Donald Trump Boasts About His 99% Approval Rating In Israel

22 Comments

1. Whoever is elected next had damn well better represent the will of the people in severing ties with Israel and reducing the tribe’s undue influence and power over us.

   Reply

2. Israel might as well be the 51st state.

   Reply

3. That would be hilarious. He should definitely do it. He’d need to make his secret conversion to Satanism formal though. If Satanyahoo is ailing perhaps he could do his faithful step-n-fetchit a favor with a nice endorsement. Perhaps he can proclaim himself to be Messiah to take the place of their present candidate – a putrid corpse somewhere near NYC (maybe just bones by now). He already thinks of himself as God so why not take that last step? There’s no shortage of totally moronic followers who will fall at his feet.

   Reply

4. Oddly enough, the Q “prophesy” (psyop) always liked to remind the faithful that “Israel is last”. Maybe that’s what it meant – it would be the final resting place of Trump and MAGA. Very few of the predicted events have come to pass of course. The Clintons are still around, no charges for any of the endless list of crimes carried out by folks like Comey, Clapper, various FBI goons, Fauci, no actual oligarchs have been dealt with. Not even the very obvious massive vote-fraud operations and numerous other financial fraud operations – all totally unpunished. Epstein must be laughing quite a bit from some sunny beach in Israel. The chumps for trump fell for it all….

   Reply

5. But there is nobody and I mean nobody in politics that can save us. So what does it matter that Trump will be gone? The political system, deep state, whatever you want to call it, is so rigged that there is no voting ourselves out of it. They crush dissent. I’m checking out of politics. Buy land in the rural South – but if you come here don’t tell me anything about up north lol. Homeschool. Find the few like-minded people you can and create parallel groups. It can be done. Get to church. Meet people. Talk. Put down the phone. Go back to simpler times. We can’t escape the hellscape that this “country” is turning in to but it at least makes it somewhat bearable. Spend time in the Word. Spend time with your families. Spend time outside. Christ is King. Deo Vindice.

   Reply

6. Military Fraternity Running Iran Has Long History of Hard-Line Positions…NYT

   WELL DUH!

   The slime media is starting to figure out the Iranians are a resolute people.

   Reply

7. “resigns in disgrace”

   That’s silly.
   If he’s removed, it’ll be dragged by his heels clawing at the carpet.

   Reply

8. At the beginning, back in 2016, it was fun and exciting but now it has become cringe.

   Reply

9. DEFENSE
   Barakah false flag: How Israeli drones targeted UAE nuclear plant to frame Iran, unleash catastrophe
   Israeli false-flag drone attack on the UAE’s Barakah nuclear plant aimed to frame Iran and trigger regional war, as Tehran had no motive to poison its own shores and only Israel benefited from such adventurism…..presstv.ir

   Reply

10. Donald John Trump is a lame duck RIGHT NOW, literally. Yet based on recent Republican primary results, we see his reach into the hearts and minds of his most reliable voters remains intact. Any hope that he will lose his impact once out of office is belied by these results.
    The reason Trump’s two separate administrations have been sheer chaos from day one going forward is because he values combat. He lives to be in competition with someone, business partners, political competitors AND compatriots, or foreign entities, commercial or office holders.
    Whether that is due to the lesson of Fred Trump to TRUST NO ONE or DJT’s psychological makeup, as posited in “The Strange Case of Donald J. Trump: A Psychological Reckoning,” as an “episodic man” who lives moment to moment to vanquish everyone who opposes him in any fashion, is irrelevant. He is what he is, and always will be, a person purely transactional.
    The result is that like Newt Gingrich, he was a successful campaigner for political office due to his resilience and forceful persona with voters, but cannot consolidate victory once in office, as that requires compromise and conciliation with other participants, which he rejects psychologically.
    And now, his age and growing realization of lame duck status between himself and the rest of the world’s commercial and authoritative apparatuses (for-profit organizations or pools of investment funds and executive branches in foreign lands), will cause him to continue lashing out to friend and foe constantly, staring wars and picking fights, as that is all he knows.
    So, Trump is pure danger now, for the rest of us, as his Epstein vulnerabilities (some young girl was murdered on his behalf-that is what brings liability-mere sex, not so much) render him someone’s tool in a nuclear endgame of escape. And he will continue to involve himself in Republican politics, constraining anyone who wants to move on from MIGA. That ends only one way (not a suggestion, feds).

