Wednesday, June 14, 2017

"The Vult Right" is more "Left" than it Claims

This may be a Pragmatic Direction, however Transiently it may be; I do not Believe it's Ideal. It is Definitely Better than "The Alt-Lite" (Jew Milo, for Example, and Miscegenator Gavin), as one of the more Reactionary of "Alt-Right" Ideologies, however much it may Attempt to Distance itself from its Memetic Origins, though it would Benefit from a History Lesson and is in Need of Clarifying itself on a Major Point. It is not simply that "Alt Left" (a Term it Applies to "The Alt-Right"; as if Apart from it) is already a Term for those "Socially Conservative but Fiscally Liberal", nor even that "Conservative" was Coined to Refer to those Fighting Both Sides of The French Revolution. Indeed, it was Coined by Serial Adulterer Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand; who (on the one hand) Wrote a Defence of Catholicism yet (on the other) Rejected it in Effect for a Democratic Republic; the Circumstances of his Life not Permitting this to be Catholic, but to Institute The Reign of Terror. It isn't even, though, that those like "Burke" could be Regarded as "Conservatives" only if you're a Protestant; if you're Catholic, these are Usurpers whose Inglorious Revolution has brought nothing but Problems. After all, what Catholic would Conserve a System that Burnt Priests Alive and those who Harboured them? It is this, the Conflicting Notions of "Socialism", and other Conflicting Definitions of "Progress" and "Tradition". "The Vult Right" sounds rather like "Rexism", apart from its Fear of the word "Socialist" in "National Socialist". It has its Similarities to "Falangism", though I can Foresee it being Divided on this Issue the way "The Alt-Right" is Divided on just whether or not "National Socialism" were and/or would now be an Improvement. Of course, as for the Conflicting Concepts of "Socialism", you could always Remember what Connotation "Capitalist" would Bear (to both those Self-Identified as such and those Opposed, in that Era) and Realize that "Socialist" was the Pragmatic Label. Today, many have the same View of "Capitalism". You could Insist that Adam Smith had 18 Principles for when Government should be Required to Intervene in Economic Matters, and "Capitalists" would Complain that you're a "Socialist" while some other "Socialists" (Marxist Socialists) would Complain that you're Christian (or would Feign Christianity, by Claiming that it would be "Unchristian" to Intervene in these Matters or in the Necessary Way). Henry Ford, for Example, was told that he was a "Socialist" for his Christian Beliefs that he was told "do not belong" in Business; these were a Cultural Means of Limitation, and thus Regarded by "Unrestricted" (Alienist) Corporatists as an Agent of Communism. Ironically, what would be Restricted and what Enabled were Dramatically Different between Christianity and Communism; this were not so, when Comparing the Visions of Anti-Christian "Capitalists" and Anti-Christian "Communists". Having a "National Capitalism" thus Refers to either having something that will Eventually Fail, just Slower than Communism, at Best, if not Faster, as Kowloon Walled City was even more Miserable a Failure than the Disaster of Maoism, as one Example of why "Libertarianism" is not Viable even for Homogeneous Populations, or Redefining "Capitalism" from its Historical Usages. Is it not the Morally-Divorced Form of Smithianism but Smith's Position itself? They speak of not having Trade Across National Lines, but Our Nations should be Able to Trade with one another after doing everything Reasonable to be Self-Sufficient. We should not Trade with Foreign Races, and may Need to Subjugate or Exterminate these Races for Our Own Ends. They speak of not having Empires, but Christianity was its Greatest when it had Empires and/or Personal Unions; not Liberalism. It may be Possible for Nation-States to Exist for the Ethno-Cultures of Europe and not be Ruled by so Centralized a Power, but this is not what has been Observed in History and the General Decline of Our Race would Indicate that a Strong Central Figure is Currently Favourable to More Attempts at a Failed Separation of Powers. The Emergence of Pan-European Cooperation Across Interstate Lines is a Relatively-Recent - Indeed, "National Socialist" - Concept for "Nationalism"; the "Nationalism" that Occurred Prior to this had been Opposed to Empires that had Exactly that Cooperation, as it Favoured Racial Death on Behalf of the Jews it Aligned with (such as Freeing Them from Ghettos or Inviting Them to Return to where They had been Exiled from) to Racial Survival under the "Oppressive Yoke" of another European Nation (or Emperor whose Lineage was the Combination of Numerous European Ethnicities and whose Culture was Reflective thereof). "National Socialism" was Founded by Pagan (Presumed Jew) Alfred Rosenberg as Controlled Opposition, but it was Steered into The Most Viable Opposition Available by Adolf Hitler. That is why he was so Hated by "his own" Party Officials but so Loved Popularly; that Party was Popularly Opposed to but Institutionally Teeming with Jews, Pagans, Homosexuals, Miscegenators and "Progressives" (more of the F.D.R. Variety than those like Dr. Kirkbride and Pastor Muhlenberg, who may now be Regarded as "Paleo-Conservatives", for another Example of Conflicting Perceptions of Nomenclature) that Feuded but Ultimately Favoured one another to Hitler (who was more Lenient than he should have been). Some of these were Purged, as Hitler came to Power; some were not, until Shortly Before The Reich's Fall. There were some Influential Wehrmacht Jews, up 'til The Fall; these Betrayed, having Supported "Reconstruction" (Brainwashing and Profiteering Off Disaster). Still, under Hitler, it was an Objectively-Measured Improvement Over The Wiemar Republic and what The Allies would Effect for it (as They had Long Planned). Thus, there were some Leftisms in the Reign under Hitler [which was Partly his own Decision and Partly that of those around him, some of these not of that Party, but Entrenched from The Wiemar Republic, with some of those from The Monarchy having Favoured him and others Opposed (as the old Hanoverians had Ceased to Defend Europe and now thought only of Reclaiming Possessions that had been Stolen by "Wiemarians", even if it meant Allying with the Enemies of "National Socialism" to do so; this, though the Communists and Their Allies had No Intention of any Restoration To The Thrown or even Returning any Possessions - yet the so-called "Royals" of today actually Favour Communism Over Nationalism)]; yet, what were Promised by its Handbooks on Race and Christianity were Considerably More Opposed to "Jacobinism" and "Communism" than this Internationally-Manipulated Effect. It's True (to be Fair) that the "Handbook on Race" did have Anti-Christian Drivel, always saying "the traditional Christian view" when it's Referring to the "Judeo-Christian" Heresy, as it would Neglect to Explain (or Promote as if Atypically Racialist, in Contrast with History) that Mendel - the Frequently-Cited Scientist whose Laws of Inheritance were at the Heart of its Racial Purism that wasn't actually Practiced by Hitler's Reich (much to the Dismay of The Bureau of Racial Hygiene, it was told to not only make Specific Exceptions but Exceptions for Entire Nations; the Iranians being one Infamous Example, that the Scientists were told to stop Identifying as Non-White) - was a Catholic Bishop. Scientifically, though, it's a Valuable Source. I'd also Suggest you Read the Works of Blumenbach, Broca and Coon, rather than DuBois (Debunked Mulatto), Boaz (Debunked Jew) and Gould (Debunked Jew). Its "Handbook on Positive Christianity" had Mixed Reviews among Catholic and Lutheran Institutionalists, though were Well-Received by Catholics and Lutherans on The Popular Level. The Vatican Played Both Sides, so the Jews were Aided in Escaping Justice during that War but the "N.S." Forces were Aided in Escaping Them after that War. There were two Lutheran Congregations, rather than a United Entity, and I Recall Reading that one didn't Embrace it but Tolerated having "N.S." Members but the other had Excommunicated these. Rosenberg was of the Opinion that "Positive Christianity" would Result in Germanic Rejection of Christianity, as he Believed they would Perceive this Movement as an Attempt to "introduce" Racial Principles to a "foreign" Faith. Of course, Scripture itself is Clear on its Racialism and The Early Church Fathers Announced Our Race's Divine Eminence. Irish, for Example, were Taught that their Celtiberian Ancestors had Israelite Ancestry. Royalty would often Claim Descent from Saint King David. Fortunately, Rosenberg and his Followers were a Numerically-Marginal Presence in Hitler's Reich; these sometimes - Alarmingly - did Occupy High Positions, though it is Undeniable that Hitler's Influence and the Amiability of some others (even Pagan Rudolf Hess) did Result in a Functionally More Christian Society than that of The Wiemar Republic.
