Saturday, February 4, 2017

The Fourth Turning And The Consequences Of Deliberate Miseducation.

What they seek should
be self-explanatory.
left has become so deluded and so completely obsessed with Donald Trump that they actually think that fomenting a military coup de'tat to remove him would have some sort of good consequences for them and the nation. First we heard from egotistical moonbat Rosie O'Donnel calling for martial law. Now we've got alleged comedian Sarah Silverman and others openly calling for a coup.

Before we get into the dangers of what they are trying to accomplish we have to first get past the absurdity of an American military coup.  The notion that if the upper echelons of the military did come to such a conclusion, that they could convince unit commanders and the rank and file officers and NCOs to go along with it, is equally absurd.

The biggest absurdity of all is the assumption that if such an event were to occur the military would then simply relinquish power to either the establishment left or to these deranged morons. These obvious delusions stem of course from the persistent and deliberate miseducation of the last 70 years that fascism is a product of the political right, rather than the left. This false notion blinds them to the reality that the political left has made a fatal mistake by aligning themselves with both radical communists and violent anarchists and thinking they can control them as the chaos unfolds. This insanity is exemplified by black Congresswoman Val Demings of Florida who said that the Berkeley riots were "a beautiful thing." That this woman was at one time a police officer before going into politics makes her pronouncement that much more demented and vile. It is clearly driven by hatred, racial, political or otherwise.

The Nazis weren't the first to burn books.
 They won't be the last.
"Where they burn books they will end burning
human beings."
Heinrich Heine, German poet 1820
The list of ironies is almost endless. What started with angry shouting and cream pie throwing at Ann Coulter's events has devolved from throwing words to throwing bricks, setting fires and outright physical assaults. I fully expect that once Milo Yiannopoulos's book "Dangerous" is released, that we will see book burnings on more than one college campus. I'll even go out on a limb here and predict that they will break into campus and other bookstores and steal them for their pyres. I also fully expect any comparisons to Nazi book burnings to be completely lost on these fools and uncommented on by the establishment media. Mark Twain's old adage that "History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme." will be completely and deliberately forgotten.

At this point we don't see any of the leadership of the Democrat party or the establishment media openly calling for more of these violent riots, but neither do we hear them unequivocally condemning them for what they are, unadulterated, pure and naked, fascism. The likes of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the media apologists honestly think they can use these radical, violent elements to their purposes. No differently than the German establishment thought they could control Hitler and his SA. They will continue to put the likes of committed communists like Van Jones and Michael Moore forward as so called voices of reason.

By the time the political left comes to realize what kind of monsters they really are, it will be to late. The violence will grow out of control and mere beatings will have turned to deliberate and bloody murder. And when that happens State, local and Federal agencies will have no choice but to respond with extreme measures of their own. The surpression and arrest of violent fascists and anarchists will then of course be met with cries of "See we told you they are fascists!"

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that certain acts, such as burning the flag, may constitute free speech, there is more than then a little perspective and distance between burning flags or draft cards to burning cars and private property. As has been said the sphere of your freedom of action ends where my nose begins. Problem is these fascists don't care about your rights or anybody else's.

Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis was long the advocate for working people.  He penned many an opinion promoting free speech and man's inherent right to it. But he also wrote, "No danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is an opportunity for full discussion. Only an emergency can justify repression."

If there is anything that the radical communists and anarchists have demonstrated by their actions it is that they have no interest in full and open discussion and that they are eager to bring about the kind of emergency that will require the very repression they claim to fear and seek to prevent.

Like all collectivists from the past, there is no lie they won't tell, no fraud or deceit they won't commit. For them the desired ends of chaos and totalitarian collectivism justifies whatever means they choose, no matter how much or who's blood is spilled in the process. For them there are no moral underpinnings, only the desire for power, control and the destruction of their enemies.

We had best take them at their word.
We had best take them at their word and prepare ourselves for locally based communist and anarchist violence and the very distinct possibility that these violent elements will align with both internal and external Mexican drug gangs opposed to the construction of the wall on our southern border and also wish to reassert Mexican claims to the American southwest. What they call Azatlan.  Add in the great uncertainty of another economic crash far deeper than 2008 and the violent blood thirsty 7th century death cult of Islam that equally seeks the destruction of Western civilization, American culture, and capitalism as we know it and you have the makings of a military, political and human crisis deeper than even a combination of the American Civil War, the Great Depression and World War II. The spectre of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of groups who possess no moral constraints should frighten anyone whatever their previously claimed political orientation. This fourth turning will be upon us with lightening speed that few can even imagine, and fewer still will be prepared for.