    Reply

11. Has anyone checked, does he actually have a 99% approval rating in that terrorist nation or is this just another of his hourly lies?

    Reply

12. America faces a massive shortage of skilled blue-collar workers to hire? According to Jim Farley, Ford Motor Company’s CEO, it’s a problem that could wreak havoc on household budgets.

    Some of you express glee over the vanishing boomers. As ‘diversity’ replaces the white boomers you’ll find consequences that you never anticipated. Just wait, just wait…..”I beez yo pilot dis mornin, iz al kool.”

    Reply

13. Of course Moshe (MIGA) has a high approval with Remphan.
    He doesn’t even say MAGA anymore.
    LOL at the turds celebrating Massie, you are owned by another country dumbass.
    Massie should run in the democratic primary so Hymie has to spend another $30 million.
    Eighty years of Long March and a world conquering tour?
    The popcorn is delicious like the belly laughs in the retarded muh democracy fairytales.

    Reply

14. “I’m not feeling disillusioned anymore.

    I’m beginning to feel excited to vote against Trump and MAGA.”

    It’s a set up. They want to discourage us to the extent we run and vote for the next nigger down the pike. You cant see through this?
    Get excited about building a new party instead.

    Reply

15. Rasmussen is the most accurate. They show Trump approval at 43% as of May 21. Not much change over the past 6 months, up 2 points over the past 3 weeks. This approval level is more than twice what Congress gets. They rarely crack 20% and they keep getting re-elected.

    This means two things to me. One, it is impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the American people. Two, I am thankful for the 22nd amendment, for without that he could run again, and he would win.

    Reply

16. “From the Valley of the Clueless to the Death Valley.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tLM2USYjMQ
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_Germans
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal_der_Ahnungslosen

    The perverse “honouring” of Europe’s destroyer Merkel https://archive.ph/wzeiK

    Video descripion: “Something happened today in Aachen that must seem like pure mockery to many Germans: The man who, with his ‘whatever it takes’ mantra, shifted trillions in risk onto European taxpayers is being hailed as a European hero. Mario Draghi is receiving the Charlemagne Prize—and of all people, Friedrich Merz, the former critic of the transfer union, is delivering a eulogy in his honor. While Germany pays the bill, the political class applauds. In this video, we take a look at what was really being celebrated, who is footing the bill—and why these images show many citizens more clearly than any speech in the Bundestag that their concerns play no role in Berlin or Brussels.” https://archive.ph/Rbgos

    Enable (very poor) available AI-generated audio track.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWbQ1444sGk

    Incidentally, the very first recipient of this (highly questionable) “award” was Coudenhove-Kalergi (after whom, incidentally, another award of this kind was named).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_Prize
    https://frauhodl.substack.com/p/coudenhove-kalergi-has-awarded-chancellor

    But did “Charlemagne” ever actually exist? There are compelling reasons to seriously doubt that. Under these circumstances, one could even further highlight the absurdity of such unimaginative stage names—which betray a complete lack of creativity—as “Charlamagne tha God.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlamagne_tha_God

    https://www.unz.com/author/first-millennium-revisionist/
    https://www.webcitation.org/6QkEj7K3b

    Shards never lie: Dr. Heribert Illig is puzzled by the habit of professional historians to always rely on written documents, which are, after all, the easiest to forge. In contrast, they neglect the documents buried in the ground: shards, clay vessels, foundation walls, stones. Added to this, he says, are forgery-proof data: craft traditions and the continuity of technical expertise. If a particular style and technique of glass vessels, easily recognizable from the shards, breaks off for 1,000 years and then continues completely unchanged (as in ancient Crete, ancient Egypt, and during the time of Charlemagne), then it stands to reason that those 1,000 years never actually existed. Enable available English audio track.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N45IOZa0feU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dbHYOwivOU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifsdpBS26Ew
    https://vocal.media/geeks/the-phantom-dark-age
    https://archive.is/wi6vP

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsAQ3sMvQ5vgw-WJLu2OPbJdm7lTDXkL4

    What Illig and his hundred academic colleagues published in their periodical over the course of 30 years (in German only, downloads only US/or via proxy). https://linkmix.co/54933533

    The suspicion that European history had been distorted
    and truth suppressed had already been raised by others.
    https://archive.org/details/book-2-06
    https://de.zxc.wiki/wiki/Wilhelm_Kammeier

    “The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle jumps from the legendary origins of the Hungarians straight into medieval historiography, so it can look like roughly 300 years are missing, broadly between 600 and 900.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicon_Pictum

    More precisely, the narrative does not begin with a continuous chronology; it starts with legendary origin stories and leaves out most of the early prehistory up to the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin around **895/896**. So your time span is a reasonable description of the “missing” centuries.

