To say that I’ve been waiting on pins and needles for the past year or so is putting it mildly. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
This fake World Davos Made in which fat is beautiful, sloth is a virtue, and pedophilia the pinnacle of human love, should have you just a teensy bit anxious.
When we look up and see everything beautiful being systematically subverted, cheapened, or just plain vandalized it’s hard to maintain your compassion, even if it was warranted…. which it isn’t.
Today I come back to write my first public essay in more than a month and we’re a couple of days away from arch-Globalist Emmanuel Macron of France getting trounced by both Marine Le Pen and a fractious left-wing coalition.
Heading into this weekend’s run-offs it’s pretty obvious that Macron’s party, En Marche, will be relegated to the ashbin of history. Macron was a fake populist sold to us by Davos nearly a decade ago to blunt the rise of Le Pen then.
And it really doesn’t matter this time what political ring-fencing the various commies in France do to freeze out a National Front majority in the French Parliament. The tide has turned against them.
It’s not coming back. Just like it has in the UK, the US, the Netherlands, Italy and the rest of the so-called post-Enlightenment West.
That idea right there, “post-Enlightenment,” where we began to reject God for modernity and the supremacy of human reason over the vastness of our ignorance about how the Universe worked, is the key to what’s happening.
And the minute I began writing about Macron I was hit with the memory of Notre Dame burning.
The library was on fire. And the jackals brayed about how great it was.
This happened on Macron’s watch. And he cried crocodile tears for it, as all true Marxist scumbags like him do.
Because they can only have the facsimile of emotions since we all live in a simulation anyway.
At the time I called it a “Symbol of Failing Culture.” But it’s far more than that. Notre Dame’s burning, deliberate or otherwise, was emblematic of how careless our caretakers were about preserving our past.
So obsessed with their pathetic modernity they expropriated nearly all the wealth of France for decades to elevate sloth and neglect beauty while becoming openly hostile to their own history. Their contempt for history was on full display as their rage at religion overwhelmed their basic humanity.
What’s worse to me is descendants of those that built Notre Dame cheering this event because they’ve been inculcated to hate religion of all forms by their Marxist education.
They’ve been effectively immunized against feeling anything but contempt for themselves and their history.
History is history. It doesn’t have an agenda. It exists, for better or worse, to remind us that who we are today is the sum total of who we were then.
Marxists fundamentally believe in creating a man without a history, without connection to his past to mold him into the New Soviet Man.
Argue with me about this all you want Bernie Bros, Corbynites and Richard Wolff acolytes, this is the point of this French post-modernist “life is an absurd simulation” nonsense. It’s simply an excuse to justify the inherent envy at the core of all Marxist thought.
It meant something to millions of people, if not billions.
Its burning was truly a moment of them destroying something beautiful even if the fire was an accident.
Notre Dame was a thing to be envied, for sure. A place of stunning beauty and achievement. A thing worth preserving through the centuries. Of course it had to be destroyed.
The contempt of Macron and his history-challenged fellow travelers at anyone not down with the Commintern was on full display back then.
While they think we shouldn’t have histories, they forget that we have memories.
So, there should be zero surprise today about what has happened at the French ballot box.
Macron and Davos will do everything they can to extend and pretend that they are still in control in France. They may even succeed in saving Macron. In doing so they may even destroy what’s left of France, sacrificing it on the altar of the European Union, but for what?
A meta-stable alliance held together by the scolding of a bloodless German vampire like Ursula Von der Leyen? How long do you think the French go from Yellow Vests to the guillotine?
Because, last I checked, that’s a part of their history Macron is also trying to deny.
Join my Patreon if you are long hemp farmers
A few months ago, I met here in Japan a 50-year-old Frenchman who had just married a Japanese woman, and moved to Japan. I asked him what he had done in France, and he told me he had been a firefighter all his life, working in Paris. I asked if he had been to the Notre-Dame fire, and he said yes, he was working on that one. I then asked if it really had been an “accident” as said by the media outlets even while the fire was still raging, and they hadn’t been able to search for the cause yet. He then looked at me and said “Ah, I see you know…”. Asking what he meant, he
“History is history. It doesn’t have an agenda. It exists, for better or worse, to remind us that who we are today is the sum total of who we were then.”
History doesn’t have an agenda??? Most of history is pure agenda! There are a few honest historians that try to do science, focusing on facts such as population numbers, how well fed people were, what levels of technology they had, and such things. But most historians are interested in serving the propaganda needs of whoever is in power. And if that requires extreme cherry-picking or tortured interpretations, so be it.
Anyway, beautiful old buildings are beautiful old buildings and ought to be preserved, if only to prove the fact that people at one point decided to put their efforts together to do something really grand. Which is in no way incompatible with Marxism. Russia kept lots of churches in spite of the communist revolution.
History isn’t the story we tell of what happened. History is what happened. Facts aren’t fungible.
Tom,
I think I can explain what she means. As a person formally trained in both chemistry and history, I always regarded history as the lesser of the two subjects. As you were drawn to Philip K. Dick and science fiction in your youth, I had an obsession with the Second World War, prompted by relatives who served in it and who were also NYPD lifers (from the Irish side, since the 1940s blackout/air-warden years) btw. So, by the time it came to university, I already had one major in the bag. I could literally take the exams without attending the classes. History ought to be easy, you find the primary sources (facts) and publish, so I thought.
The only way I can describe the following revelation is akin to an earthquake. Imagine doing chemistry for 30 years only to find out at the end of your career that they fudged the Periodic Table:
The War That Had Many Fathers – General Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof – Hardcoded English Subtitles
https://youtu.be/MRpsfJmtPNg?t=2554
That one revelation blows away the entire foundation of what you thought you knew about the Second World War. Where once everything was solid, you are now in a sea of doubt. There is one historian of the Second World War that no respectable student of the Second World War reads, cites or references and that is David Irving. So, I needed to make a painful decision, do I really read the guy who I dismissed as a crank for thirty years?
I think an identical thing happened with you, I and David Collum when we began looking at the NASA GISS, and HadCRUT datasets. Only when I stumbled upon Richard Lindzen did the ship begin to right itself.
At least with chemistry, I always feel I have a powerful tool-box that I can use to critically evaluate what someone puts in front of me, but with history no such tool-box exists. I have not found one anyway.
If Dexter spent his career in the field of history, I bow down before him. I have now reversed myself; I think history is harder.
History is harder. Facts have to be collated, checked, re-checked and revisited. But thw facts are the facts. Why the facts occurred is what makes history harder. We chemists have the Gibbs Free Energy Equation by comparison. 😎