Those opposed to this 21st century fascist revival will obviously have the support of the vast majority of the American military and their logistical support operations as well as that of the more rational elements of the Democrat party. But the enemy will have some of their own as described above.

Their willingness to shed blood in pursuit of their goals has been demonstrated. We best be prepared to first petition and demand that the instruments of government be brought to bear to protect us from these spearhead attacks by violent enemies of every thing our nation stands for.  Should it fail to adequately do so, we should arm ourselves to that end. These kind of vermin only stop their assaults and destruction when they themselves are either destroyed or their will to continue is destroyed. They can no more be reasoned with than a Hitler, a Stalin or a Pol Pot.


  1. Syntax error. ".....brought to bare to protect us". That should be 'bear', it's not something that spell check would have caught.

  2. Ya'll started it up "thar". Ya'll finish it anywhere you wish, but I and a lot of others are sitting this one out. We've finally figured out that we have no country to call our own, yet being born in the USA leaves us as slaves, not to any one plantation owner, but rather to the masses. It's called socialism, or communism, or fascism, but they all originate from the philosophy Marxism.

    You're right with your essay, but the problem started long ago, and is not a recent issue. The coup was in 1861 when a new president committed treason, and it was denied and covered up by the Republican Party of that day which was known as the Red Radical Republican Party. (Now the Democrat Party.)

    Your and most everyone's education is misguided from that point on, as it was those Radical Republicans that contained the USA's first Marxists that held "enuff" power to conduct a coup through first ignoring and then reinterpreting the US Constitution. (Don't forget, it was the New Englanders who previously was always protesting and burning the US Constitution in the streets for the actions of those they disagreed with.)

    I know many reading this will not like what I have written, and that is fine. I can back everything I have stated up many times over. Better yet, read much of this for yourselves in a book titled, "Lincoln's Marxists", by my friend Al Benson.

    I and my people will fight no more battles for you. Although your article is good reading concerning the immediate problems.

    Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
    Classical Historian Western Civilization

    1. The Civil War or what ever you want to call it, is 150 years come and gone. I would refer you to the Mark Twain quote above. You are clearly ignoring it. As the that past history, slavery was America's original sin, but the Civil War was the South's self-inflicted wound. While the North and much of Europe moved into the 19th century and industrial age with breakneck speed the South clung to the 18th century and slavery with all the arrogance and stubbornness they could muster.

      Rather than building factories and railroads and digging canals they bitched about tarrifs and preserving a way of life the rest of Christendom was leaving behind. And don't give me that crap that it wasn't about slavery because the vast majority of the Session Declarations named "interference with the institution of slavery" as a primary reason for leaving.

      And I'm not buying any "right to leave" arguments either. Read the Supreme Court decision in White v Texas. The Articles of Confederation declared the the new nation as a "Perpetual Union" and then the succeeding document that Constitution, declared its purpose as "To form a more perfect Union."

      So cling to your 150 year old wounded pride if you so choose but if you are going to put that wound, that you did actually suffer, over and above the coming struggle to restore Republic and preserve the Constitution, that both the North and the South signed onto, then if that struggle fails it will be on people like you.

      Ayn Rand may have been a dispicable individual but she was absolutely correct when she said. "You can avoid reality but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." The shit is coming down whether you or I like it or not. Choose your side or find your place in history along side those who failed to stand up against the Bolsheviks in 1917 and those who failed to stand up against the Nazis in the 1930s. Again I refer you to Mark Twain.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. It is really amazing and sad. I read the main article and it was a decent article in general, but the basis is purely subjective. But your reply only solidified my own previous comments, which actually was also saying, one's basis for rational thought must come from past events, shall we say HISTORY? The article even mentions past events, including SPECULATION.

      150 years ago, and further back, as well as Mark Twain's quotes aptly applies to your comments also. I'm just cutting the chase because I now understand it matters how much I know, how much evidence, facts and proof I have, I cannot change another's mind or opinion. The article actually shows you are your own victim of "miseducation".

      It is NOT possible to understand, much less explain today's problems in the US unless one understand ALL the past history of the USA and to its' beginnings from the Colonies. One may make a claim based upon faulty "misinformation" and still be close with their conclusions, but the root of the problem would still remain.