But Let's Consider The Essential Issue: The Powers That Be didn't exactly Permit there to be a Pan-Europeanist Purism, so it had to Settle for "Hitlerianism" or Decide to hand over much of Europe to Multiracial Hordes from The Soviet Union; the Rest of Europe, as elsewhere, in every Realm of European Habitation, to "Jacobinism". Sadly, The World Chose The Wrong Alliance. "The Vult Right" seems to be lumping "National Socialism" in with "Libertarianism", Despite that "National Socialism" Rejected Homosexuality (Rohm's Supporters were Cleansed) and Pedophilia (some Libertarians have Encouraged it, as "Freedom of Expression" and/or "Profitable") as but Slower "Communism" (for what does it Matter if it's a State-Owned Company, a Corporate-Owned State or - Overtly or Covertly - Collusion of the two as Nominally-Separate Entities that Oppress Our People?), which I'd say is a Half-Truth; the "Libertarians" were Opposed to "National Socialism" but Never Militantly Challenged "Communism", with some "Libertarian" Movements being Openly Founded by Known "Communists", as in South America, whereas "National Socialism" was The Most Effective Opposition Against Communism, but "National Socialism" was Considerably More Varied than "Libertarianism" to the Extent that it Included the Definition in this Article of "The Vult Right". The Greatest Economy was not that of "Progressive" America, nor its Allies, but that of "National Socialism". A System that Generally Favoured Free Markets but Favoured Public Order Over Material Acquisition or Ego, would be a Favourable System. This was more Effected under "National Socialism" than perhaps any other time in History. Even if you are to Reject its Claims to having Created a "Non-Marxist Socialism", having Purified the Pursuits of the Pre-Marxist "Socialists", or Rejected these as "Too Jacobin" to Purify, as basically a Rebranding of what could be called "Smith(ian)ism", in an Era where Smith himself would not have (otherwise) been Considered, being too Distorted by Jews that Claimed to Represent "Austrian" Mentalities, in Great Contrast to Literal Austrian's Traditions, you would have to Admit - to be Honest - that it were a Crucial Step in the Popular Pursuit of your Ideology; that it'd have been Better if they had Won, as no Fault of any Sub-Movement is not Exacerbated and Added to by the Faults of the Societies which Destroyed Hitler's Reich or the Successors thereof. Largely, it is Due to Half-Truths and Whole Lies that "National Socialism" is not The Popular Favourite for at least its own Era. It has been Blamed for Allied Atrocities, and Hated for a Purging of Mongrels it did not actually Conduct. Had it been Conducted, however, it would have been Objectively Beneficial for Our Race and The Christian Faith. Quintessentially: Regardless of the other Elements of your Ideology, the Question is this: Would you Prefer a Racially-Pure Society of another Ideology, which may in time Return to your View, at least in Part, or is your View one that can be Maintained in a Racially-Impure Society; one that will, Inevitably, be Reduced to the Triumph of one Race over the Rest or Mutual Annihilation? If the latter, are you Certain that this Struggle is Better for Our Race than the other Struggle? If not, why are you Willing to Risk this Outcome? If it is not God's Will that Our Race Survive, which Inevitably will Require Us to Annihilate The Lesser Races, if for nothing else but Resources, however Conservationist the Efforts of any or all Involved, why did He even Bother to Create Us? It is not for Bastardy, nor to Cease to Exist, since he Abhors Adulteration and Commanded the Annihilation of Threatening Populations on Numerous Occasions. Thus, I would Argue that not only should We make Efforts to Convert Our People to True Faith but that We are also Obligated to Protect Our People from even the Best of the Non-White Christians. As per Cultural Matters: That which is not Fundamentally Incompatible may be Accepted, but the Rest must be Destroyed. To Verify this Relationship, that which can Demonstrably Benefit Our Race is Holy to Utilize in this Manner but that which can Demonstrably Harm Our Race is Unholy to Utilize in this Manner. The Church did an Excellent Job of Reconciling Local Cultures with Christianity, by Adopting Festivals and Symbols etcetera that could Easily be Reinterpreted in a Christian View but Suppressing the Historical Associations of these; with the Exception of any Racial Value, as - rather - it Taught that Our Pure Race Must Unite For Common Benefit. Much in Contrast with Communism, though some Liars do Conflate it, it Acquired or Destroyed for Our Benefit; not for Our Destruction. It isn't whether or not something is Created or Destroyed, that Matters, but that the Outcome is Beneficial for Our Race (or at least has not Harmed it). We Must Optimize Our Potential. May this Social-ism (Social Belief and Practice) be Beneficial to Us, in Search both of Spiritual and Material Welfare (Well-Being). In Hoc Signo Vinces. Deus Vult!