    Heinsohn died three years ago after a (most likely “vaccine”-related) “brief illness” in his hometown Danzig, which has been illegally annexed by Poles for 80 years. He never knew his father, who was sunk off the coast of Newfoundland by Brits along with his crew while serving as a U-boat commander. He had a Polish wife and son with her. His English translator Clark Whelton was speechwriter for NY mayors (Jew) Koch and Giuliani. His maternal grandfather https://archive.ph/iyJb2.

    Heinsohn was friends with Illig, but denies that Charlemagne is only a fictional historical figure. But goes even further than Illig when it comes to the theft of history. He has argued that what is known about Europe’s first millennium—and what can be gathered from archaeological finds—amounts, at most, to three centuries of historical record.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandalaband
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4km_Sqa-Is

    Let’s see, as Heinsohn recounted in a conversation with the Jew Jacob Berman (“History Valley”). Check out also the other videos in the playlist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3RD4pZF8BU&list=PL-HfIVCmMHYo2QggLfUy41SxlUb0tUvsz

    https://www.youtube.com/@History-Valley/videos

    Why Charlemagne Should Trouble Historians

    Historians like to think of themselves as bold discoverers. They uncover lost kingdoms, reclassify obscure figures as pivotal, and redraw the map of the past. Yet when someone questions one of their most famous figures — Charlemagne — many of them react less like open-minded scholars and more like guardians of a settled faith.

    That reaction is exactly what makes Heribert Illig’s challenge so provocative. His thesis is not merely that a few documents are unreliable, or that some dates may be off. He argues that roughly 300 years of early medieval history may have been inserted into the timeline. In other words, what we call the early Middle Ages may contain a large chronological gap, one that later history quietly filled in.

    For many people, this sounds outrageous on first hearing. But the force of Illig’s argument lies in the fact that he does not begin with fantasy. He begins with inconsistencies. He points to the strange way Charlemagne seems to appear too early, doing too much, knowing too much, and standing too far ahead of the society around him. A single ruler may be exceptional, but Illig argues that Charlemagne is not merely exceptional — he is historically implausible.

    One of the strongest parts of Illig’s reasoning concerns buildings, especially the famous palace chapel in Aachen. According to the traditional account, this church was built in Charlemagne’s time. But Illig argues that the structure does not fit the technical and architectural development of the period. It appears too advanced, too sophisticated, and too isolated from what came before and after. In his view, the building belongs to a later age, not the era in which it is usually placed.

    The same pattern, he says, appears in other areas. Documents exist, but they often read like later constructions. Material remains are scarce. Historical continuity breaks down. Entire centuries seem strangely thin. The issue is not that every source is false. The issue is that the overall picture does not hold together as neatly as historians pretend.

    And that is where the real controversy begins. Illig’s critics often do not answer the argument; they reject the person. They call him a conspiracy theorist, as though that label itself were a refutation. But calling a question inconvenient does not make it wrong. Nor does it mean the question deserves moral condemnation. In fact, the reflex to moralize disagreement is itself a sign that something more than evidence is at stake.

    What Illig exposes is not only a problem in chronology, but a problem in intellectual culture. Once a historical narrative becomes canonical, scholars may defend it less because it has been proved than because it has been inherited. Students, teachers, and journalists often repeat the official version with such confidence that alternative questions sound absurd before they are even examined. That kind of consensus can be comforting, but it is not the same thing as truth.

    Illig may be wrong in the end. He may overstate the case. He may push some of his arguments too far. But the deeper point remains: if historians are serious about their craft, they should not be afraid of hard questions about the foundations of the timeline itself. A chronology is not holy scripture. It is a construction, and constructions can be tested.

    The value of Illig’s work is not that it settles the matter once and for all. It is that it forces readers to look again at what they thought they knew. And in history, as in any serious inquiry, that is where genuine thought begins.