      The root of the problem lies in New England and I could make quotes for days establishing that fact. But why waste that much of my time when everyone already knows everything else, and anything 150 years ago is irrelevant? And to this day New England is still the problem.

      It is as Clyde Wilson stated, "The Yankee Problem". And to know what that is, one must know what the term "Yankee" originally and actually meant, and was understood to mean by different people. Hint: It didn't mean anything near what its' accepted meaning means today. Nor, was it accepted as is portrayed by the song, "Yankee Doodle" "Do you even know the history behind the song?

      I'll ask since I am a bit lacking; If one doesn't know their history, how does one know where they've been, where they are at, and where they are going? How do you know the the original and truthful meaning of the word "Yankee"? Hint: Start with the people who actually coined the word, the American Indians! Find out what they actually meant it to say, and it wasn't a mispronunciation of English as Noah Webster proclaimed, and then later admitting his guilt.

      Your excuses for the Union side of the war are not just weak, but downright pathetic. I have addresses those exact assertions many times, always winning the points from the panels.

      I had thought you "mite" fall for something so simple in order that I could simply say it proves your own "miseducation", and that you are now "miseducating" others.

      I'm "gonna" close leaving you with three statements of proof to study in order that you may do some "soul" searching, and understand that Yankees are indeed wrong, though they rarely if ever claim to be, especially to a true Southerner. Can't lose face to the enemy; right?

      KNOW this to start your study:
      1: The 13 original colonies became INDEPENDENT States after the RW with England. (Treaty of Paris of 1763) They remained Independent States until 1865. The States CREATED the Federal to serve them. NOT the other way around. (Ref. Articles of Confederation and US Constitution, as explained by the authors/FFs.)

      2: The war wasn't over slavery, it was over TAXES. Slavery was a PRETEXT. (Hint: understand pretext.) (Proof is in Abraham Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address. Read it carefully since you are not familiar with it.)

      3: Texas vrs White is quite a lax response. To understand the case, one would know and understand that, if the State of Texas had won that case, the it would have justified Texas "reseceding" as well as the Southern cause of their previous secession. The Court had NO choice but to vote against Texas in order to save the union once again. Think about, to save face people, AND governments have to cheat from time to time....

      Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
      Classical Historian Western Civilization

  3. Just because you choose to ignore the "Perpetual Union" and "To FormA More Perfect Union" clauses of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution does not make them go away or render their context meaningless. The founding fathers clearly understood that the new nation came to be in a world dominated by imperialist forces hostile to republican self government and covetous of its territory and resources. It was as Franklin noted a matter of "Hanging together or hanging separately."

    Further you ignore the stated and demonstrable and I would argue deliberate failure of the Southern states to develop a widespread industrial economy. It remained society dominated by the landed gentry more closely akin to that of the English Aristocracy that the Revolutionary war had been fought to separate from. Had the South industrialized along the lines of Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures" as the North did the tarrif issue would have all but disappeared. It could even be argued that the South would have been greatly advantaged as it possessed a stronger export sector than did the North. The South's landed Aristocracy's attitude toward the general population was little better than English attitude toward the Irish and Scotts.

    But rather than address these deficiencies, these self-inflicted wounds, you choose to reach back even further in history and blame New England as if it had inflicted slavery upon the South. You ignore of course simple facts as to why the transatlantic slave trade in North America first took root in New England. Yes New England and particularly Rhode Island has its cross to bear for that terrible trade. It was largely because they had more developed and better sheltered deep water ports. Before the Revolution all Transatlantic trade had to be conducted on British flagged ships. The colonies were prohibited from constructing anything larger than coastal freighters.

    All that said, yes it is important to remember the past but it is also important not to become really in it. Complaining about past injustices, real or imagined, will not change that history. Using them as an excuse for not facing challenges in the present is just weak and lazy if not cowardly.

    Should these contemporary communists/anarchists gain political supremacy they won't hate you any less because you declare yourself as neutral because of a 150 year old grievance. They will probably hate you even more.

    Oh and PS
    BA in US history from URI and MA in European History from Univ of Chicago.

