln resort to such a dishonorable strategy? The reason is that Lincoln had run through all the Union generals and could not find one that could defeat Robert E. Lee’s vastly outnumbered Army of Northern Virginia. The character and generalship of Robert E. Lee, who is dismissed by Identity Politics as a white racist, is so highly admired by the United States Army that the Barracks at West Point are named in Lee’s honor. Not even “America’s first black president” was able to change that. Black history also covers up the fact that Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army. In those days Americans still saw themselves as citizens of their state, not as citizens of the US. Lee refused the offer on the grounds that he could not go to war against his native country of Virginia and resigned his US Army commission. If Lee had been in command of the Confederacy at the First Battle of Bull Run when the Union Army broke and ran all the way back to Washington, Lee would have followed and the war would have ended with the South’s victory. But Lee wasn’t there. Instead, the Southern generals concluded, watching the fleeing Union Army, that the Northerns could neither fight, retreat in order, or ride horses, and were no threat whatsoever. This conclusion overlooked the superior manpower of the North, the constant inflow of Irish immigrants who became the Union’s cannon fodder, the Northern manufacturing capability, and the navy that could block Southern ports and starve the South of resources. During the first two years of the War of Northern Aggression the Union Army never won a battle against Lee’s vastly outgunned army. The North had everything. All the South had was valor. Lincoln was desperate. Opposition to his war was rising in the North. He had to imprison 300 Northern newspaper editors, exile a US Congressman, and was faced with the North’s most famous general running against him on a peace platform in the next election. Thus, Lincoln’s vain attempt to provoke a slave rebellion in the South. Why didn’t such allegedly horribly treated and oppressed slaves revolt when there was no one to prevent it but women and children? Everything I have written in this column was once understood by everyone. But it has all been erased and replaced with a false history that serves the ruling elite. It is not only the ruling elite that has a vested interest in the false history of “white racism,” but also the universities and history departments in which the false history is institutionalized and the foundations that have financed black history, women’s studies, and transgender dialogues. It was Reconstruction that ruined relations between blacks and whites in the South. The North stuffed blacks down the throats of the defeated South. Blacks were placed in charge of Southern governments in order to protect the Northern carpet baggers who looted and stole from the South. The occupying Union Army encouraged the blacks to abuse the Southern people, especially the women, as did the Union soldiers. The Klu Klux Klan arose as a guerrilla force to stop the predations. Robert E. Lee himself said that if he had realized how rapacious the North would prove to be, he would have led a guerrilla resistance. The generations of Americans who have been propagandized instead of educated need to understand that Reconstruction did not mean rebuilding southern infrastructure, cities, and towns destroyed by the Union armies. It did not mean reconstructing southern food production. It meant reconstructing southern society and governance. Blacks, who were unprepared for the task, were put in control of governments so that carpetbaggers could loot and steal. Whites lost the franchise and protection of law as their property was stolen. Some areas suffered more than others from the Reconstruction practices, which often differed from, and were worse than, the policies themselves. Reconstruction was a contentious issue even within the Republican Party. Neither president Lincoln nor Johnson would go along with the more extreme Republican elements. The extremism of the Reconstruction policies lost support among the northern people. When the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in the 1870s, Reconstruction was brought to an end. In the South, and most certainly in Atlanta, where I grew up, schools were neighborhood schools. We were segregated by economic class. I went to school with middle class kids from my middle class neighborhood. I did not go to school with rich kids or with poor kids. This segregation was not racial. When the North again got on its high moral horse and imposed school integration on the South, it disrupted the neighborhood school system. Now kids spent hours riding in school busses to distant locations. This destroyed the parent-teacher associations that had kept parental involvement and displinine in the schools. The South, being a commonsense people, saw all of this coming. The South also saw Reconstruction all over again. That, and not hatred of blacks, is the reason for the South’s resistance to school integration. All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted reality, except for my readers and the readers of a handful of others who cannot be compromised. Western peoples are so propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon. History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes, Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism now practice it ten-fold. The brainwashing about the Russian and Muslim threats works for a number of reasons. The superpatriots among the Trump deplorables feel that their patriotism requires them to believe the allegations against Russia, Syria, Iran, and China. Americans employed in the vast military/security complex understand that the budget that funds the complex in which they have their careers is at stake. Those who want a wall to keep out foreigners go along with the demonization of Muslims as terrorists who have to be killed “over there before they come over here.” The Democrats want an excuse for having lost the presidential election. And so on. The agendas of various societal elements come together to support the official propaganda. The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population—indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are incompetent—and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere. LINK https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/18/conversation-race-paul-craig-roberts/

