The New Old – Discovering The Coverings Of Alt History

There are many memes supporting what seems to be a mass of interconnected false paradigms floating around in the minds of men today, many of which are designed to alter or outright change the perception of what we helplessly pretend and call as history. You know, his story? The story told of our own story…

From the Origin of Man to Fomenko’s Tartarian paradise to flat earth sophistry to the forever improvable religion of science known as the big bang, there is obviously a concerted effort, if not to merely hide the mythos of cultural, political, and scientific history, to utterly destroy its perspective relationship to the current state of international and religious affairs. And why not? What dictator, what royal family, and what challenger to such elitist tyranny would not want to put forward a historical timeline from which the tyrant justifies his current tyranny? Wasn’t it Orwell that so self-evidently stated he who controls the past, controls the future; and he who controls the present, controls the past?

For today, let us simply address just one of these man-made creators of mythos, the fictionality of Anatolii Fomenko.

I have made my own opinions on what is history and why it can never be trusted clear on this blog and in my book, with the exception being only the laws and opinions contained within the primary sources of the time. For example, the history of America’s pioneering of organized, legalized, state-sanctioned Eugenics can be found in the annals of Supreme Court decisions on forced sterilizations and within the records of the University system from which it was first given traction. We may also know the true nature of the past when presidents and prime ministers are finally apt to apologize for their government’s past actions; for instance the many chemical and biological weapons testing done against unwitting populations. The victims, as the intended receivers of such lame apologies done only after the statute of limitations takes effect or after those involved are already dead, are certainly primary evidence of what can be called true history.

But when it comes to the types of fallacious, mythological, patriotic, and ironically detailed stories told for the purpose of justifying the current role and intolerable actions of the modern ruling elite, we should never fool ourselves that these stories of history exist for any other reason than to foment the continued existence of the illegitimate inheritance of the fruit of those historical tales, which of course are perpetually granted to the offspring of those historical characters. The Queen in right, the presidents and prime ministers and congresses that are her direct descended bloodline of cousins, and all those who, with unwavering nepotistical allegiance, follow in the glory of that family history, where all other 99.99% of the history of common men is ignored to showcase the few powerful criminals that supposedly invented and founded the kingdoms, nations, religions, and legal systems of law that we allow them to govern us with today. After all, it is the current, corrupt bloodline of elitist men that was shat out of the inheritable rectum of their forefathers that control the present by preserving the past so as to ensure the future control of that offspring which shall equally be shat from their own rectums. After all, they certainly cannot be the rulers of men without the inculturation and indoctrination of their own historical narrative, the very lame and fragile justification presented to us all so that we are made to actually believe that their fictional, unjustifiable power structure is just the way it is. History, me thinks, is the greatest excuse for both action and inaction ever invented by men. We are controlled by the institutionalized, exaggerated lies that make up the past just as our children will be controlled by the predictably programed future presented to us by those that continue by birth-right to control the present. Worst of all, we lie to ourselves, using this false pretense of narrative, political history as our own excuse, to pretend our own moral hands are tied, justifying our passive place in the hierarchical mid to low order, pretending we are not voluntarily participating in and even loving our servitude to that upper class and their schema.

The mental state that we all currently occupy in our volutnary, collective obedience to what history apparently has birthed for us was penned and politically planned for us well before any story of America was born. For the conspired brokerage of power is not new to history, and the common man is doomed to repeat history not because he doesn’t study it, but because he passively ignores it. This ignorance manifests its ugly head in every generation, based on both the promise and the possession of the benefits of voluntary participation, voluntary servitude to that which bestows such flattering titles, artificial rights and benefits, and the artificial status of socioeconomics. Love of money. We are lost to history by voluntarily relinquishing our place in it, for the writers of history only include those tales of men whose actions are either favorable to their own continued power brokerage or whom are against it, for every hero needs a villain, even the state. Government has no purpose without the enemies it must create and continuously alienate to justify its militarized armies and police. The politics of obedience are nothing new…


“Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy on you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows – to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces?”

