Many of my readers have already seen Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov’s videos on ideological subversion, but on the off chance some of you have not, take a gander at this:
The stereotype of the KGB was that of a spy agency, a sort of spook counterpart to the CIA. But in reality, their primary weapon was ideological subversion, the deconstruction and brainwashing of a people, such that they can no longer come to sensible conclusions about anything. To use a modern and practical example, the human species has two genders, male and female, and an exceptionally small number of individuals who have very specific physical abnormalities (XXY/Klinefelter syndrome, for instance), who possess traits of both to varying degrees. Another small subset of individuals have a desire to be the opposite gender, but they were nonetheless born male, or female.
Ideological subversion has set into the culture to such a great degree, that stating the simple truth that there are only two genders is enough to incur the wrath of most of Academia, and one of America’s two major political parties.
You’ll notice that in this short video, Yuri places a timetable on ideological subversion, and this timetable is fixed around generations of students. Infiltration of Academia is how the KGB initially demoralized and subverted the American system. Now of course the KGB is gone now, and whatever Putin’s KGB past and Russian nationalistic ambitions, he does not appear to be behind the ideological subversion taking place today. Indeed, the previously-subverted are the ones most likely doing the subversion today, like a mad scientist project gone haywire.
The students subverted back in the 1960s still occupy many positions of power today, but they are falling by the wayside. Today’s academics are arguably worse than the generation that preceded them. Yuri explains that they are programmed to think and react in certain ways, to certain stimuli. They are trained like Pavlov’s dog. When someone cries “racist” they are trained to initiate a Maoist struggle session. When someone cries “rape” they are trained to believe the accusation in the face of all available evidence to the contrary. Virtue signalling is the method by which they communicate and relay relative status, and their position in the Progressive hierarchy.
To quote Yuri: “the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.” You can’t reason with them anymore, because they don’t listen to reason. They listen to virtue signalling, to NewSpeak. It is instructive to view them as speaking an almost entirely different language. Communication is extraordinarily difficult. Conversion is impossible.
They are useful idiots, however. Yuri also tells us that when these people see the true fruits of equality and social justice, they will revolt. The subverters know this. The people in power will want to dispose of the idiots as soon as they are finished with us. They are a tool of the enemy, no more, no less.
Sadly, Yuri was ultimately proven to be correct. Though the Soviet Union collapsed of its own internal contradictions, the ideological subversion of the United States was already largely complete. That is why, 25 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Marxism still commands such great respect from the Left and has, in many ways, become much more virulent than it was in Reagan’s day. The infection is even within us, dear readers. I will provide some psychological examples for you.
When I say “nationalist” what is the first thing that comes to mind? For most Americans, nationalism is tainted by Nazism. Any mention of nationalism brings up images of fascists, and genocidal maniacs, and racial supremacists. Why? Nationalists, i.e. people who love their country and its people, have been around since the dawn of civilization. Nationalism is neither inherently good, nor evil. It merely is. Certainly it can be used for evil purposes, as the Nazis did. But it can also be used for good purposes, as used by the patriots of the American Revolution. Yet the word is irrevocably tainted. That is ideological subversion at work. Pride in your country brings feelings of guilt, for things you have never done, nor would ever countenance yourself.
When the accusation of racism is leveled at a person, the first instinct is usually defensive in nature. It is to attempt to prove that you are not guilty of the charge. You might point to a friend of the race in question, or in one of my friend’s cases, his very own wife. And then you say “see, I can’t be a racist, because I genuinely like these people.” No, this is ideological subversion at work. The charge should be dealt with in the exact opposite manner. One ought to say “prove it! Prove your claim that I am racist.” They’ve no proof — they almost never do. The accusation is a political weapon designed to discredit you. Alternatively, you can also respond as I’ve suggested in the past with “fuck you.” That works, too. Francis at Liberty’s Torch, has suggested saying something along the lines of “well, by your definition, fine, I’m a racist. Now what?”
Being defensive plays into their hands, for they can say “see, he feels bad, that’s why he’s being defensive about it, more evidence that he’s a racist!” Saying “prove it” won’t work on them and their ilk, of course. But it will work for those who are not entirely subverted. Those who still adhere to the concept of innocent until proven guilty will get it right away.
Nonetheless, the guilty feeling, the horror at being called a racist, is a form of ideological subversion. You don’t want to be seen as one, because the culture at large has told you how horrible it is, and so you do everything you can to not appear racist. This is a weapon that was tried on me very recently.