Friday, May 5, 2017

The Racial Long Game: A Corollary To The Prior Post

Did you know that more "Hispanics" Volunteered on Behalf of The Confederacy than The Union?  Of these, on Both Sides, only a Minority were actually Spanish or Portuguese; most were Mestizo, on Both Sides, and Moorish and Jewish were also Present on Both Sides.  


Incidentally, The Union had Considerably More "Hispanic" Officers.


It should also be Noted that Ex-Confederates were Forced from Mexico by Juarezian Revolutionaries, whereas Union Officials, Officers and Industrialists would Marry into Wealthy Families of Mexico (both those Pure and those Impure, but all Leftist). Even the Families that had Economic Dealings with The Confederacy have since all become Silent on Racial Issues or Openly Promoted Mestizo Invasions.


Skip forwards a few Decades, and Mexico is Split between Fascism and Communism.  A Rigged Election, Backed By America, Would Ensure Communism's Victory. Unfortunately, today, Despite The Cristero's Efforts, having been Ordered to Stand Down, by Infiltrators in The Vatican, amid Pressures from International Forces of Jewish-Protestant Collaboration, Mexico is an Anarcho-Communist Narcotics State. Even that Fascist Presidential Candidate was Quick to Assimilate into Communism; his Goal being Power, rather than Necessarily being a Member of The Axis Alliance. 40% of America's Raw Materials for its War Effort were from Mexico, in W.W.II. This was its Primary Contribution, though there were others.


Subsequently, I Conclude that these saw in The Confederacy not only an Opportunity to Fight Gringos but a Long Game of Recolonizing and even Expanding into Historically-Unexplored Realms of what were once called by some "America".


The same is True for Jewry: A Confederate Victory would mean its Prosperous Slave-Trade would not only Continue but Merge its American Element with that in Ibero-America, whereas a Union Victory would mean more Whites being Raped and Murdered. Properties would then be Cheap, Particularly in The South, and "Reconstruction" would Provide New Opportunities to Marginalize Whites whilst having a Vast Supply of Cheap Labour; no longer Working in Traditional European Methods for Free, though Willing to Oppress, Rape and Murder Whites for Free, as is Their Tradition, and why Whites were Inclined to Enslave Them instead of Free Them, though Jewry Promoted the Notion that They should be Imported and Maintained, rather than Eliminated or even just Subjugated Abroad, but a Means of Promoting Their Industrial Domination. Utilizing Our Technologies, Whilst Warping Our Cultures, They Provoked Our Fratricidal Conflicts; Throughout History.


Recognize that more Jews were in High Positions of The Confederacy, while at Odds with The General Public, both North and South, but Particularly in The South, whereas more Jews were in High Industrial Positions of The Union whilst it Fought on Behalf of Industrial Hegemony Over Agrarianism.


The South had been Concerned more with Agro-Industrialism than Agrarianism, it is True, and The North was Self-Sufficient, but the Loss of a 20% Export Tax on Southern Goods being Sold to England would Benefit The South whilst being an Easily-Neglected Loss of Additional Revenue for The Northern Super-Wealthy. Their Arrogance Was That Profound.


Coupled with The Dust Bowl and The Boll Weevil, which a Russian Scholar has Noted were Assisted by Roosevelt's Firestarters, and Presumably these Parasites were Spread by other Parasites with a Notorious Aversion to Agriculture, a Further Shift in Favour of Industrialism and the (Leftward) Progressivism (that would Provide Much-Needed Reforms, but Sabotage these In The Long Run by Senseless Reforms) would Occur.


Many of the Nigh-Universally Exalted Tenants of this Sacrilege (such as Miscegenation, Homosexuality, Abortion of Viable Europeans, Prostitution, Incest and - Increasingly - Pedophilia) were not yet Publicly Proclaimed, and the Idealistic Progressives of the Period before this Terminology became a Euphemism for Socialism and its Pursuit of Communism were Viciously Slandered and/or even Physically Assaulted and then Forgotten by the Modern Progressives.   