“…Let us therefore admit that all those things to which he is trained and accustomed seem natural to man and that only that is truly native to him which he receives with his primitive, untrained individuality. Thus custom becomes the first reason for voluntary servitude. Men are like handsome race horses who first bite the bit and later like it, and rearing under the saddle a while soon learn to enjoy displaying their harness and prance proudly beneath their trappings. Similarly men will grow accustomed to the idea that they have always been in subjection, that their fathers lived in the same way; they will think they are obliged to suffer this evil, and will persuade themselves by example and imitation of others, finally investing those who order them around with proprietary rights, based on the idea that it has always been that way.

—“The Politics Of Obedience: A Discourse On Voluntary Servitude,” by Etienne de La Boetie


Custom is just another word for an appeal to history.

But let us get back to the subject at hand…

I am posting this entry upon my journey merely to help you, my fellow slave to history, to understand how historical revisionism is being played out before our eyes, and how easy it is to be duped by the power brokers of nations that seek to alter their own past so as to justify their future actions — despotism and tyranny in the name of history.

And so today I simply wish to point you in the right direction, that you may find both the logic and reasons behind the historical revisionism coming from the Russian empire. For a while it has been hard not to hear of the exploits of one Anatolii Fomenko and the glorious revisionism of Tartary. As if the lost kingdom of Atlantas was suddenly discovered, Tartary is being promoted as its simulated surrogate. This alternative, revisionist effort to recreate history in Russia’s own image is a very interesting case study, believed by innocents and promoted as the new truth by fools. But let us examine the purpose behind this revisioning by looking at just who in the present is attempting to control the past in order to rule in the future.

For this, I pass on to you a book entitled: History as Therapy: Alternative History and Nationalist Imaginings in Russia, by Konstantin Sheiko and Stephen Brown, published May 1, 2014. I was fortunate enough to have found a link to this on a comment board a while back, the commenter I wish to thank and apologize for not being able to source here. That said, I will simply quote from the book and leave a link to a free version as an Ebook for those interested, while asking those with the ability to support the authors by purchasing the ebook if you decide to read and utilize it. I feel this is a very important work, especially for those feeling lost in the melee of historical nonsense and trickery being promoted by so many outlets. The book is described as such:

This astonishing book explores the delusional imaginings of Russia’s past by the pseudo-scientific ‘Alternative History’ movement. Despite the chaotic collapse of two empires in the last century, Russia’s glorious imperial past continues to inspire millions. The lively movement of ‘Alternative History’, diligently re-writing Russia’s past and ‘rediscovering’ its hidden greatness, has been growing dramatically since the collapse of Communism in 1991. Virtually unknown in the West, these pseudo-historians have published best-selling books, attracted widespread media attention, and are a prominent voice in Internet discussions about Russian and world history. Alternative History claims that Russia is much older than Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome; that the medieval Mongol Empire was in fact a Slav-Turk world empire; and that, in the twentieth century, duplicitous foreign powers stabbed Russia in the back and stole its empire. For its followers the key to Russia’s greatness in the future lies in ensuring that Russians understand the true wealth of their past. Alternative history has become a popular therapy for Russians still coming to terms with the reality of Post-Soviet life. It is one of the forces shaping a new Russian nationalism and an important factor in the geopolitics of the twenty-first century.

To purchase ebook:

Partially online here:

Turning first to page 41, with regard to Fomenko, we read the following, which is the end of Chapter Two, leading into the beginning of Chapter Three:


Begin excerpt:

When Communism collapsed and the new Russian state was established in 1991, there were half-hearted attempts at galvanizing popular opinion around a new sense of what it meant to be Russian. President Yeltsin appointed and expert committee ‘to establish the true nature of Russia’, and newspapers offered prizes for ‘the best definition of Russianness’. Nonetheless, the 1990’s came and went without any clear answer from the state as to who the Russians were and what Russia stood for. Even Putin when he emerged as Yeltsin’s protege and likely successor in 1999 portrayed himself as a technocrat rather than as an ideologue.