The thing to understand here, is that when you feel a sort of guilt or revulsion when you know you shouldn’t — because you are not guilty of the crimes in question — that’s probably ideological subversion at work. This is everything from your school teachers to mass media attempting to control your thinking, to make you question your own beliefs at an emotional level rather than a rational one, while applying no such critique to theirs.
The thing that still confuses me, however, is the end goal. Yuri was worried it would be a prelude to Soviet attack through more direct means. Obviously that is no longer a possibility. Yet we are seeing the destabilization right now, the unprecedented resistance to Trump’s administration. We see even semi-serious calls for secession in places like California.
So who is waiting to take power, should Trump fail? Thoughts?
With the fight surrounding Trump’s 90-day travel ban from certain Muslim countries in full swing, public attention is, for the moment, rather distracted. But from the #NoBanNoWall hashtag, we can infer that the Left hasn’t forgotten about the illegal immigration invasion, and can be expected to mobilize its full resources in defense of the practice.
One of my detractors once explained to me that we don’t really need a wall, and that Democrats have been very much in favor of securing the border through other means. That, of course, is a blatant lie. At any time, Democrats could have reached across the aisle and found, if not robust support for securing the border (some Republicans like the cheap labor), at least enough support to make it happen, if they truly desired it.
The only answer that makes sense is that they want illegal immigration to continue. Their defense of the practice went to absurdity during the election. We all remember this little gem:
Most videos of this are focused on Trump. But I like this one, even if it’s of relatively poor quality. Here we can see the reporter’s smug, self-satisfied air of superiority, as if he is the great arbiter of moral authority. The press has grown too big for its britches. Rather than simply reporting on the news, or even engaging in editorial spin, the press now demands compliance with its dictates.
You better say it this way, or else.
Trump, naturally, declined. And you can almost see the wheels spinning in the reporter’s mind. Time to call him a racist, we warned him it was offensive, so now he’s a racist, and we’ll destroy him. Of course, if Trump had submitted, and spewed the line “American born child of an undocumented immigrant,” a heap of worthless, kludgy Newspeak straight out of Orwell’s book, then the press would have laughed at him, and put out a piece saying “Trump didn’t even know anchor baby was offensive, lololol.”
The only way to win is not to play. Of late, I’ve been convinced that arguing with these people is futile, because their attacks are Kafkan in nature. They are traps, from which there is no escape except abject submission to the Narrative. And, invariably, the attacks will focus on the person, rather than the issue. You are a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe, or whatever. You are stupid, ignorant, and uneducated. You need to educate yourself, but in our manner, and with our books, and with our concepts. Yours, of course, are anathema. Wrongthink. If you study them, you are stupid.
I remember Phil Sandifer, the self-described Marxist Occultist (whatever that’s supposed to be), lecturing me on the need to educate myself. If you’re brave, you can see the utter dreck he writes, trying to interpret old console video games with Marxian dialectic, or trying to defend self-admitted incestual pedophiles because the Right-wing had no regard for Sarah Nyberg’s relative status and fame. Yes, to a Marxist, status within the party trumps any actual crime, and spinning a 16 bit video game as fundamentally Marxian is accounted an intellectual matter of some importance.
It reminds me of a relatively rare book my father-in-law gave me to read once. I was Castro’s Prisoner, by John Martino. In it, we get a first hand account of an American trapped behind the revolution, betrayed by his own government, and left to rot in prison. But the fascinating thing to note from it is that the author described Castro releasing many criminals, people convicted of theft, murder, and other such things. Instead. Castro filled the prisons with political prisoners, like the author. Wrongthink was a great crime, in the minds of Marxists, worse than actual, physical crime.
So we shouldn’t be surprised that they apply this same standard to illegal immigration. To them, the breaking of our laws is a mere trifle. It doesn’t matter at all. I remember when Michael Brown’s theft at a convenience store, not long before his encounter with police, was hand waved away with the statement that “a few cigars isn’t worth a young black man’s life.” Well, clearly Michael Brown thought otherwise. If the Left is okay with the theft and assault, then crossing the border illegally wouldn’t faze them in the slightest.