A Tale of Civil Wars

     While once the Case that Russia saw the Advantages of Limiting The U.K.'s Imperialism but could not Afford to Back America Formally, on Account of Liberalism being a Threat to its own Security, this would not Remain True in Regards to The War For States Rights.  The Czar of Russia during this Constitutional Feud was Alexander II a.k.a. "The Liberator".  He actually Threatened to Join on Behalf of Lincoln, if The U.K. were to Join on Behalf of The South.  That wouldn't only mean a Conflict in The Atlantic but also The Baltic Sea, The Arctic Ocean, The Barents Sea, The White Sea, The Mediterranean, The Black Sea, The Sea of Azov, The Pacific, The Sea of Japan and The South China Sea, at least, as the Colonies and Allies of the two would be Forced into War.  Historic Enemies were a Plenty, to either Pick Sides or Fight Both Sides.  Russia would be Sending Supplies to Alaska, for one thing, so Canada would be Besieged both by both Land and Water to the West and South but by Water to the East. Russia's East would have some Protection from Alaska, but Asiatic Nations may Join England in Fighting it. Russia would have to Offer these Better Deals than The U.K. could, or these may Fight Both Sides and perhaps be Assisted in this out of Europe.  After all, many of the European Powers were Arming Both Sides of The War of Northern Aggression.  Russia is Vast and Frigid, which has Saved it on Numerous Occasions even from More-Advanced and/or Larger Forces, and its Rivers, Seas and Great Lakes (like The Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal) would put it at a Great Advantage as it could Traverse these by Ship but others would have to go around while Experiencing Harsh Conditions or be - if even Able to Establish a Fleet in the Region - Annihilated by a Superior Fleet.  They'd have to Draw Out those Fleets into the Larger Seas and Oceans, but that'd do nothing about any Fleet in The Caspian or Baikal.
Basically, it'd have been a World War and The U.K. would have Likely Sought Turkish Assistance.  Germany was Desperate to Reconcile with England, which kept Snubbing it, so it might have Remained Neutral or Armed Both Sides.  Besides, Russia was Liberalizing whereas Prussia and other European Powers had Recently Suppressed Liberal Rebellions (there were many in Europe, in 1848); the Relations between the two were Already Strained.  It also wouldn't have wanted to Fight France during this time, and France had been given the same Ultimatum as England by Russia.  Spain saw that Americans and Southerners in Particular were Hellbent on Forcing a War with Spain (which The Republican Party would later Wage on a False Pretense), in Order to Annex Puerto Rico (which, of course, Occurred) and Cuba (which did not, and Backfired when America Backed Castro before it Nominally Opposed him), so it didn't want to be Involved in this Conflict; if it Chose to Join on Behalf of The Union to Protect its Carribean Colonies, it'd have been Attacked by Portugal and England.  These may not have Allowed it to Join on Behalf of The Confederacy, however, as Arrogance was Driving these Ventures more than Race, Religion, Culture or any of the Alledged Motivations.  So, Spain may well have been Invaded by France.  Italy would have to Remain Neutral or it'd be Devastated, unless it Joined on Behalf of The Confederacy.  Assuming that The U.K. would Permit this, though it'd Sideline it as much as Possible, if not Eager to War with it, as can be Presumed through Precedent, it'd still have to Contend with its Liberal Revolution that had been Raging for Years.  It couldn't Join on Behalf of The Union, unless it wanted to hand itself over to Anarcho-Socialists that were Rampaging through Italy and in Communications already with Lincoln; there were Italians on Both Sides of Lincoln's War, with some having Fought on Behalf of Highly Influential Leftist Giuseppe Garibaldi and others having Fought in Opposition to him. 


So, basically, Russia was Threatening to Cause a World War on Lincoln's Behalf that would have Directly Resulted in the Destruction of many Civilizations and the Incremental Destruction of the Rest through Liberalism.


It made much more Sense for everyone to Remain Neutral and Sacrifice The South, since there would just be Feuding amongst the Victors - Regardless of which these were - over how to Divide Conquered Realms, Trade Routes and Finances.  The Non-White Nations and Captives, whether in Europe or its Colonies Abroad, could also Invade or Revolt at any Moment.