What Putin and his administration failed to develop was some sort of over-arching narrative to inspire popular support. As Graham Gill has put it, the presidential administrations of Yeltsin and Putin failed ‘to articulate a consistent narrative embodying a vision of either Russia’s future or of how it was to be constituted …. No presidential vision has become embedded in the public lore of the society’. Instead of a widely accepted ‘national idea’ that described Russia’s new circumstances and inspired enthusiasm among ordinary people, an ideological void emerged, which was soon filled by a cacophony of competing voices that ranged from Communists to ultra-nationalists, from the Orthodox Church to neo-Pagan occultists, and from Eurasianist empire builders to national separatists. Russia’s rulers soon came to fear that they might have built their new state upon the ideological equivalent of quicksand.

It is this fear of having no firm historical foundation in place that lies behind the increasingly desperate efforts of Putin and his allies, from the mid 2000’s, to write a ‘usable history’ that explains and justifies the new post-Communist Russia. We get a sense of how important the post-Communist elites view the writing of history from the reflections of Putin himself. From Putin downwards, there is little patience with the multiplicity of views and competing interpretations that are the stock-in-trade of conventional history writing. In 2007, Putin told a gathering of schoolteachers that there was a need for a new primer in Russian History to overcome the confusion and errors contained in the dozens of school texts then in use.

The result was a text credited to Fillipov that became notorious among its liberal critics for reinventing Stalin as an effective state builder who made occasional mistakes. The logic of this text implied that the authoritarian rather than the liberal rule worked best for Russia. Leon Aron has argued that Putin and his administration’s understanding of history can be summarized in two axioms:

The first axiom appears to be this: although there were ‘mistakes’ and ‘dark spots’, what mattered was the survival and strengthening of the state–by whatever means necessary. And by that standard, the Soviet Union was a glittering success, and the costs were justified… the second axiom of modern Russian history according to Putin is that the Soviet Union was a ‘besieged fortress’, forever under the threat of attack by the West, and that the machinations of the West were responsible not only for Soviet foreign policy but also for a great deal of domestic misfortune. The overarching aim of this and all future historical narratives is the ‘normalization’ of the monstrosity of Soviet totalitarianism, the manufacture of justifications and excuses for its crimes.

As Brandenberger has put it, Fillipov’s textbook did not explicitly rehabilitate Stalin, but rather established the justification for authoritarian rule. Russia’s survival depended upon a ‘500-year political tradition which demanded that power be concentrated in the hands of a single, autocratic ruler and his centralized administrative system’. Thus, Russian unity and strength from above will better safeguard Russian national interests than grassroots political parties, social movements, or civic organizations.

In 2009, President Medvedev declared that Russia’s history had undergone a process of falsification during the 2000’s, and that in recent times the atacks from abroad had become more angry and aggressive. His answer to this problem was to establish the Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia’s Interests, which would operate from 15 May 2009 to 14 February 2012. Putin and Medvedev entrusted staunch allies from their political retinue with the task of fashioning this history. Key figures in these efforts are the Speaker of the Duma and Chairman of the Russian Historical Society, Segie Naryshkin, and the Minister of Culture and Chairman of the Russian Military-Historical Society, Vladimir Medinskii. The president of the Commission charged with protecting Russian history was Naryshkin. No doubt conscious of the accusations of Orwellian thought control that the Commission would attract, Naryshkin assured his listeners that his organization never intended to make historians speak with one voice. Instead, the Commission’s aim was to rebut the harmful propaganda that had been directed at Russia as a result of the rewriting of history in other countries.

Like Fillipov’s textbook, Naryshkin’s commission signaled the regime’s intentions but did not immediately solve the problem. Obviously dissatisfied with the results of previous attempts to end the ‘porridge in the head’, the re-elected President Putin in 2013 outlined yet another attempt to establish a new historical regime. He ordered the Ministry of Education, the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Historical Society to collaborate in producing textbooks without ‘contradictions and ambiguities’. The textbooks are expected to emphasis patriotism, Russian Orthodoxy, civic mindedness (grazhdanstvennost), the must ethnic nature of Russia, and its mighty civilizational and martial achievements.

Happily, some of this work was already being undertaken at a popular level. Alternative history is much too radical to be embraced in full by government officials, let alone Putin. Yet, as we shall see, there is good reason for thinking that Putin and his ideologies are borrowing ideas from alternative history to pupulate their own hitherto dreary, unimaginative, and, often, absent narrative about what post-Communist Russia stands for. It is not too much to suggest that alternative history and regime propaganda are moving in the same direction, just at different speeds.