They want illegals because they are politically useful. Don’t let them fool you about morality or compassion. Perhaps some of the rank-and-file liberals believe this, but the ones calling the shots certainly don’t. For them it is about obtaining political control over America. Mexicans are useful idiots, in their view. There is speculation that as many as 800,000 illegals voted in the last election, though it is unconfirmed at best. But it is known for certain that some illegals did vote. Yet that’s not the primary boon illegals grant to the Left.
Amnesty is the great prize. Ann Coulter put together some rather convincing figures in her book Adios America, in which the 11 million illegals we think are in the country may actually be closer to 20 or 30 million. But whatever the number, once the Left gets amnesty and eventual citizenship past the goal line, there will never be a Right-of-center President in America ever again. They’ve made sure minorities who step off the ideological reservation are branded Uncle Toms, Uncle Changs, and traitors to their race. So the vast majority will be good Socialists, even if they were otherwise inclined.
And on top of that, the political usefulness of decrying anyone who fights illegal immigration as racist has been immense. Opposition can be spun as hatred of Mexicans, racism against brown people (even though many Mexicans are essentially fully Spanish in descent – just look at the Mexican first family). It’s another bludgeon that can be deployed against the Right.
All three things have great utility to the Left. The illegal votes they get today, the greater number of votes they’ll receive if they can push amnesty, and the ability to deploy Weaponized Empathy for the poor, oppressed brown peoples of the world, terribly maligned by white Right-wing racism.
No papers, no fear. And by the way, everybody coming into your country is guaranteed to be a beautiful butterfly. Of course there are no terrorists, no criminals, no extremists, no drug dealers, no welfare moochers… all beautiful butterflies.
Remember, to these people borders are nothing, and jumping them is fine. Laws don’t matter. Only wrongthink matters. No amount of welfare statism, terrorism, drug smuggling, or otherwise is enough to even allow the questioning of this practice.
Migration is a human right? You do mean invasion, don’t you?
You’re going to see a lot more of this propaganda soon. Be ready for it.
A friend of mine has posted a penetrating analysis of the clerisy and the political class of America on Facebook. In it, he coins the portmanteau “Brahmandarin” to describe these cretins, and their sort of hybrid Mandarin and Brahmin nature. They have the permanent bureaucratic nature of the Mandarins, with a large infusion of Brahmin nepotism and in-class favoritism.
Consider America’s “New Class”: academia, journalism, “helping” professions, nonprofits, community organizers, trustafarian artists,… Talent for something immediately verifiable (be it playing the piano, designing an airplane, or buying-and-selling,… ) or a track record of tangible achievements are much less important than credentials — degrees from the right places, praise from the right press organs,…
In principle, the New Class is more like the Mandarins rather than the Brahmin caste, as in theory (and to some degree in practice) 1st-generation membership is open to people of all backgrounds. Heck, that includes even an electrician’s son with three advanced degrees (this blogger, a professor by day).
In practice, however, this class is highly endogamous, and its children have an inside track on similar career paths. Thus one finds 2nd and 3rd generation New Class members, whose outlooks on life tend to be more insular and collectively self-centered than that of their 1st-generation peers. (It is important not to over-generalize about one’s fellow human beings: some of the greatest fellow ‘renegades’ I know were to the manor born.) In that manner, the New Class resembles the Brahmins. Hence my portmanteau “Brahmandarins”.
The takeaway from this is that the hostility to Donald Trump doesn’t really come from his status as a Republican, for as a Republican he is generally accounted relatively moderate, and not even a “true” conservative. Only on matters of immigration is he seen as anything heavily right-wing. On most other issues, he is either ambivalent or sometimes outright liberal.
So why the hostility? It’s driven by caste. Donald Trump is a Vaishya, not a Brahmin. As a real estate guy, he could act as slumlord to the Brahmandarin elite. As an entertainer on TV, he could conceivably entertain the Shudras and the Dalits. All of these things were fine, and so long as Trump “stayed in his lane” (a favorite phrase of the political Left), all was well.
But then he went against an anointed Brahmin in the form of Hillary Clinton. This was not to be permitted. He was jumping caste. This is also why Jeb was the initial favorite of the Establishment GOP types. He was also a Brahmin. Yes, not the chosen of the Left, perhaps, but his running was not a caste jump.
It’s very worrisome that India’s caste system has an almost one-to-one relationship with America’s own unofficial castes, or that the relationship is so readily observable. India is, after all, not exactly a bastion of freedom and prosperity.