Even if The South could have Won by itself, Historians Suspect that it'd have still Entered on Behalf of The U.K. in Both World Wars.  It'd also have Masses of Mestizos it would Regard as "Legally White" or "Acceptable", just like were Imported by Yankee and "Good Ol'e Boy" Presidents for Decades that Provided those Statuses to Them.  It would have Continued to Breed its Blacks, even though it Prohibited Their Importation, at least until The Dust Bowl and Boll Weevil would Force a Greater Focus on Industrialism.  It was always too Focused on Cotton, anyway, so it was having an Agricultural Crisis even back during The War of Secession.  Its Whites would have Continued to Suffer in Poverty, in General, with Less and Less Space, being Forced into Tenements like those in Yankeedom, as the Negros became more Numerous and Revolutions would mean Pacifying Negros
through Liberal Reforms.  Even if many of the Blacks were Relocated to Mexico, The Carribean or somewhere Western not having The Dust Bowl, the Mestizos would have Clashed with these and either Taxes would have Spiked or The Confederacy would Continue its Policy of Printing More Money to Avoid those Taxes that no one could Afford but thus Indebting Future Generations.  That would mean more Mestizos would Settle wherever in America these could Find Employment or Handouts.  The Confederacy was Largely Protestant and even the Catholics were Frequently Influenced by Protestant Liberalism, so Mexico and The Carribean were Bound to Clash even though these were Overwhelmingly just Posturing as and not Genuinely Catholic.  The Union, if not Defeated Entirely, would just take this Opportunity to Annex America and Establish its Precursors to N.A.F.T.A just like it did in Reality.  Even if it were Defeated, this would be the time for Revolution.  The Negros and Mestizos wouldn't have Fared as well in The Northwest, but any Settling there would have made things more Difficult than they already were for Europeans. Even up North, everyone Complained that The South didn't want the Blacks so the ones Ordered to Leave - once Whites had some Modicum of Control again - went up North.  They could have gone Westward or to Mexico, but the Mexicans didn't want the Blacks and the Blacks didn't want to be Pioneers unless Funded and Protected by Whites.  The Union just Fancied itself more Protective of Whites, in Contrast to what it just did to Whites (Particularly White Women), since it Opposed Blacks having these Freedoms that were Intended only to be Utilized Against "Lowly" Southerners.  New England had the Opinion that The South was "Too Celtic" and thus "White Niggers" or "Less Than Niggers", so it didn't Regard it as Shameful to Rape or Murder these People; they were Perceived as Monstrous, yet that - somehow - didn't Discourage Them from Raping these Alledged Inferiors.  They saw that as The Ultimate Conquest, much like a Negro thinks it is "Superior" if it Rapes a White Woman.  The English Southerners were quick to Advocate "Cooperation" ("Reconstruction" i.e. Unification i.e. Liberalization i.e. Rape, Murder, Arson, Thievery, Slander, Libel and other Destruction, whilst not Admitting it) with The Union, on the Basis of "English Kinship". 


It seems the Reality of America having Funded Communism in Mexico and Russia were Unavoidable. 
If France had Joined The Confederacy, the Client State in Mexico would have been Expected to Mirror this Position. Unfortunately, Emperor Maximilian I was a so-called "Enlightened" Monarch and his Ineffectual Rule would not only Cost him his own Life but the Life of his Wife.  She actually went Insane, when she Realized that The Napoleons had Lied to her and her Husband to Convince him to Operate in Mexico as if Elected by those actually Revolting over his Presence.  They would Cite the Genuine Spread of Plague as Reason for not Interacting with Mexicans, but it was actually because he'd Realized that the Election had been a Sham for his Support of French Colonization.  Juarez even Refused to Surrender his Illegitimate Presidency, when in Violation of his own Constitution, by Exceeding Term Limits, but his own Radical Supporters would Murder anyone who Noted his Hypocrisy.  Unionists would make Deals with the Socialists and Communists that Killed him and Warred Internally for Decades, and this Support still Continues to this day.  They just Transferred all but a few Skirmishes from Civil War to Legislative Disputes, but it's more about which is the Leader than about Genuine Political Differences.  The Confederacy would have to Deal with all these Issues, as well. 
Yes, there were Mexicans and European Minorities which were Subjects of The Second Mexican Empire and also Supported The Confederacy, whether Financially or Militantly, so some Changes may have Occurred if The Confederacy instead of The Union were Operating in the Region, but the Ease with which Ex-Confederates were Driven from Mexico and the Fact that the Majority of the Boere who Settled there after The Second-Boer War would Flee into America both Indicate that Mexico would not Remain a Confederate Colony.  The Confederacy were't Fighting it as a Racial War, but its Enemies were. 
I will Credit Teddy Roosevelt and Luis Terrazas with Helping these People to Relocate, but both of these Typically made Atrocious Decisions; whether it were Luis having Utilized his Position as Governor to Depreciate or Appreciate the Land he Intended to Buy or Sell, by Mobilizing Troops to Abandon or Stabilize a Territory during those Revolutions, Teddy having Intervened on Japan's Behalf during The Russo-Japanese War or his Swing Vote in Favour of Permanent Taxation [that he Promised would be at Lower Rates and Affecting only The 1%, but actually Affected Everyone and Adversely Impacted The Poor (which Enabled those 1% to Survive without Competition from Small Businesses, and is why The Wealthy Often Support Higher Taxes and the Stupidity of The Poor that They Misinform)]. Even if The Terrazas Family could be Convinced to Support The Confederacy, instead of Marrying into Unionists like The Creel Family or that Branch of The Bowie Family that Fought on the Opposite Side of the Territory-Turned-Former-Country-Turned-State that its Famous Relative was a Founding Father of (a.k.a. Jim Bowie and Texas), he'd still have Sold Dynamite to Revolutionaries and/or Deliberately Failed To Suppress Revolutions because it was Profitable to do so. 
In Short: Alexander II's Son, Alexander III, was a Conservative but the former's Actions were so Radical that he actually Delayed Southeastern Europe's Liberation From Turkish Hordes By Decades.  By his Liberalism, he Jeopardized Relations with other Nations; even if these were Liberal, or Promoting Liberalism in other Nation-States to Destabilize these for Conquest, his Fervent Adherence to other Liberal Principles was a Threat to Military-Industrial Complexes that were Essentially Regarded as "Sacred" by both Left and Right in other Countries.  His own Promotions of Minorities (like Jews, Central Asians, East Siberians and others of Non-European Descent) and Teaching the Illiterate Masses to Read the Propaganda the aforesaid Produced, would Further The Path To Communism.  Even then, he was Assassinated by those Radicals he Enabled.  His Son was being Hindered by his own Government, and the latter's own Son so Ineffectual and Betrayed both Internally and Internationally that Jew Bolshevism became Synonymous in Global Perceptions with "Russian Identity" (even though the Predominance were Opposed to all Forms of Communism and even Liberalism were Relatively-Recent in Russia). In other words: As much an Ostensible Contrast with The Present as that Era would be, the Events which Followed were not only to be Expected but Viciously Promoted - both North and South, as well as Abroad - since even before The Lost Cause.
The Average Southerner of that Era does Appear to have been more Moral than The Average Northerner, though there are Numerous Conditions that Shaped why The North and South did what they did, though Mostly Economic, on Both Accounts, but the Leaderships also Appear to have been Equally Immoral. 