  • Contrary To Marxist History – A Conversation on Race.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgfWhlc3gQ CONTRARY TO MARXIST HISTORY A Conversation on Race Paul Craig Roberts We often hear that we need a conversation on race. Considering that Americans are a brainwashed people living in a false history, such a conversation would resemble the one the Russians were expected to have with the British in regard to the Skripal poisoning: “Yes, we are guilty. We will pay reparations. Where would you like us to send Putin for trial?” In other words, the only acceptable race conversation in the US is one in which white people accept the accusation that they are racist and offer to make amends. Considering that the only slavery experienced by any living black or white person is income tax slavery, race is an issue only because it has been orchestrated as an issue along with gender and sexual preference. These divisive issues are the products of Identity Politics spawned by cultural Marxism. In real Marxism, conflict is class conflict. Workers and capitalists have different interests, and history is a struggle between material interests. The capitalist is the villain and the workers are the victims. In the pseudo Marxism of Identity Politics, the white race is the villain, especially the white heterosexual male, and racial minorities, women, and homosexuals are the victims. There is, of course, no such thing as a white or black race. There are many different nationalities of whites, and they have done a good job throughout history of killing each other. Similarly, there are many different black tribes and Asian ethnicities who also have fought more among themselves than with others. But all of this goes by the wayside, along with the fact that in the world the “racial minorities” are actually majorities and the “white majority” is actually a minority. There are more Chinese or Indians alone than there are white people. But orchestrated histories are not fact-based. The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as “the Trump deplorables,” is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism has been stood on its head. The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. The ruling elite favors a “conversation on race,” because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded “black history,” “women’s studies,” and “transgender dialogues,” in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These “studies” have replaced real history with fake history. For example, it was once universally known that black slavery originated in slave wars between black African tribes. Slaves were a status symbol, but they accumulated beyond the capacity of tribes to sustain. The surplus was exported first to Arabs and then to English, Spanish, and French who founded colonies in the new world that had resources but no work force. The socialist scholar Karl Polanyi, brother of my Oxford professor Michael Polanyi, told the story of the origin of the African slave trade in his famous book, Dahomey and the Slave Trade. The first slaves in the new world were white. When real history was taught, this was widely understood. Movies were even made that showed that in King George III’s England, the alternative to criminal punishment was to be sold as a slave in the colonies. See, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgfWhlc3gQ Among the first New World lands to be exploited by the Europeans were the Carribean Islands, which were suitable for sugar and rice production. The problem was that the white slaves died like flies from malaria and yellow fever. The Spanish lack of success with a work force of natives of the lands they conquered led those in search of a work force to the slave export business of the black Kingdom of Dahomey. The demand for black workers rose considerably when it was discovered that many had immunity to malaria and resistance to yellow fever. This meant that a plantation’s investment in a work force was not wiped out by disease. The resistance of blacks to malaria is due to the protective feature of the sickle cell trait that, apparently, only blacks have. See: https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/sickle_cell.html Slavery existed in the New World long before the United States came into existence. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are today written off by Identity Politics as racists simply because they were born when slavery was a pre-existing institution. Slavery had existed for many centuries prior to the Confederacy. Yet, in some accounts today one comes away with the impression that the South invented slavery. As the tale sometimes goes, Southern racists so hated blacks that they went to Africa, captured blacks at great expense, only to return them to the South where they whipped and abused their investments to the point of death and demoralized their work force by breaking up black families, selling children in one direction and wives and husbands in the other. This tale is not told as an occasional abuse but as the general practice. Economically, of course, it makes no sense whatsoever. But facts are no longer