    The core claim

    Illig’s central thesis is that roughly 300 years of early medieval history — usually dated around 614 to 911 CE — were inserted later into the historical timeline. His supporters treat this not as a small dating error, but as a major chronological gap that was later filled in by historians, church scholars, and rulers.

    The Charlemagne problem

    A major pillar of the argument is that Charlemagne seems historically “too big” and too early. Illig and allies argue that his biography reads like a construction: he appears to unify, reform, build, legislate, and symbolize an entire civilization at a level that seems hard to reconcile with the material and documentary record of the time.

    Supporters often say that Charlemagne functions less like a normal historical ruler and more like a mythic condensation of multiple people, events, and later political needs.

    The calendar argument

    Another important line of reasoning concerns the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582. Illig’s side argues that the number of days removed from the calendar only makes sense if the earlier chronology already contained an excess of centuries. In their view, the calendar reform accidentally reveals a larger chronological mismatch: if the Julian calendar is tracked back properly, the math appears to point to about 300 missing years.

    This is treated as a key “hard” argument because it seems to come from arithmetic rather than interpretation.

    The architectural argument

    A second major category of evidence is architecture, especially the Palatine Chapel in Aachen. Illig’s supporters argue that the building is too advanced for the period in which it is usually placed. They point to technical issues such as vault construction, iron reinforcement, and the level of engineering required.

    Their claim is not just that the sources are weak, but that the building itself looks out of place in the early ninth century. In that reading, architecture becomes a kind of independent check on the written record.

    The “development gap” argument

    Illig’s supporters also point to breaks in technological and cultural development. They argue that inventions and techniques appear, then seem to disappear, then reappear much later, as if a long stretch of history were missing.

    Examples often mentioned in this circle include:
    – the stirrup,
    – the horseshoe,
    – agricultural tools and methods,
    – and the slow, uneven spread of knowledge.

    The claim is that normal historical development would have been more continuous, so these gaps suggest something artificial in the chronology.

    The source-criticism argument

    Another core idea is that many early medieval sources are unreliable or falsified. Illig and supporters do not usually claim that every document is fake; rather, they argue that the documentary record is so heavily distorted by later copying, invention, and retroactive legitimation that it cannot safely anchor the chronology by itself.

    In their view, once you accept that medieval historians worked with many forged or heavily edited texts, it becomes less surprising that whole stretches of time might also have been reconstructed.

    The “historical silence” argument

    Supporters frequently stress the scarcity of material evidence for the early Middle Ages compared with other periods. They argue that there are too few finds — too few coins, buildings, settlements, inscriptions, and artifacts — for such a supposedly formative and productive era.

    This is often presented as a cumulative argument: not one missing object, but a broad sense of emptiness across multiple fields.

    The Otto III / millennium motive

    A recurring explanatory scenario in Illig’s circle is that Otto III and Pope Sylvester II wanted to position themselves around the symbolic year 1000. In this version, a new chronology was created or adjusted for ideological and religious reasons, especially to fit Christian ideas about millennial time.

    That motive is used to explain why such a large chronological manipulation would have been worthwhile: it would have served salvation history, imperial ideology, and ecclesiastical authority at once.

    The broader worldview

    Illig’s supporters generally present history as something constructed, not simply discovered. They are skeptical of the assumption that the traditional timeline is self-evident, and they argue that what later historians call “the early Middle Ages” may actually be a patchwork assembled from fragments, retroactive attributions, and institutional needs.

    That is why they often frame mainstream reactions as defensive rather than analytical. In their eyes, the debate is not only about one thesis, but about whether historians are willing to question the chronology they inherit.

    The strongest form of the argument

    Taken in its strongest and most coherent form, the Illig circle argues this:

    1. The early medieval record is unusually thin and inconsistent.
    2. Charlemagne and related figures look overconstructed.
    3. Architecture and technology do not fit the official dates.
    4. Calendar arithmetic points to a larger chronological error.
    5. Therefore, about 300 years were likely inserted into history later.

    That is the internal logic of the theory as its supporters present it.

    https://archive.ph/gd55c
    https://archive.ph/rgakQ

    Heribert Illig: An Obituary for Emperor Karl

    At the beginning of his very first publication, Immanuel Kant — it was the year 1746 — expressed the wish “that the freedom I take upon myself to contradict great men may not be construed as a crime.”