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Much Ado About Nothing or: North Korea - So What?

It didn't even Threaten to Attack, because it Knows it can't Win unless America simply Allows it to. It Threatened to Respond IF Attacked. North Korea is doing a fine enough Job, itself, of Ensuring that North Korea is not a Threat. It is Impoverishing and Starving its Assets, and Remaining Technologically Inferior. 

Even if it did Attack South Korea, so what? Why Do We Care? It doesn't even have the Capacity to Nuke America, so it's Banking on the Chinese having this Capacity [it is Theoretically Possible, though Reliant upon America making a Conscious Decision to Permit it; America has an Extensive Anti-Missile Network, both on Land, Under and Upon the Seas (amongst other Bodies of Water), in the Air and in Outer-Freakin'-Space] or - on Account of having a Common N.A.T.O. Adversary (though for Different Reasons) - for Russia to do so. 

What I would Hate to do, is Attack it and have it Pushed by this into Russia's Sphere of Necessary Allies. It's not like Russia wants to have to Rely on all its Cold War-Era, Second-World Allies. But if it's in a War with N.A.T.O. and the latter is going to Invade Russia, anyway, it would only make Sense for it to be Courted as an Ally. 

Unfortunately, that's all the Pretense that N.A.T.O. would Need to Attack; its Supporters will not Understand what is at Stake, or They will Eagerly Seek to Defile. So, Russia will have to Wait until it is Attacked - itself - and the North Koreans will have to be Smart and Emotionally Stable enough to Accept this Delay in Alliance. Otherwise, both will Fall for this Ignorance and Petulance. If this Alliance is Forged, though, it's a Good Way to Ensure that Russia actually does slip back into Bolshevism. 

I am not for Nuking it, at that Point; I am for another Cold War. Yes, there will be Proxy Wars. These Will Occur, Regardless. It would be Better not to Devastate Russia, since Russia still has Viable Ethnicities. I would rather its Cultural Revival be Kicked Into Overdrive, rather than Reviving even a Moderated Version of that Red Blight. 