part of American history. Northern states held slaves as well. However, the predominance of slaves were in the South. This was not because Southerners hated blacks. It was because the land in the South supported large agricultural cultivation, and there was no other work force. The South, like the United States, inherited slavery from the work force that European colonists purchased from the black Kingdom of Dahomey. Why wasn’t there an alternative work force to slaves? The reason is that new immigrants by moving West could take land from the native Americans and be independent as opposed to being wage earners working on someone else’s land. The Western frontier did not close until about 1900. At the time of the War of Northern Aggression the Plains Indians still ruled west of the Mississippi River. It was Lincoln’s Northern war criminals, Sherman and Sheridan, who were sent to exterminate the Plains Indians. Ask the American natives, or what is left of them, who the racists are: the Northerners or the Southerners. Black studies has even corrupted other aspects of history. Consider the so-called “civil war.” The name itself is an orchestration. There was no civil war. There was a War of Northern Aggression. A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The South had left the union and had no interest whatsoever in controlling the government in Washington. The only reason the South fought was that the South was invaded by the North. Why did the North invade the South? As was once understood by every historian and every student, Abraham Lincoln invaded the South in order, in Lincoln’s own words, expressed time and time again, “to preserve the Union.” Why did the South leave the Union? Because it was being economically exploited by the North, which, once the North gained the ability to outvote the Southern states, imposed tariffs that benefited the North at the expense of the South. The North needed protection from British manufactures in order for the economic rise of the North. In contrast, the South’s economy was based on cotton exports to England and on cheap manufactures imported from England. Tariffs would bring the South higher cost of manufactured goods and retaliation against their cotton exports. The economic interests of the North and South did not coincide. Slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with the war. Lincoln himself said so over and over. Prior to his invasion of the South, Lincoln and the Northern Congress promised the South Constitutional protection of slavery for all time if the Southern states would stay in the Union. Historians who have read and recorded the war correspondence of both Union and Confederacy soldiers to relatives and friends at home can find no one fighting for or against slavery. The Northern troops are fighting to preserve the union. The Southern ones are fighting because they are invaded. Nothing could be clearer. Yet, the myth has been established that Abraham Lincoln went to war in order to free the slaves. In fact, Lincoln said that blacks were not capable of living with whites, who he said were superior, and that his intention was to send the blacks back to Africa. If America ever had a “white supremacist,” it was Abraham Lincoln. What about the Emancipation Proclamation? Didn’t this order by Lincoln free the blacks? No. It was a war measure on which hopes were placed that, as almost every able-bodied Southern male was in the front lines, the slaves would revolt and rape the Southern soldiers’ wives and daughters, forcing the soldiers to desert the army and return home to protect their families. As Lincoln’s own Secretary of State said, the president has freed the slaves in the territories that the Union does not control and left them in slavery in the territory that the Union does control. Why did Lincoln resort to such a dishonorable strategy? The reason is that Lincoln had run through all the Union generals and could not find one that could defeat Robert E. Lee’s vastly outnumbered Army of Northern Virginia. The character and generalship of Robert E. Lee, who is dismissed by Identity Politics as a white racist, is so highly admired by the United States Army that the Barracks at West Point are named in Lee’s honor. Not even “America’s first black president” was able to change that. Black history also covers up the fact that Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army. In those days Americans still saw themselves as citizens of their state, not as citizens of the US. Lee refused the offer on the grounds that he could not go to war against his native country of Virginia and resigned his US Army commission. If Lee had been in command of the Confederacy at the First Battle of Bull Run when the Union Army broke and ran all the way back to Washington, Lee would have followed and the war would have ended with the South’s victory. But Lee wasn’t there. Instead, the Southern generals concluded, watching the fleeing Union Army, that the Northerns could neither fight, retreat in order, or ride horses, and were no threat whatsoever. This conclusion overlooked the superior manpower of the North, the constant inflow of