    His work was directed against a number of scholars and philosophers, the most prominent of whom was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and it seems that in the face of such opposition a confident young man also had to encourage himself.

    He hoped for something to which, surely, everyone is entitled: that his arguments would be examined without prejudice. Could he be sure of that? After all, even the young Kant knew of “gentlemen who liked to be regarded as arbiters in scholarship,” yet were willing to “judge a book without having read it.”

    I know plenty of people who reject theories or books without ever having looked at them, and whose subject matter does not interest them in the least — they reject them simply because they strike them as odd. Or deviant. And what about those who deal with such matters professionally? For them, a certain degree of opportunism is sometimes a matter of survival. If the professor researches Charlemagne, neither his assistant nor the doctoral candidates will endorse the claim that he never existed.

    For many people, however, it is merely posturing: they side with established scholarship because it looks so respectable and makes them feel safely on the right side. To prove that, I will later quote from a letter by a gentleman that brims with arrogance and culminates in a moral denigration capable of frightening the reader. Or at least it should.

    As Heribert Illig reveals in the preface to this book, he expected fair treatment of his theses when, a little more than three decades ago, he set out to correct our image of the early Middle Ages. “In ignorance of academic conventions,” it says right on the first page of his new, probably last book on the subject, “I believed there was something like a critical mass of ‘evidence,’ of hard facts, that would eventually simply convince the experts. But things turned out differently.” Do you hear bitterness in those words? Or is the author merely astonished that a topic which hardly anyone otherwise pays attention to should provoke such a storm? For who is interested in the early Middle Ages? Most people are already satisfied if they know what the Investiture Controversy was about, who Barbarossa was, and how to distinguish Gothic from Romanesque. But all of that only becomes relevant several hundred years later.

    Had Illig expected the attacks that were then indeed directed at him — at him personally? “Conspiracy theorist” was still the mildest term, a charge that was somewhat general and entirely unfounded, yet still remained more or less — more or less! — within bounds; far worse was the fact that he was linked by a journalist — a certain Richard Herzinger — in a confused article in Die Zeit with Holocaust deniers. How could a book about Charlemagne provoke such anger? Was this author, Illig, truly fantasizing? Does his argument really resemble that of Holocaust deniers?

    For thirty years now, Illig has defended his thesis and with this book is finally attempting to present a conclusion. In the early or mid-1990s, with his claim that Charlemagne had never existed, he attracted considerable attention and even found himself invited onto a talk show. There, apart from the host, he was also taken to task by a television pastor, who frowned critically and spoke of the fact that sources must surely exist. Yes, the sources probably do exist — but has that theologian never learned what source criticism is good for? Had Pastor Fliege not understood that this was precisely what the criticism amounted to: there were many papers and printed texts, but on the one hand the events reported there were hardly credible, and on the other hand they were neither supplemented nor confirmed by archaeological finds, by ruins or artifacts of any kind.

    In The Invention of the Middle Ages, the author first tried to show how little credible the tradition was and is — that is, the elevation of Charlemagne into the father of Europe, the brilliant organizer of his realm, the patron of the sciences. The book then turned to the Palatine Chapel in Aachen — today Aachen Cathedral — because this archaic-looking, truly impressive church was supposedly built during Charlemagne’s lifetime; more than that, the emperor’s name is directly associated with its construction. Today Illig writes of his first book: “Twenty-eight years ago I threw down the gauntlet in Aachen by pointing out countless inconsistencies, anachronisms, and other contradictions in the construction of the Palatine Chapel in Aachen.” This did not win him many friends.

    His argument, then, was from the very beginning far more complex than his critics portrayed it to be. It was by no means simply a matter of “positivistically” demanding missing ruins or other finds, as the article in Die Zeit mentioned above and countless other attacks claimed. Rather, Illig showed that the building history is not consistent if the Palatine Chapel is dated to the early ninth century. In that period, the building could not have been erected at all. His first book on the subject — The Invention of the Middle Ages — lists a total of 24 reasons why this building was too early, indeed much too early: technical or architectural reasons. This was not the argument of a conspiracy theorist, nor was it irrational in any other respect.