Nitay provides more:
While the D party used to be one with which particularly Shudras could identify, over time it has increasingly become a patron-client coalition of Brahmandarins and Dalits. Kshatriyas overwhelmingly lean R, while Shudras and Vaishyas (other than high finance) became increasingly disaffected from D and either moved to the R column or tuned out of politics.
The current iteration of the Democrat Party is an alliance between Left-leaning Brahmins (which is most of them — I wonder how long it will take for the Bush family to switch sides?) and the Dalits, who are fed with their table scraps.
But the election of Donald Trump was in large part possible because the Shudras defected. They were once reliably Democratic, but the Democrats have spent the last few decades maligning them, impoverishing them, taking their jobs, homes, and prospects… and then blaming them for every racially-charged incident. They, apparently, have had enough.
Unsurprisingly, Brahmandarin presidents tend to appoint cabinet and senior aides from among the Brahmandarin caste, while Trump’s appointments came almost exclusively from the Vaishyas (Exxon CEO Tillerson for State, and Kshatriyas (Mattis, Flynn, Kelly). It doesn’t matter that most of these people have real-world achievements to their names than a Robbie Mook type can only dream of: they are “ignorant” (read: insufficiently subservient to New Class shibboleths), “hate-filled”, etc. — All short-hand for “not one of us”.
For those same people who keep on prating about how open they are to foreign cultures (the more foreign, the better to “virtue-signal”) are completely unable to fathom the mindset of their compatriots of a different caste, who might as well come from a different planet as from a different country.
Donald Trump has explicitly denied the Brahmandarins a seat at his table. He isn’t merely disagreeing with them, he’s actively flipping them off and telling them that he will not consult with them in any capacity. And to the Brahmandarins, this is the ultimate sin. The table, you see, is supposed to be theirs exclusively. But if Trump forced himself a seat, well… so be it, but the rest of the seats should still go to the anointed ones. At least, that was their thinking.
The riots? The Faithless Elector ploy? The Russian “hacking” stuff? All of this is nothing more than the Brahmandarins throwing a temper tantrum because they are now required to share power with the others. And as Nitay tells us here, they can’t even be bothered to try and understand people from other backgrounds.
They make a good show of loving foreigners (but really, they just want foreigners to come here in order to vote for them), but they don’t even understand Americans of different castes and classes. After all, one of the most amusing mistakes Hillary made was assigning a man from Brooklyn to run her Midwestern rural outreach campaign, as if the under-employed ex-factory worker was going to listen to a carpetbagger from New York City and say to himself “yeah, I can totally see myself voting for her.” For better or worse, Trump at least spoke their language.
So around 2 o’clock in the morning, on November 26th, we got the call from my father-in-law. Fidel Castro was dead, squatting over the coals in Hell. Most often, the Christian man would wish for someone to achieve a measure of repentance and forgiveness from the Lord as his life comes to an end.
I, on the other hand, must ask forgiveness for wishing nothing of the sort for this man.
There was celebration in Hialeah, where my wife’s family lives. An ad-hoc parade was on the streets not long after his call came through. A family friend captured this on video here, if you’re interested:
The most fascinating feature of Fidel’s death wasn’t the expected parades in Hialeah, or the celebrations of Cuban exiles and their descendants. It was, rather, the adoration and love expressed by our rulers.
Jimmy Carter had this to say about the Communist tyrant:
Rosalynn and I share our sympathies with the Castro family and the Cuban people on the death of Fidel Castro. We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country.
Barack Obama, who famously attempted to hug Raul Castro, and posed in front of Che’s memorial was no less glowing in his eulogy:
We know that this moment fills Cubans — in Cuba and in the United States — with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation…
…History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.
No mention is made of the brutal dictatorship this man launched, the thousands murdered, and the millions exiled. Nothing is said of the property stolen, the economy ruined, and the rotting streets of Havana, once one of the most glorious of Caribbean cities.
The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, was even more lavish in his praise of the dictator:
“It was with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest-serving president,” Trudeau said. “Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century.
“A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.
“While a controversial figure,” said Trudeau, “both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for ‘el Comandante.'”
Of course, there is a famous picture of Fidel holding Trudeau’s brother when he was a baby. The alignment of the political elites with Communism and tyranny has been a thing much longer than I have drawn breath:
Totally coincidental, right? The elites hobknobbing with Communists…
As far as I’m concerned, the only good Communist is a dead Communist. And in that, we might say that Castro finally became a good Communist. I do hope that someone flushed his ashes into the sewer, where they properly belong.