Irish immigrants who became the Union’s cannon fodder, the Northern manufacturing capability, and the navy that could block Southern ports and starve the South of resources. During the first two years of the War of Northern Aggression the Union Army never won a battle against Lee’s vastly outgunned army. The North had everything. All the South had was valor. Lincoln was desperate. Opposition to his war was rising in the North. He had to imprison 300 Northern newspaper editors, exile a US Congressman, and was faced with the North’s most famous general running against him on a peace platform in the next election. Thus, Lincoln’s vain attempt to provoke a slave rebellion in the South. Why didn’t such allegedly horribly treated and oppressed slaves revolt when there was no one to prevent it but women and children? Everything I have written in this column was once understood by everyone. But it has all been erased and replaced with a false history that serves the ruling elite. It is not only the ruling elite that has a vested interest in the false history of “white racism,” but also the universities and history departments in which the false history is institutionalized and the foundations that have financed black history, women’s studies, and transgender dialogues. It was Reconstruction that ruined relations between blacks and whites in the South. The North stuffed blacks down the throats of the defeated South. Blacks were placed in charge of Southern governments in order to protect the Northern carpet baggers who looted and stole from the South. The occupying Union Army encouraged the blacks to abuse the Southern people, especially the women, as did the Union soldiers. The Klu Klux Klan arose as a guerrilla force to stop the predations. Robert E. Lee himself said that if he had realized how rapacious the North would prove to be, he would have led a guerrilla resistance. The generations of Americans who have been propagandized instead of educated need to understand that Reconstruction did not mean rebuilding southern infrastructure, cities, and towns destroyed by the Union armies. It did not mean reconstructing southern food production. It meant reconstructing southern society and governance. Blacks, who were unprepared for the task, were put in control of governments so that carpetbaggers could loot and steal. Whites lost the franchise and protection of law as their property was stolen. Some areas suffered more than others from the Reconstruction practices, which often differed from, and were worse than, the policies themselves. Reconstruction was a contentious issue even within the Republican Party. Neither president Lincoln nor Johnson would go along with the more extreme Republican elements. The extremism of the Reconstruction policies lost support among the northern people. When the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in the 1870s, Reconstruction was brought to an end. In the South, and most certainly in Atlanta, where I grew up, schools were neighborhood schools. We were segregated by economic class. I went to school with middle class kids from my middle class neighborhood. I did not go to school with rich kids or with poor kids. This segregation was not racial. When the North again got on its high moral horse and imposed school integration on the South, it disrupted the neighborhood school system. Now kids spent hours riding in school busses to distant locations. This destroyed the parent-teacher associations that had kept parental involvement and displinine in the schools. The South, being a commonsense people, saw all of this coming. The South also saw Reconstruction all over again. That, and not hatred of blacks, is the reason for the South’s resistance to school integration. All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted reality, except for my readers and the readers of a handful of others who cannot be compromised. Western peoples are so propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon. History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes, Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism now practice it ten-fold. The brainwashing about the Russian and Muslim threats works for a number of reasons. The superpatriots among the Trump deplorables feel that their patriotism requires them to believe the allegations against Russia, Syria, Iran, and China. Americans employed in the vast military/security complex understand that the budget that funds the complex in which they have their careers is at stake. Those who want a wall to keep out foreigners go along with the demonization of Muslims as terrorists who have to be killed “over there before they come over here.” The Democrats want an excuse for having lost the presidential election. And so on. The agendas of various societal elements come together to support the official propaganda. The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population—indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are incompetent—and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere. LINK https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/18/conversation-race-paul-craig-roberts/