    In the current book, Illig now adds another strand to his already closely woven argument concerning the age of the Palatine Chapel, showing that the clamping together of the vaults with iron, as observed in the church, could not possibly have been carried out around the year 800. What he continues to argue — and quite rightly so — is a “progressive architectural evolution,” that is, the internal logic of a gradual improvement in various techniques. This concerns not only the basic idea — in this case the notion of binding the stones together with iron reinforcement — but even more the quality of the iron. Would the builders of a Charlemagne have had access to iron of sufficient quality? And were there already mills with water-powered hammers capable of working such material?

    Illig is a very precise author. This book contains a carefully researched, meticulously documented, and richly illustrated history of vault construction and iron reinforcement. It shows how ironworking developed gradually, where the difficulties lie when iron is found in the thick walls of ancient churches, and why all these techniques, around the year 800 when a Charlemagne is said to have ruled southern Germany, were absolutely unknown. Such vaults could therefore not possibly have been built in the year 800: that is the point. So what value are “sources” in which something impossible is reported? And there are further questions, such as those concerning Aachen’s status as a capital. Unfortunately, there is nothing — absolutely nothing — in this city that points to the early ninth century. Nor was Aachen granted city rights until 1166.

    “It is satisfying,” Illig writes, “to be able to completely prove an idea after 30 years.” But it is to be feared that this proof will neither be noticed nor seriously discussed.

    In his book, Illig is concerned not only with completing the chain of proof, but also with the chronology of the attacks on him and his theory, in some cases even with a day-by-day record of his disputes. Much of this is disturbing, because his critics too quickly resorted to personal attacks without making any effort toward a factual discussion.

    Something else is important: why are his critics so agitated — not, of course, the academic researchers of Charlemagne. I can well understand why they feel attacked, even if their arrogance is not very pleasant. But why Mr. Herzinger from Die Zeit? Why do people who have never dealt with the early Middle Ages become so upset? Why does the elimination of Charlemagne from history seem so enormously important to them? What changes then?

    In an arrogant manner, an unknown letter writer responded to an earlier article about Illig. He takes up Herzinger’s line of argument when he alludes to the National Socialists with “other ideas”: “Whether Charlemagne lived or not is, for the ordinary citizen, completely irrelevant in any case — nobody’s life changes in the slightest because of it. Therefore, the question of whom such pseudoscientific pamphlets actually serve leads deep into the mire of paranoia and moral depravity. They serve only those who must legitimize other ideas of great conspiracies.”

    The logic of these words is breathtaking. Why the word “therefore”? Is it supposed to be a conclusion drawn from the supposed irrelevance of a theory? And if all of this is completely irrelevant and does not change anyone’s life: why should we bother with history at all? Couldn’t the same be said of almost anything that happened more than — well, let us say — a hundred years ago? Finally: am I reading this correctly? Is this commentator really accusing a person unknown to him personally of paranoia? Does he really speak of “moral corruption”? How can he arrive at such outrageous accusations, which amount to blatant insults? (Why does a website that says comments on its articles are “moderated” allow such things to stand?) For us, these indigestible remarks are interesting because they illustrate how The Dark Middle Ages was received.

    Illig wants to remove 297 years, and if this new chronology were ever to prevail (never mind — it certainly will not!), then we would be living at the beginning of the eighteenth century. That would take some getting used to, even if our daily lives remained the same. But there are interests beyond the everyday, there is the need for orientation, and clearly the gaze into a very distant past belongs there as well. At the beginning of his Cultural History of Modern Times, Egon Friedell writes under the witty heading “The Will to the Box” about human beings and their passion for orientation: “His strongest longing, his eternal dream, is to bring chronology into the world.” Perhaps “strongest longing” is a bit exaggerated, but chronology is important, even if it does not change our lives.

    If we cut out three centuries, our view of the transition from antiquity to the early Middle Ages changes completely, because suddenly we understand why the age of the Ottonians (the very important kings of the tenth and eleventh centuries) still seems in some respects to recall the Roman Empire. Now there are no longer more than four centuries between the fall of the Roman Empire (476) and the time of Otto the Great (912–973), but three centuries fewer, and suddenly we understand why so much about this era seems archaic. Just think of the great cathedrals and domes! We can now also understand why certain scholarly knowledge could have survived this period — after all, there are not more than four “dark” centuries with their rustling beech forests between ancient Rome and the first beginnings of a German Empire, but only a good one hundred and fifty. That span is much easier to bridge.

