Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Dave Explains Our Tyrants’ “Plausible History”

Posted by Bob on June 8th, 2011 under Coaching Session

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.

  1. #1 by Genseric on 06/08/2011 - 7:18 am

    They’re here. They’re speaking our language. They’re holding office. Every major city has a Martin Luther King Drive. And we ALL celebrate Black History Month in the public school system. Now, as the nation’s newest ‘slaves’, the Mexicans want the same things.

    So, what’s the solution? And HOW do we get there?

  2. #2 by BGLass on 06/08/2011 - 11:30 am

    Idk, some just seem proxies of whites, so how to get there means going to the root of the whites behind them.

    Wn drone on about ‘whites made inventions.’ But never about STORIES they invented for non-whites, (and certainly not which whites for which groups, lol) or why they created them.

    The histories mentioned, (non-whites have their own real histories, also, but I mean narratives whites have written FOR THEM— e.g. “de-colonialization narratives, etc.) are not talked about. And yet Whites came up with these stories (to harm other whites).

    As Horus says, Tonto wants his own deal. But it started by “empowerment” narratives, the propaganda movies we make, etc.

    And every single white group does it. That’s what’s contemptible about N&J. The dishonesty. The worse thing after that, is believing one’s own press.

    “the jews made us do it! the jews have destroyed our holy christianity which without them would be the way it’s supposed to be! etc. it should be embarrassing. (not that i’m not aware of them, etc.) sometimes the lack of personal accountability (and what one’s group got out of the deal) just makes it sound like ghetto talk.

    • #3 by Scythian on 06/08/2011 - 9:22 pm

      “Wn drone on about ‘whites made inventions.’ But never about STORIES they invented for non-whites, (and certainly not which whites for which groups, lol) or why they created them.”

      You mean how “Latinos” think they’re roman, or blacks think ancient egyptians were black and Hannibal Barca was black, or how Everyone thinks budda was oriental; and the blonde haired northerners were uncouth “barbarians”? – as just a few examples. You don’t have to be a scholor to see thru this garbage. Then you have tea partyers who grovel at the feet of THEIR King – Martin the Luther. It seems mommy professor let EVERYONE down; and these are the people (anti-whites) who think they own the future? On what grounds? Good thing is many of these bullshiters are on record.

  3. #4 by Vakur on 06/08/2011 - 6:12 pm

    The guilty people is amongst us. The ones that allow this geNOcide to happen is white people. The supporters are non-white.

    I see this like if one was a farmer and trusted workers to look out an fenced lettuce garden. Seeps will come in and try to get in. The workers will let them in because the sheep where hungry and they felt sorry for them or they found them cute. The garden will be ruined and who is to blame? The sheep
    that ate the garden or was it the workers that the farmers trusted to look out for the garden?

    I found a really funny comment about people who are really a fanatic communists or marxists (liberals, socialists, feminists etc.) that they have a really different genes than “normal” people called: DRD4. And that is probably why they think the world is upside down.

You must be logged in to post a comment.