Putin’s propagandists have recently discovered what has been well described in the scholarly literature as ‘civilizational nationalism’. Russia’s imperial restoration will need ideas and enthusiasm, and not just oil and gas, thus:

The Kremlin’s canonization of the idea of a special thousand-year civilization that predetermines a ‘special path’ for Russia is gradually elevating to the rank of an official ‘one true doctrine’ to replace Marxism-Lenonism. An army of paid and unpaid propagandists are mining this vein of gold, turning a theory into a political technology (art).

This ‘army of paid and unpaid propagandists’ contains a good many regiments of alternative historians and the readers with whom they are in conversation. Precisely because of its unabashed nationalism, alternative history has foreshadowed the type of ‘political technology’ that Putin and his administration is likely to deploy in order to resolve the complicated issue of Russian identity. A radicalized ethnographies-nationalism might yet shape public opinion in unpredictable ways, enhancing the potential for a new Russian Revolution. Tamed and harnessed, however, ‘civilizational nationalism’ may provide the glue that the present administration needs to maintain its grip on power.

Chapter Three: Empire, Nation, Nationalism

‘The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.’

–George Orwell

Part One: Russia’s Multiple Identities

To make sense of alternative history, we first need to explore in more detail Russia’s identity crisis. Fomenko entitled his major work Imperiia or Empire, a word that has much more positive connotations in Russia than it does in the West. Empire, for Fomenko and for many Russians, means the repository of political and economic power projected across a huge geographic era. This meaning is very different to Lenin’s concept of exploited and subjected colonial peoples. This positive view of the imperial past is reflected in the fact that the overwhelming majority of Russians have found it impossible to distinguish between Russia as nation-state and Russia as empire. Thus the term ‘nationalism’, in the context of Russia, is a problematic one.

The growing vitality of nationalism has been one of the most remarked upon aspects of the post-Communist history of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The context for Fomenko is the collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union, the Communist state that more or less occupied the territory inherited from the Tsarist Empire. The Soviet Union’s principal successor state, the Russian Federation, is the world’s largest state even if it is only half the size of its Communist and Tsarist predecessors. Politically and geographically, modern Russia occupies the same space today as it did approximately three hundred years ago in the era of Peter the Great. Since the collapse of Communism, Russian intellectuals and political commentators have sought out solid ground in order to make sense of Russia’s new geography and its diminished place in the hierarchy of the world’s great powers…

As for why alternative historians have made such fantastic claims about Russia, it must be remembered that Russian alternative history is in competition with the alternative history of other national groups. The writers under consideration in this book have found themselves in a contest with their counterparts in Ukraine, Central Asia, and the Turkic peoples within the Russian Federation. Popular, as distinct from state-inspired, chauvinism was frowned upon in Tsarist and Soviet times. Only in the last two decades has nationalism become part of a public conversation about the merits of rival ethnic histories. As Shnirelman has put it:

For people who believe they have been deprived of their cultural legacy, invention of the past becomes a powerful instrument–first, for the raising of self-esteem and the re-evaluation of their position among other peoples, and second, for demanding special rights and privileges with respect to others who lack their glorious past…

Since the 1980’s, a huge literature has developed around terms such as patriotism, nations, and nationalism. Patriotism seems less problematic and can be defined as strongly positive feelings towards one’s homeland. As for the term ‘nation’, Hobsbawm distinguishes between the nation as citizenship, ‘in which the nation consists of collective sovereignty based in common political participation’, and the nation as ethnicity, ‘in which the nation comprises all those of supposedly common language, history, or broader cultural identity. Gellner came up with the most enduring definition of nationalism itself when he wrote that ‘Nationalism is primarily a political principle which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent’. While definitions are important, assigning ethnic groups to a particular homeland has proved more challenging…

After Peter, it took another century for Russian rulers to formulate an official vision of what Russia was. Under Tsar Nicholas the First and his Minister for Education, Uvarov, the trinity of ‘Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Narodnost’ was coined. Narodnost is deliberately vague in the way it evokes a bond between the peoples of Russia and the land they occupy. It was in effect an antidote to nations within the Russian empire seeking their own states. Its aim was to bind the people of Russia together by suggesting that they were special and morally superior to the West…

End Excerpt.