    The Millennium Goes Mad
    https://archive.ph/NowR2

    We are writing the year 1699 — Reflections on the new need to rewrite history
    By Richard Herzinger
    September 26, 1997

    The eagerly awaited turn of the millennium is not happening. Just in time, it has been discovered that we are in fact living in the year 1699 of the Christian calendar.

    According to the academic autodidact Heribert Illig, some three hundred years of our history were freely invented by the German emperor Otto III in the seventh century AD. Otto, Illig claims, wanted to secure for himself a spectacular myth of rule through this bold forgery and to profit from the brilliance of an outstanding predecessor: just like the entire early Middle Ages, the legendary Charlemagne is said never to have existed in reality either. He was a fictional figure, invented and brought into the world by a conspiratorial community of forgers from secular and ecclesiastical power.

    At first, Illig’s thesis sounds like nothing more than the crazy idea of an eccentric.

    On closer inspection, however, it raises interesting questions about our society’s relationship to history. The fact that Illig’s theory, initially known only in esoteric circles, attracted wide public attention is a symptom of the growing need to rewrite and reinterpret history.

    This need is nothing new, of course. History has always been assigned great importance in struggles over the present. Earlier historical revisionism was usually driven by the impulse to bring suppressed events into the light: the forgotten deeds and heroes of the working class, for instance, or the suppressed truth about the achievements of important women or colonized peoples. That pathos, too, was conspiratorial: the ruling powers, so the claim went, had falsified or concealed the historical facts because they contradicted their ideology of rule. Walter Benjamin’s “leap into the past” was meant to bring them back; history was to be reanimated and used as a weapon in the struggle for liberation by the disadvantaged. In this version, there was in fact more history than was officially known. Beneath official history there slumbered an entire counter-history. Too few events and facts were known.

    The new historical revisionists, by contrast, believe there is less history, fewer events and facts, than is claimed. This version, too, is directed against a forgery by those in power. But this time the accusation is that they invented non-existent events in order to secure their power.

    Heribert Illig’s version of historical revisionism attacks historiography at its claim to be a positive science.

    Illig’s positivist pathos says: everything that is ever said to have happened must also be capable of being indisputably documented and reconstructed. His super-positivist twist lies in the reverse inference: if events cannot be proved on the basis of authentic evidence, then they cannot have happened. As long as a decade ago, in a study co-authored with Gunnar Heinsohn, he redated the Egyptian pharaonic period and shortened it by several thousand years. Behind Illig stands an entire group of historical outsiders who gather around the journal Zeitensprünge and obsessively concern themselves with such corrections of actual or alleged misdatings of historical epochs.

    Illig’s theses are by no means the product of a dilettante or fantasist. He makes use of real contradictions and ambiguities in the relatively poorly documented history of the early Middle Ages. His conclusion that the years 614 to 911 never took place rests on precise knowledge of the sources, and his argument has a certain internal plausibility. Although the guild of historians considers Illig’s theory absurd, it is therefore hard for them to refute his arguments one by one.

    Illig indirectly shows that historiography remains, in the final analysis, narrative, and that its interpretation of the past depends largely on conceptual constructions rather than on clearly provable facts. But he does so not by drawing relativist conclusions from this insight; instead, he presents his own construction as absolutely valid. Where serious medieval research runs into explanatory difficulties because of a lack of clear historical evidence, he offers an answer that is as simple as it is radical: if in reality nothing happened, then the mystery of missing or contradictory documents about past events is suddenly solved.

    But this opens an unexpected new back door to historical relativism. For Illig demonstrates how even seemingly indisputable historical facts, up to and including the existence of entire epochs, can be cast into doubt using the methods of historiography itself. In Illig’s case and that of his friends, this is hardly threatening, because their obsessive hobby has no recognizable political-ideological aims. At most, one might see in the complete deletion of the early Middle Ages an attempt to wound Christian-Western self-confidence and a swipe at Eurocentrism.

    What is frightening, however, is that the Illig method shows structural similarities to that of right-wing Auschwitz deniers. They, too, work with a radical positivism: they measure the gas chambers, analyze the chemical composition of the walls, and calculate from the measurement results that gassings could not have taken place.

    Such supposedly factual material serves them to cast doubt on the reality of the extermination of the Jews.