  4. " "Perpetual Union" and "To Form A More Perfect Union"
    You overlook the context. Nor are you using commonsense judgement.
    *IF* it was a Perpetual and Perfect Union in the context you understand there would have been NO need for the 13 Colonies to have formed and joined the Articles of Confederation. It was voluntary, which is also why we were given the phrase and motto, "Give me liberty or give me death." by Patrick Henry. Of course you do know that Patrick Henry as against the US Constitution, and anti-Federalist? We also get the phrase and motto, as you quoted, "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." by Benjamin Franklin. And I haven't even got to Thomas Jefferson.

    I would say that Thomas Jefferson knew more and understood more about the US Constitution than anyone else. Even he was originally an anti-Federalist, but eventually supported a Federal Government thinking it some form was going to pass, and he wanted input into making any such document as secure and as possible.

    Here is what Jefferson had to say about states coming and leaving the Union. The first quote is from his 1st Inaugural Address:

    Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”

    Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'”

    Huuum, I wonder where those "Yankee" States got the idea to secede from? I am still wondering why those "Yankees" were burning copies of the US Constitution in the streets and in bonfires? It also sounds a lot like the protestors of today...

    Would not commonsense tell a person that it is unwise and foolish to sign a contract that they could never vote and reject later? Why would the writers of the Articles of Confederation and US Constitution ENSLAVE all the people in all the states by merely signing an agreement to form and join a Federal Union? Again I ask; Did the Federal Government create the states, or did the states create the Federal Government?

    The US Constitution is NOT a document that restricts the states, except they relented certain specific rights to the Federal Government, and those rights were specifically and strictly stated as the US Constitution. If it is not listed in the US Constitution, then it is a Right which belongs to the States and the People! (Ref, 9th and 10 Amendments) As hard as I have looked I have never found the law int he US Constitution that prevented a state from seceding or leaving the Union.

    As for that contract; people seems to think that people long since dead had the power and authority to commit future generations to slavery, or bound to a non-negotiable, forever, contract. How many people would be that foolish?

    Also consider that several states, including "Texas", had in their State Constitutions, clauses which claimed they retained the Right of secession. These State Constitutions had to be read and approved by the States of the Articles of Confederation, and then the Federal Government under the US Constitution.

    Note: Rhode Island was the last, the 13th State to ratify the US Constitution. It held out until the end, yet it was stated by the writers of the US Con and the Federal Representatives at the time, that they, the uSA could NOT force Rhode Island to joining the Union, though it had been a member of the Articles of Confederation. Similar was stated about the 12th State, North Carolina.

    Part 1 end

    1. As I stated previously you are hopelessly trapped in the history you Revere to the detriment of only possible clear perspective on the present a detailed possible future. Even if all your arguments were factual, which I don't concede, they do not and cannot change either history or our present circumstance.

  5. You accuse me of overlooking the context but then don't delniate that context. You quite his first inaugural address but can't see he was holding those who wanted to separate up for ridicule. Further you state that Jefferson "knew more and understood more about the Constitution than anyone else". Seriously? Are you that ignorant? Jefferson was minister to France throughout the entire process of drafting the document. He drafted not even a single for one of the Federalist Papers. He even at to es openly held it contempt as "not democratic enough". Jefferson's political incompetence is more than demonstrated by his bungling of trade relations.

    Make all! The the arguments you want, all the verbose justifications you can imagine. NONE OF THEM WILL CHANGE HISTORY. None of them will change the fact that if the nation fractured over trade or slavery or anything else it would have been gobbled up by the still dominant imperial states of the world. If it were to fracture today it would be disastrous not only for us but most of the rest of the world as well. If you can't see that I can only feel sorry for you. So go ahead and wrap your coffin in the battle flag of the Confederacy. It will gain you nothing in this world or the next.

  6. You answered your questions. The problems of today will only worsen until the war re-erupts. You have the problems of today because of the problems from the past. If one can't see and understand the mistakes of the past they are doomed to repeat them. War is at your doorsteps, the country just as divided now as in 1860, and with many similarities. It is those similarities that are overlooked, denied and even ridiculed by the same people, both yesteryear and today who are striving to accomplish the same goals.

    Today there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties in this sense because they are both headed in the same direction, but only taking different paths to get to their destination.

    My final point being, "Miss-education" actually depends upon which side the road one stands. Contrary to your beliefs, history is not set in concrete to the point it can be taught in sound bytes or memes. Do do so is only "Indoctrination".

    Here is an excerpt from a article I wrote a long while back. It fits in very well here.

    "HISTORY? NOT! ~ NOT EVERYTHING that is in print calling itself history IS history! We should not be calling propaganda "history". History involves a TRUE and accurate chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) including an explanation of their causes.