  • RT @SRCHicks: Sidney Hook’s school days in old New York From philosopher Sidney

    RT @SRCHicks: Sidney Hook’s school days in old New York http://www.stephenhicks.org/2018/04/19/sidney-hooks-school-days-in-old-new-york/ From philosopher Sidney Hook’s autobiographical Out of Step…


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 13:23:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/986958462402916354

  • —“Curt Can You Discuss English vs German?”—

    English vs German When we make contrasts between variations of the same language family, we are of necessity making hay of very minor advantages or disadvantages of each. English consists of ‘common german’, augmented by ‘political class french terms’, and ‘intellectual class latin terms’. We choose words from each ‘class’ and this choice infers a great deal about both the speaker and his audience. Many of these terms have very precise meanings and are not open to interpretation because of it. So it’s a low context, high precision, terminological language. German is a compound language, which is naturally descriptive and often operational. English is a selective and appropriative language. Germans have a penchant much like french, to load poetic meaning and double entendres in these descriptions, where in english this is harder, and we usually use more literal or full sentence structures for the same reason. Where germans have certain experiential words, english tend to have descriptive sentences. English uses more precision in time, and more precision in blame (action and accountability). In other words, english is a legal, financial, and political language, and german is a social and craftsmanly (engineering) language. And that is because english is a SLIGHTLY more High Precision, Low Context language, and german is a SLIGHTLY less high precision low context language. And even so, that difference tends to be limited to Scandinavian Contractualism (Anglo Saxonism) versus central german moralism. In other words, germans are evolved more from farmers and armies and scandinavians more so from sailor(pirates) and navies. Hence Prussia = Sparta, and London = Athens. In most cases, if we could fix the german time grammar, a compound language is preferable to a terminological language. And german is superior for social discourse. And the ability of germans to retain ‘the oath’ by the very structure of their language and semantics, without having to adopt american (anglo) legalism to enforce it is an asset. And the more I study this problem the more I want to combine the two. (What americans think of constitutionalism is what germans think of morality, but both are just referring to the prehistoric germanic ‘oath’.) FWIW: there is a bit of myth that americans considered choosing German as the national language. This is incorrect. It’s that so many of the people spoke german, that they considered issuing the declaration and constitution in german as well as english. But since translation is an iffy thing, and how to do it was undecided, they simply failed to do so – by one vote. However, again, I want to stick with the point that the english adopted french(class) and jewish(financialism) sentiments after 1830, and that america outside of new england, remained german in culture while speaking west germanic english. And this is what separates the rather ‘peasant’ culture of white english lower classes, and the rather ‘french’upper classes, from the american’s who are, at present, still decidedly PRUSSIAN. And if I have my way we will study frederick rather than jefferson.

  • —“Curt Can You Discuss English vs German?”—

    English vs German When we make contrasts between variations of the same language family, we are of necessity making hay of very minor advantages or disadvantages of each. English consists of ‘common german’, augmented by ‘political class french terms’, and ‘intellectual class latin terms’. We choose words from each ‘class’ and this choice infers a great deal about both the speaker and his audience. Many of these terms have very precise meanings and are not open to interpretation because of it. So it’s a low context, high precision, terminological language. German is a compound language, which is naturally descriptive and often operational. English is a selective and appropriative language. Germans have a penchant much like french, to load poetic meaning and double entendres in these descriptions, where in english this is harder, and we usually use more literal or full sentence structures for the same reason. Where germans have certain experiential words, english tend to have descriptive sentences. English uses more precision in time, and more precision in blame (action and accountability). In other words, english is a legal, financial, and political language, and german is a social and craftsmanly (engineering) language. And that is because english is a SLIGHTLY more High Precision, Low Context language, and german is a SLIGHTLY less high precision low context language. And even so, that difference tends to be limited to Scandinavian Contractualism (Anglo Saxonism) versus central german moralism. In other words, germans are evolved more from farmers and armies and scandinavians more so from sailor(pirates) and navies. Hence Prussia = Sparta, and London = Athens. In most cases, if we could fix the german time grammar, a compound language is preferable to a terminological language. And german is superior for social discourse. And the ability of germans to retain ‘the oath’ by the very structure of their language and semantics, without having to adopt american (anglo) legalism to enforce it is an asset. And the more I study this problem the more I want to combine the two. (What americans think of constitutionalism is what germans think of morality, but both are just referring to the prehistoric germanic ‘oath’.) FWIW: there is a bit of myth that americans considered choosing German as the national language. This is incorrect. It’s that so many of the people spoke german, that they considered issuing the declaration and constitution in german as well as english. But since translation is an iffy thing, and how to do it was undecided, they simply failed to do so – by one vote. However, again, I want to stick with the point that the english adopted french(class) and jewish(financialism) sentiments after 1830, and that america outside of new england, remained german in culture while speaking west germanic english. And this is what separates the rather ‘peasant’ culture of white english lower classes, and the rather ‘french’upper classes, from the american’s who are, at present, still decidedly PRUSSIAN. And if I have my way we will study frederick rather than jefferson.

  • All Peoples Can Adopt the Best of The European Civilizational Technologies

    Only europeans could invent sovereignty, rule of law, reason, low context, high precision language, and markets in everything. And as such only europeans dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature in a universe hostile to life. But that said, *Any people willing to adopt the Government of the Universal Militia of Sovereign Men, and constrain the base impulses of the under classes can make use of that european civilizations technology.* Any group willing to do so can adopt it. It’s difficult. But it will work.