    Fortunately, it does not seem as though extremist revisionism has a chance of prevailing outside sectarian circles. The ethical defenses of democratic society still appear to be too intact for that: thus Ernst Nolte, when he called — under the premise of strict positivism — for the “serious examination” of the pseudo-findings of historical revisionists such as Fred Leuchter, probably destroyed his own good name once and for all.

    But in principle, historical-revisionist suggestions are finding increasingly fertile ground. In the wake of postmodern challenges to reality, the reality of history itself has also been fundamentally called into question.

    For Jean Baudrillard, as early as the 1980s it was clear: history no longer exists. It had been a temporary phenomenon in the past, when there were still real events rather than merely media events; only then had history existed as well. Today, in the world of the simulacrum’s endless loop, any attempt to reconstruct history must remain hopeless. For once historical events have been totally mediated, the facts have irretrievably disappeared into images. Nothing can any longer be proven, nothing authentic recovered. Thus all factual claims become equally valid, all interpretations possible — and therefore equally meaningless. In the context of the controversy over Heidegger’s entanglement in National Socialism, Baudrillard declared in 1988 that it was already “too late” to reconstruct the philosopher’s actual failings, and he predicted that one day people would even doubt that Heidegger had ever existed at all.

    Media-theoretical nihilism in the Baudrillard style corresponds in a strange way to the super-positivism of Heribert Illig’s kind.

    Both positions express a weariness with the ambiguity and relativity of historical knowledge. From the insight that even seemingly secure factual evidence can never guarantee final or unambiguous statements about history, the first position draws the conclusion that every statement about historical events has lost its validity and that everything factual dissolves into interpretation, manipulation, and fantasy. The second position, by contrast, claims that every uncertainty about the past is due only to the misinterpretation and manipulation of facts and can be eliminated through precise evaluation of the facts. But both extreme positions meet in the result of their efforts to eliminate ambiguity: in the erasure of parts of history, or of history as a whole.

    Nietzsche once claimed that a culture must from time to time throw off the burden of history from its shoulders and forget its knowledge of it in order to renew itself. Our scientistic culture seems determined to go much further in this respect: it rids itself of history by outdoing ever more comprehensive historical knowledge with the demonstration that all knowledge is void. Positivist faith in facts and relativist agnosticism are no longer opposites in this process; instead, they feed one another.

    That history of this or that period must be “rewritten” has, since the sensational presentation of the forged Hitler diaries, become a popular slogan in the marketing of supposedly groundbreaking historiographical discoveries. But where does such great public sensational value come from? Neither with regard to the present nor to the future do truly radical ideas seem thinkable any longer.

    Utopias are as discredited as grand theoretical explanatory models, and there prevails the feeling that in thought as well as in social practice there can only be variations and interpretations of what has already been thought and tried.

    More than ever, the spirit of the age feels trapped in the “iron cage” of a programmed modernity, which at the same time produces an increasing arbitrariness of ideas and opinions. The last field in which the overthrow of seemingly unquestionable orders still appears possible is history. Because the present no longer seems fundamentally changeable, and the future therefore no longer shapeable, the energy of change turns toward the past.

    https://quillette.com/2025/10/21/the-central-dichotomy-an-appreciation-of-richard-herzinger/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Herf

    Reply

17. These Jew-mugs “rule” EVERYTHING here! Regardless
    of your growing awareness: “How is that POSSIBLE?”

    Reply

18. Deport Trump to Israel.

    Reply

19. Until humanity—and especially the so-called “white” people (if they are even white by then)—finally realizes this: Jews are not like “some of us,” nor do they think like us! They ARE NOT “our neighbors”! They operate on their own timeline, and that timeline aims to eliminate us! Within the limits of their capabilities, they have caused as much damage as possible so far.

    Reply

20. Today, let’s turn to another very important principle in music composition: the dialogic principle of question and answer, the (slightly modified) echo of one’s own statement. I’ve illustrated this here using a very simple example. https://onlinesequencer.net/5433374

    Reply

21. Your pathetic.

    Reply

22. Comrades of Soviet Dissent!

    We must work to raise the class consciousness of the proletariat by increasing awareness of the Epstein Class. These are the Rootless Cosmopolitans of the new century.

    Zionism is also to be re-interpreted as a Capitalist movement linked to oppressive colonialism and imperialism.

    By incorporating these insights about those whom David Irving calls the Traditional Enemy, we may be able to deliver America to the cause of World Revolution!

    Reply