I have always despised Castro and other tyrannical Communists (but I repeat myself). However, upon meeting my wife and learning first-hand from my father-in-law exactly what life was like in Cuba, as difficult as it may be to believe, I came to despise Castro even more.
He spoke often of how, as a child in school, children were taught to regard Castro as their father, and to turn in parents who spoke ill of him in private, so that those people might be imprisoned or murdered. The children, of course, were rewarded with gifts for doing this — you can well imagine what such a system produced. A family friend once shared a film that showed his own uncle being executed by firing squad because of his political beliefs. The remainder of the family was fortunate enough to be exiled instead of murdered.
Don’t believe the people who say Castro didn’t do those things, or those who excuse him. He was a tyrant, and the only reason he didn’t kill more was because Cuba was a small island. A man like him in charge of a larger country would have slaughtered millions, not merely thousands.
Make no mistake, our rulers know exactly what men like Castro do, and they approve of it. Indeed, they can only dream of the day when they can take such measures upon us. Imagine if Hillary Clinton, for example, had the power to imprison or murder all of her political opponents on a whim. We all know how that story would end.
I had a taste of this on Facebook, where a fellow Industrial musician (who is much more skilled than I, mind you), Ted Phelps of Imperative Reaction, posted on the subject. He, too, married a Cuban girl and shares a disdain for Communist tyranny. Some of his erstwhile fans, however, most certainly did not share this view.
One decided to call Ted and his supporters Nazi Trumpkins, and proceeded to write on about how Communism is horribly misunderstood, and it is really Donald Trump who will kill millions and put them in concentration camps.
When cornered with well-sourced facts about the crimes of the Castro regime, our intrepid Leftist tried to escape with “well, nobody should speak ill of the dead.”
Sorry, when you found a brutal dictatorship that slaughters, imprisons, and exiles something like 20% of the population because of political beliefs, I will speak ill of you.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, echoed my own sentiments:
Trump followed that up a few hours later with a lengthier statement, in which he called Castro a “brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades” and said he hoped Castro’s death gave Cuban Americans “the hope of one day soon seeing a free Cuba.”
“Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights,” the statement said.
Whatever Trump’s myriad of flaws, he got this right. And that’s one reason why he got elected. People were exhausted of mealy-mouthed statements like Obama’s, or outright praise of murderous dictators like the compliments delivered by Jimmy Carter and Justin Trudeau.
They wanted the truth. And Donald Trump delivered that, at least.
But remember, folks. Our ruling elite has told us that Donald Trump is literally Hitler, and Castro was a wonderful visionary who loved his people.
I don’t think I even speak the same language as the Left anymore. We all say the same words, mind you, but the meanings are different, even opposite.
Often times, trying to understand it gives me a headache. Up is down, war is peace, freedom is slavery. It’s Orwellian, true, but in a bizarrely emotional way. I guess it’s hard to describe, but I was reading through a thread of Leftist agitating, and while I was able to follow the gist of the thing, I realized I wasn’t reading standard English anymore. I was, instead, reading a burgeoning Leftist dialect, replete with its own definitions, syntax, and grammar.
Consider the word “ally”. In English, this means one who cooperates for mutual benefit. In Leftish, this means one who agrees with your political worldview in toto.
In English, tolerance means to live and let live, even when there is disagreement. In Leftish, this means to approve of completely. Intolerance in Leftish, therefore, means disapproval of any kind, in part or in whole, even if no action is taken as a result of that disapproval.
In English, racism means to believe one’s race is superior, and the associated antagonism or ideology attached to that belief. In Leftish, it means the behaviors and attitudes of white people.
Here are some more words and phrases, with a handy translation between Leftish and English:
Leftish: “I’m an ally of marginalized indigenous Americans of color”
English: “I once attended a rally with Elizabeth Warren.”
Leftish: “Donald Trump is a Nazi.”
English: “I don’t know who Joe Biden is, and I certainly didn’t vote, but I’m pretty sure Donald Trump is not very nice, so I’m going to torch my own city.”
Leftish: “Rape Melania.”
English: “Rape Melania.” This is one of the few times that English and Leftish use the same syntax and vocabulary.
Leftish: “I was raped.”
English: “I got drunk at a club, and someone looked at me a little funny.”
Leftish: “I’m Pro Choice!”
English: “Abort the world!”