    A list of just dates and events is not a history. It is a chronology of events. History involves much more. The French have one of the best explanations/definitions for their older term "history". The classical French definition says that in the study of History a person . . .

    1. Gathers all the information pertaining to a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes in order to . . .

    2. Use the available facts to form a truthful narrative of the event(s), and then to . . .

    3. Weigh and decide who was right and who was wrong in their actions pertaining the to event(s) and . .

    4. Write an informed view passing "judgement" on the nature of the event(s)."

    Know, it it His-Story, not ours.....

    Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
    Classical Historian Western Civilization

  7. If you think that a new civil war will be but a continuation of war over the same kind of issues you are dead wrong. It will be a war between those who would enslave the entire nation and its people's as bad or worse than existed in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Should the forces of tyranny prevail your proclamation of neutrality will not save you. In fact your blathering about states rights in the 19th century will find you gone in the "first selection". Unless of course you become the contemporary equivalent of the Sonderkommandos, and diving ditches for the remains of your fellow citizens. There is a lot more to history than your narrow vision when perpetual butthurt over the events of the 19 century.

    Besides the issue of I dedication I spoke of deals particularly and specifically with 20th century national socialism and international socialism. Neither of which has anything to do with states rights in the 19th, 20th or 21st century. Frankly you need to get your head out of your ass and look around at what is happening right now rather than worrying about archane events of long ago that will play no part in the calculations of anyone in the coming events.

  8. The US Government is SOCIALISTIC, and DEMOCRATIC which is a MARXIST concept. The uSA failed being a Republic in 1861 with the coup established by Lincoln. He even admitted that he destroyed the Republic.

    The upcoming war is a continuation of that power grab established by the Yankees (Marxists) in 1861, using the Republican Party as cover. (Today it is both parties but mainly the Democratic Party.)

    As for slavery, YOU and everyone else IS gonna be someone slave whether you like it or not. The Federal victory in 1865 on exchanged one type slavery for another. Today everyone is a slave to the Federal government that won that war. You can get use to the fact that either you will own slaves or you will be a slave to a master.

    It was wrote about many times by Southern leaders of the real reasons for the war and what it meant if the South lost. I have stated nothing that hasn't already been stated before in other ways.

    I also see you know NOTHING of Thomas Jefferson. You have lost that point based simply on a vast majority of people understanding the importance of Jefferson over and beyond your opposing statements. As I have been alluding too, "Miss-education" is a two way street.

    BTW; I am still waiting for you to cite that law regarding the illegality of secession, in that other post I sent you? I know it must exist somewhere because you Yanks keep drawing it like a gun, yet run from it when fired back at'ya. So, how about citing that cite from the "Law that Never Was?

    Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
    Classical Historian Western Civilization

    1. Please note that this will be my last reply. The exchange of letters between individuals does not necessarily make them friend. We probably have exchanged more correspondence in the last few days than than Lincoln and Marx did in total. I doubt either of us would call the other friend.

      There is one paramount thing I learned from some of my professors in the process of actually earning degrees in history, especially from my Master's thesis advisor, who was both a noted jurist and a former Nuremberg prosecutor. That being that if one ever encounters an individual who claims to have a the only possible interpretation of historical events you have encountered someone who has no actual experience in the discipline of the study and possibly a weak minded egomaniac. Seems to fit you to the T.

  9. Firstly I hardly think that either Lincoln or the fledgling Republican party spent their time on any of Karl Marx's works. Secondly your head remains sofar up your ass you can't see your confirmational bias. All you see, all you want to see is that which you see as confirming your preconceived conclusions and reject and or ignore anything that does not. Thirdly, Isuspect I have read far more texts and works concerning Jefferson, particularly his whoring for the French Revolution which was the modern origin of the egelatarian collectivist statism. You call yourself a classical historian but I have yet to see you claim to have a sheepskin, so I doubt your have one other than in your own imaginations. I analyze events and circumstance on the basis of what can and needs to be done, not on the basis of how it does or does not confirm some ethereal desires of how I wish the past were interpreted. Oh yeah, you might want to learn how to properly conjugate verbs instead of being a pretentious phony. This conversation is over. Any further postings on your part will be ignored and deleted


Comments are of course welcome. Please stay on topic. Comments with links to commercial sites unrelated to the post or the general theme of this blog will be deleted as spam.