–Earlier in the book, from page 14, we read:

Begin Excerpt.

In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of Communism, Russian universities were in an especially parlous economic position. In the 1990’s, history writing, like the Russian state itself, entered a state of flux. The erstwhile conformism of Soviet academia collapsed from within as some historians defended the Communist past, others became trenchant critics of the former regime, and the majority looked anxiously to see which way the political wind was blowing. Their Western counterparts were keen to investigate and publish materials relating to the more sensational aspects of the Soviet period such as the Stalinist purges. But in Russia and the West, there was only a limited market for scholarly ruminations on arcane controversies connected to Russias ancient and medieval past.

It was into this virtually empty space that alternative historians, led by the likes of the New Chronology movement of Anatolii Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskii, ventured. Fomenko (1945-) is a renouned mathematician who has belonged to the academic staff of Moscow State University since the Soviet era. He is a member of Russia’s Academy of Sciences, a professor with a doctorate in applied physics and mathematics, head of the Mechanical-Mathematical Department of Moscow State University, and author of more than one hundred and eighty scientific works. He has written dozens of well-respected monographs and textbooks in his specialist field of mathematics. Fomenko was awarded Russia’s State Award in 1996 for his scientific achievements. The qualifications of Nosovskii (1958-) include a PhD in physics and mathematics. More notoriously, they are the authors of more than one hundred publications dealing with Russian and world history. The volume of their output is astonishing and reflects both of their enthusiasm and their mass-production methods as different members of their team specialize in different periods and locations. Since the collapse of Communism, New Chronology has thrived as a publishing phenomenon, despite and partly because of the hefty criticisms directed at it from conventional scholars. It has become better known in the West too, attracting the attention of scholars who are concerned about its impact upon ordinary Russians’ understanding of history and Russia’s place in the world. The English language title of Fomenko’s magnum opus is History: Fiction or Science. Fomenko’s ambition is to replace the existing ‘fiction’ with the ‘science’ of alternative history. Fomenko and New Chronology represent a popular rebellion against the version of history preferred by Russia’s scholarly elite. Or, as one scholar has put it, New Chronology is a prime example of ‘the conjunction between conspiracy theory and the rewriting of history [that] makes up one of the main instruments for disseminating nationalist theories in today’s Russia, theories based on a kind of post-modern, paranoid cultural imaginary.

The number of critics of Fomenko and his fellow alternative historians has certainly grown in recent years, and there have been premature announcements of New Chronology’s imminent demise. Yet alternative history has shown a remarkable capacity to absorb the blows inflicted by its critics and move forward, its momentum enhanced rather than deflated. So far, alternative history has not succeeded in winning over the academic departments of major universities, nor has it replaced the existing school textbooks. The alternative strategy is not to outscore the professional historians in a debate of a particular controversy or time period. Rather, the plan is to render conventional scholarship irrelevant by winning over the book-buying public and Russia’s growing army of internet users. Their passion is expressed in their apocalyptic version of patriotism for, in the words of one alternative historian:

When a nation maintains her historical memory, she will fight not only for material values, but also for the honor of the state (derzhava)… But if this nation is forced to abandon traditional national values and substitute instead a set of alien principles, then this nation is like a giant that was defeated not by the sword, but poisoned with a substance that darkens the mind and paralyses the will.

–End Excerpt


What would a nation, an empire, be without its historical source and reason for existence? The answer to this question is always the same – the more force that is used against the common people signifies the further away from its original purpose and ideals the empire has gotten. In America, we are under military rule, martial law, via the invocation of war powers (emergency) and the subsequent soft suspension of the constitution. We are made to believe we live in independent states just as in colonial history, that we are actually part of the state we live in instead of just foreign US residents, yet we are all birthed into the nation, into Washington DC, a district wholly outside and foreign to any of the 50 individual States. The union is no longer controlled by the States, the States are controlled by the empire corporation called “United States”, seated outside of and foreign to any State. Yet the appeal to the romantic history of the original thirteen colonies-turned-States after their war and struggle for independence is all we hear about, a false narrative used to justify the exact tyranny and oppression of a federal government that the King of England possessed while using the Crown’s appeal to its own history and right to rule over the corporations (colonies) set up by it. The Russian Federation (federal government district) is, to its various member states, not at all dissimilar to what the United States federal government is to the 50 states United – an illegitimate (de facto) dictator.

