Archive for June 8th, 2011

Happy Birthday, James Kelso!


No Comments

Dave Explains Our Tyrants’ “Plausible History”

Tyranny rests upon the principle that any plausible lie will do. That is the source of doctrines: plausible lies. And it is discouraging that people are so easily tricked by plausible lies.

The vicious Morlocks, who are the apex predators of any particular Establishment, put incredible energy into the development of “national” doctrines, usually in connection with denying people their ethnic and racial rights as separate peoples. Also, because the Eloi, the Morlock’s prey, have the greatest respect for the terms “legal” and “illegal”, they know how easily the Eloi are tricked by doctrines that are “officially” sanctioned. In contrast, the Morlocks themselves are never so idiotic.

This is why I love listening to Henry Kissinger. Henry Kissinger is a Morlock who can’t keep his mouth shut. Accordingly, he gives away the thinking of all Morlocks. Kissinger’s basic shtick is doctrinal: Competing regimes must have a shared framework and vocabulary for perceiving their conflicts or these conflicts are prone to uncontrolled escalation. In other words, they must agree on doctrine.

All the Morlocks have to do to anyone challenging the geographic naming conventions and fake sanctioned histories behind their doctrines is brand them with “illegal” motives. In other words, internal psychological compliance with their doctrines is mandatory and enforced (i.e., you are an “American” first, and a white person second). People like Kissinger want to make this a global regime. This is what gives tyranny its religious character. It is the demand for internal psychological compliance across peoples and borders. And this is the basic principle international tyranny uses to con people into accepting fake “national” histories, motivated by the need to justify the subjugation of peoples and their territories under regimes that have procured international recognition for their doctrines.

That’s why the most important question of any sanctioned history is: whose history? Asking that question is to seriously get in the face of officially sanctioned doctrines.

For example, I resent having a piece of the history of the African Diaspora named, “American History”. It’s African history in the Americas, but it is NOT “American History”. There is not one part of the history of black people that is my people’s history. It is so important not to get the history of your own people confused with other people’s history. That confusion is EXACTLY what the tyrants want. The American Constitution is now so muddied by this nonsense, by its doctrine of racial and ethnic inclusiveness, sweeping many separate ethnic, racial, and national histories into one big confused muddle, that it is worthless. It is really no different structurally than the method used in the Peoples Republic of China. The edifices and practices look a lot different, but the underlying structure is the same. It is all about mashing different races and peoples together, and calling them the same people (“one nation”) with a “shared” history. The con of “one nation” and “shared history” is one of the fundamental doctrines of tyranny.

Watch out: The Morlocks are calling the history of Mexico, “American History”. One the few remaining Manchu’s in Manchuria would have no problem understanding this phenomena at all. Everybody calls him “Chinese” and he is required to accept the history of Ming China as part of his own “shared” history. The Han conquered him with his own Mandarin language and then used that as a tool to drag him into Han “centeredness”. It all happened fairly rapidly and on the scale of real time, fairly recently. That’s why it is such a damn threat to have English speaking Mexicans in America. If you don’t understand this, there is something wrong with you.

Similarly, I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that the President of the United States is black. It is the fact that he is black AND communicates in English as his primary language that is the problem. What is Barack Obama’s real identification? It is not with the non-white world as a whole. It is only with that portion of the non-white world that communicates primarily in English and to a lesser extent that portion of the nonwhite world that is merely fluent in English. THAT CONSTITUTES THE THREAT because it is that portion of the nonwhite world that is demanding political rights at the expense of our own. I feel like Robert Whitaker. Why doesn’t anybody else but me see this?

It is subtle how perspective gets twisted by dominant languages and hidden motives. That’s how the tyrants catch you. It is their use of dominant languages as a political tool to impose foreign culture and histories, the names they put on land and water, what they include and exclude in legal documents, and what they thereby justify. It is how they confuse separate people’s histories and throw them all together. And then people succumb to these implied perspectives without ever questioning, without ever asking, why?

You have to get your mind right BEFORE you decide what door you are going to open. Your whole self-conception and your conception of your own people can get incredibly screwed up if you don’t understand that there are compelling motives behind how a dominant language is used as a political tool, how geographies are named, how separate people’s histories are jumbled together, and how entire histories are named.