The only way this would be even Ostensibly Beneficial for Us, is if Russia were to Collaborate with America to Defeat North Korea. In that Case, Russia would have to Occupy it; if America is Occupying it, it would be a Disaster. Even a Joint Occupation is Risky. If the Russians were to Insist upon this, however, or even be Granted it, America (or the more Hawkish of those in it, merely having to Wait for Support from the other Usurpers; Eager to Provide it, if not to Speak it) would Decry this "Invasion" or "Threat". They might actually Prefer for it to be Ceded to Russia, so it can be Invaded by those now Able to "Migrate" (Read: Invade) Moscow, et cetera, though They will Insist upon "Liberating" it (Invading Russia, or at least Undermining any Semblance of Stability in or Sought for this Ostensible Territorial Asset that is Effectively an American Insurgency), or at least Occupied by it so that "True Americanism" can be Branded as an Uncompromisingly Anti-Russian Position that will also Include Importing Mongrels. Some will Debate about whether or not to have the War, and some will Debate about whether or not to Import Mongrels. The Answer to both Questions is a Resounding "NO!" 

If you are Counting on Trump to Collaborate with Russia, rather than to Invade it, not only must you Consider that his Successor will Probably be Anti-Russian but Remember Trump-Appointed Rex Tillerson's False Accusations Against Russia Regarding Syria. 

Besides, what is that Detestable thing that America likes to do? Import Mongrels. Don't tell me that Trump won't; he also weren't going to Bomb Syria, but he did. 60 Times. Additionally, the Regimes in Europe either will or will be Embargoed or Invaded by N.A.T.O. and/or The (Regionally-)European Union. They would have to Ally with Russia, to Prevent that, but that may just Trigger W.W.III. They may not Fight it on the Pretense of whether or not Mongrel Invasions are Permitted, but upon any Number of Irrelevancies, Falsehoods and Matters of Lesser Importance than this Stand For Purity that is the True Motivation for the Assaults. 

Should North Korea Be Destroyed? Yes. Will This Government Properly Counter Mongrelism? No. Should America Have More Military Bases Surrounding Russia? No. Should Russia Counter America? Yes. Verdict? Keep Koreans In The Koreas; Keep Interventionism Out. 

It is Utterly Detestable, Indeed, that We can't even Fight Mongrel Communists; to do so would be under Unacceptable Conditions, as "Conventional" [rather, Regimental (in the Archaic Sense)] Forces, and thus to Aid Them. Thus, I Propose that Mercenaries should go that Kill Alledged "Refugees". Official Forces Should Not Be Present.

Saturday, April 8, 2017

This Is Why I (Incidentally) Supported Ron Paul

There's a Theory that Trump is only Bombing Syria to Obtain Support from Neo-Con Politicians, and will thus Withdraw Support once he is Criticized by Liberal Media.
Shouldn't he just Continue to be Harassed by Neo-Con Politicians, to Prove these are Conspiring with Liberals? Shouldn't he Allow the Liberals to Continue Proving that They are not Anti-War, since Their Campaign was Based Upon Invading Russia?
If he does Withdraw, won't he Lose that Neo-Con Support?  If he doesn't Withdraw, how will he Obtain any Anti-War Support from those Liberals that are Desperate for a "Conservative White Male Racist" to be The War President so that They can Continue to Pretend to Oppose it [right into another Election and - Subsequently - an Enlargement of the War (a la Obama)]?
Trump Can't Rely Upon Liberal Masses; They're Far Too Corrupt. Trump Can't Rely Upon Conservative Masses; They're Far Too Stupid. Trump Can't Rely Upon Politicians.  Trump Can Only Rely Upon The Alt-Right.  Trump's Dividing The Alt-Right.
Now, one might have a Far-Fetched Notion that Trump doesn't like Taking Orders from his Jewish Son-In-Law or Netanyahu, et cetera, so he's Forcing those "Alt-Rightists" to either Expose Themselves as Attention-Seeking Conservatives (i.e. Liberals-In-Denial) or to Seek Russia's Support in Overthrowing The Regime.  After all, he's Solidifying Russia's Position as Leader of The Free World.  Unfortunately, that only Works if he'll Secretly Assist Us.
If Trump Cracks Down Upon The Dissident Right, W.W.III Ensues Anyway.  Then, Why Not Have Elected Hillary?  Why Not Have Elected Sanders? What's Better Than The Cubans (Cruz; Rubio)?  What's Better Than Miscegenator Bush?  What's Better Than Negro Criminal Carson?  What's Better Than Ryan?  What's Better Than Boehner?  Honestly, What Did "The Great Meme War" Accomplish?