In other words, every present-day nation is an appeal to history. Every revolution is an appeal to history. Every law is an appeal to history. Every elected and appointed official is an appeal to history. The political process is an appeal to history. If you ask the president of the United States what makes his flattering title and dictatorial war powers legitimate, he will say “the people”. If you ask the people the same question, they will make an appeal to history — he was voted in at some point and that’s the way it has been since before I was born. That’s how the system works. Really? I’m sure lab rats and zoo animals think the same exact thing while rotting in the cages they were born in…


“The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity
but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities,
that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable,
that removes the sense that there is an outside.”

–Allan Bloom, “The Closing of the American Mind”


Of course, every nation has its own, personalized history, a justification for its current and future existence linked inextricably to the past. Therefore, each kingdom must balance itself ever so carefully upon the lies that constitute each individually perspective history of the multiplicity of demented, endlessly providential, manifest destiny attributed to every empire. And God is always somehow on the side of every nation, a petty excuse on the Grandest of scales for inexcusable actions in both war and peace, which also means that God is at the same time against every nation too — the paradox of a false attribution to the empty idols of deity — many nations under and over their own version of God

I imagine that, at the time when the American civil war was ending, the empire of the federal United States under its illegitimate emergency war powers, which had just decimated half of its own unionized states to the south, must have had a very similar crisis of conscious about their own perceived history, and likely had the same conversations about conserving the good, reimagining the bad, and essentially reinventing United States history to justify their own federalized, standing army so demonized in the Declaration of Independence. Let’s say it was a war over slavery… yeah, that’s it, we had to free the slaves! We’ll be heroes! And the common, illiterate dupes will never know the difference… 

But the greatest takeaway from this is in the term itself: alternative history. If history were true in the first place, there could be no alternative. Truth, you see, has no alternative. It’s the truth. You cannot have two differing (alternative) truths about the same thing. And so I stress again that history is never truth, but only the empire’s foundational propaganda that seeks to justify the purpose of its modern and future (post-modern) existence.

But there’s an even darker side to history. You see, the history of nations, being the story of each nation’s purpose to exist, is always a sociopath. The history of each nation is as the Narcissus admiring its own reflection, warring against any enemy that might cause ripples in the clear historical view of itself. Revisionist history is like breaking the vanity mirror of ones false appearance, like wiping the lipstick from a pig, for every nation loves only itself while hiding behind imaginary borders, fictitious lines drawn in imaginary sand that pretendedly say do not cross.

Indeed, history is not merely a story told, it is the very identity of all false existence. History is always the past, and he that controls the past controls the future. The future is everything after history, including most parts of the more recent past. One has to wonder what could possibly keep the United States empire and union of states together if it weren’t for the viral history of Philadelphia and the continental congress. Viral history… it’s like a disease. It prevents betterment. It ensures nepotism, and subsequently, despotism. And, like any other corporation out there that had humble beginnings, where we meagerly, obsucrely came from is and always will be the greatest tool of manipulation possible.

History represents the success stories of empire, the fish story no one in their right mind and reason should believe in. For history is never truth. It simply cannot be. Nothing made by men is natural. Nothing invented by man is truth. And truth cannot be revisioned… unless, that is, you call it history.

Now imagine if suddenly, instead of existing to please the historical narrative, we acted as if the reason and purpose for our existence is to ensure the future? Imagine if we lived for a better tomorrow, instead of using yesterday to justify our God-awful actions of today? Imagine if history did not dictate the present, and that, therefore, the future was something other than ensuring the continuity of government, or in other words, insuring the new feudalism of modern empire will continue into tomorrow. Imagine what you could do to serve others, to live for the purpose of preserving Life and the Source of Life, the highest Law, instead of merely preserving the emptiness of history’s inventions, the despotism of empire.

History can only ever be the popular alternative to truth.

Here’s one for the road…

Now there’s revolution… but they don’t know what they’re fighting…



Clint > richard-son (
Thursday, July 18, 2019