Leftish: “Lena Dunham is so beautiful.”
English: “I like child rapists.”
Leftish: “Donald Trump is a child rapist.”
English: “I never get my news from any outlet other than HuffPo.”
Here are few one word direct translations:
English: “The behaviors and attitudes of white people.”
English: “The behaviors and attitudes of men.”
English: “The behaviors and attitudes of straight people.”
English: “Not wanting gay people to be thrown off of buildings.”
As you can see, the syntax is very odd, and seems highly contextual. Words like “rape” have very different meanings when used in conjunction with different demographic groups. I will continue to investigate. In the meantime, please feel free to submit your own translations so that we may all better understand the language of Leftish, and how it relates to English.
Centuries ago, Odoacer deposed a puppet emperor and his father, Orestes. It was nothing new, that being the accepted practice in the West Roman Empire. Odoacer claimed to be a loyal viceroy of Julius Nepos, an emperor deposed a year before, still maintaining himself in Dalmatia, one of the few remaining provinces of the West.
A few years later, Odoacer had Nepos killed, and was sole master of what remained of the West.
Nothing really changed in the Empire in 476. It was business as usual. There was still an Emperor, residing in New Rome (Constantinople), which had long been the source of real power anyway. Theoretically, the Visigoths in Spain and Gaul acknowledged the suzerainty of the Emperor, as did the Burgundians. A Roman official, Syagrius, maintained himself in northern Gaul, and even Odoacer himself received his title from the Zeno, now the sole Roman Emperor.
You could make the case that nothing happened in 476. No empire fell, no great battles were waged, no cities sacked or armies annihilated. It would be a few generations before Emperor Justinian and his star general Belisarius even realized the West had fallen at all. Their efforts, of course, very nearly reversed the situation.
The point is, a peasant scrabbling for a living in Italy would have never known anything happened at all.
So ask yourself, would you know if America had fallen? Would the shuffling around of titles, the deposition of one ruler exchanged for another, clue you in to the fall? Or would it be business as usual, and only the hindsight of history would see it for what it was?
The fall of an Empire is rarely some kind of Mad Max apocalyptic scenario. It is slow, and measured, like a tree falling, but in absurdly slow motion. Is it merely swaying in the breeze, perhaps? How can you tell?
America has been swaying in one direction for a very long time. Each year is a little worse than the one that preceded it. Oh, there are periodic recoveries such as the one that Ronald Reagan presided over, but they never sway fully back to the zero point.
Only a two decades before Odoacer deposed a puppet, Emperor Majorian had reconquered Spain, Gaul, Burgundy, and even threatened to annihilate the Vandals with a great fleet. He was only a step or two away from completely restoring the entirety of the Western Empire. The Western Empire had seemed healthy, despite the rapine of the Vandals a few years earlier, if not completely back to its old self.
Twenty years was enough to see all the progress reversed again. Majorian was fighting the tides of history, and he lost.
Let me tell it to you as plainly as I can: America has come to its 476 AD moment. The common folks don’t see it, just as they didn’t back then. Few realize what is happening, and why. But it is happening. Hillary Clinton is our Odoacer, set to declare herself King, in fact if not in name. But then even Odoacer was careful to acknowledge de jure rule of Roman law.
Under Hillary Clinton, we will have a de jure Constitution, but nobody will pay any attention to it. De facto, she will be Queen, and she will designate her own successor. The people will have no say in this. And America, such that it once was, did not break bread with monarchs. An America with such a figure ruling it is no longer America, just as Odoacer’s fief was no longer the Roman Empire.
Will Trump reverse the damage? Unlikely, but remotely possible. More likely, he will be another Majorian, and will buy us a few more years before the end. But it matters not. We must try, or we shall find ourselves foreigners in our own land, Americans in a world where there is no America. We will wander in shadow until the day comes when the people realize that America is no more, when the reality of it all hits them.
By then it will be too late. We will all be in chains. And as the tide of Islam soon put the remains of ancient Rome out of her misery, so too shall Islam do it again. An age of darkness is the optimistic scenario.
Vote today. Fight. Give America one last chance to survive.
I'm a DJ, developer, amateur historian, would-be pundit, and general pain in the ass. I still cannot decide on the wisdom of the Oxford Comma. These are my observations on a civilization in decline, a political system on the verge of collapse, and a people asleep at the wheel as the car turns toward the jersey barrier.