Alberto R Zambrano U · Uncategorized

Columbus Day

The barbaric behavior would have been in a way, the natural state of the hispanoamerican republicans, the necessary fruit of the combination of aboriginal cultures that the conquistadors found, with conquest itself and the process of spaniard colonization, and finally with the civil wars that begun with the War of Independence in Venezuela.
Carlos Rangel. From the good savage to the good revolutionary

History of mankind is one of conflict and constant competition for limited resources: Water, earth, food and women. Those who trash Columbus day want to make people believe that the pre columbine societies were much more advanced than the european societies and history has proven that this isn’t the case.
Europeans have proven to be better in these sorts of disputes, conflicts and competences than any other race in the face of the earth, the indigenous peoples were losers, and their friends and successors want europeans to feel sorry, shame and regret for being better than the savages in matters of conquest and exploration.
Vengeful indigenous movementes demand reparations for all the resources extracted from the american continent while ignoring completely that the pre columbine societies were backward, cannibalistic and savage. Neither Spain, nor the West have to feel sorry for nothing, the indigenous (((holocaust))) happened for a series of reasons:

Indigenous peoples were savages that discriminated far worse than the conquistadors.
They did not know the value of precious metals, nor gems because of the backwardness of their own societies not open to cooperation amongst fellow men.
Indigenous peoples sold their territory and lands because they lacked the knowledge to make assessments on these issues.
I’d like to point out that these things are not deemed fair in the development of this text because the term “fair” derives from the architectonics and constructs of european societies.
It is very peculiar that the indigenous, marxist leaning and vengeful can discriminate against everything that has a scent of nationalisms of european-american descent but they look the other way in an arbitrary fashion on the fact that their arguments are the product of analysis of a society with post european traditions of judeo-christian architectonics.

All of the elements that have sustained previous forms of success and european western pride are either in decline or withered to the extreme. What the west must do is to awaken and stop giving terrain to the demands of minorities and other groups that demand from majorities a more liberal mindset.

Spanish conquistadors without GPS, not internal combustion engines threw themselves in boasts to seek for resources and made their way to the american continent, and they did that in a  glorious way, with strength and racial sentiment.
The same racial sentiment that the losers of the conquest war seem to evoke when they mention Tiuna, Guaicaipuro, Moctezuma, Tupac Amaru and the like.
It is very peculiar, unfair and excluding that the ones that lost the war, being sore losers seek to use the elements of grandeur of those who won the war to feel ashamed for putting an end to cannibalistic massacres of pre columbine tribes for everything that they managed to conquer.

Our children are being taught by academia that they pre columbine peoples that lived in the american continent weren’t merciless savages (as Thomas Jefferson would refer to them in the declaration of independence). We must bear in mind that many of these societies worshipped human sacrifice, torture, mutilation and cannibalism.
Liberal academics seek to teach our youth that the pre columbine societies were “spiritually enlightened natives” whose wisdom and peaceful nobility were destroyed by hordes of barbaric europeans.
Academia and its vices of hatefulness towards the west is hellbent on telling the lie that the Aztecs didn’t sacrifice lower tribes in enormous altars of carved stone built with slave labor and they ate the corpses of those murdered in such heinous and overwhelming ways that the mind of a Westerner could hardly grasp nor comprehend.

On another note: Slavery wasn’t introduced into the americas by europeans, the pre columbines already had it in practice, and even though the europeans took a couple of centuries in putting an end to it, it was western civilization that put that practice into practice.
The impulse, the moral strength and drive to put an end to slavery came from within western civilization as an imposition towards less developed civilizations, less open and far more backwards.

¿What kind of life would an african man in his homeland before being brought to the american continent and presented to western civilization?

In the same way that Winston Smith used to delete headlines from newspapers in the Orwell novel “1984”, nowadays we are being pushed into forgetting details of history that fall short of the liberal narrative.
Many of the indigenous peoples that preach and champion socialism and social justice causes in the american continent overlook the fact that if it weren’t for Christopher Columbus, socialism and Karl Marx’s ideas would have never made it to the american continent. If it weren’t for the Spanish Yoke, the american indians would have carried on with the peaceful, spiritual and easy way of killing each other with machetes, eat the flesh of those the died and carried on with their nomadic lifestyles, subsistence agriculture and perpetual warfare.

The conflict that arises out of conquist in which there was a struggle for resources between opposed societies couldn’t have been solved in a civilized way. There was no culture, government, or legal system that the parties involved could share to solve those disputes, and it was the West with its advancements in technology, discovery of law that had to put an end to the dispute by the way of council or by the sword, (a latin principle called “aut consilis, aut ense”.
The idea that Columbus, Cortés and the conquistadors could appeal to sentiments and feelings of common humanity, empathy with the good savages is a sentimental ethnocentric projection that dissipates very quickly when you learn about how the pre columbine indians.

It is really foolish and decadent when western men, that have never have had to subdue entire tribes of savages are forced to morally condemn those men that in a past fought tooth and nail to take the continent for their Kingdom.
Those men who’s blood, swear, tears, pain, broken bones bought peace at a very high cost for the territories over which liberals cry and communists fantasize about by lying to the public by saying that the indians were good savages

Alberto Zambrano



Losing Empires


The people who lost their empire next most quickly, were the people least willing to kill to maintain it (british).

The people who lost them next most quickly were those who tried to maintain them cheaply(french).

The people who lost them next most quickly were those who ran them poorly (russians, mongols).

The people who lost their next most quickly, were those who over extended them (roman).

The people who held their empires, were those that didn’t overextend them, didn’t run them poorly, didn’t run them cheaply, and who were willing to kill to maintain them (China, Egypt).

“Kill them until they stop coming. Then kill all those who you can find. Then kill all their relatives you can find. Then take their best things and burn the rest to the ground – erasing all trace of their existence.”


Um. I Don’t Have Technical Critics…

—“People like Curt are the problem and not part of the solution.”— A Critic

All: I don’t really have any technical critics. I kind of doubt I will ever see those any more than Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hume, Darwin, Menger, and Hayek saw technical critics. I have that I know of only non-technical critics. Most fall into the following camps:

a) (Possible) They question whether, if my proposals were enacted that people would, compete the nationalist program and return to many, small, european nation states.

b) (Practical) They prefer a faster, more ‘collectivist’ strategy in which they feel they have social (verbal) influence – or they feel that it is impractical to raise a revolution and enact constitutional changes.

c) (Political) They are trying to rally through some sort of framing and my solution prevents emotional rallying by falsifying their framing and replaces it with one that is

d) (Philosophical) They feel out of control and are seeking a means of control through some sort of framing that I have falsified.

e) (Psychological) They feel out of control and are seeking a means of control and they cannot understand the algorithmic (operational) method that I’ve produced, and this makes them feel out of control again.

FWIW: I can obviously understand and empathize with each of these criticisms. However, my intellectual contribution to mankind will survive and probably have influence regardless of those criticisms. So I have a list of objectives and the top of that list is producing that work. I know I can complete that work. I know a revolutionary change is possible because I know how easily that the American government can be collapsed. Whether I am able to produce a revolution and cause that collapse and institute such a constitutions *as I plan* is certainly a question. If I was ten years younger I wouldn’t really have any doubts. But my energy levels have decreased rapidly over the past decade and a half – possible just due to my illnesses, and possibly due to age. But that does not mean others who are younger, or more suited, or have more energy, will not succeed if I don’t.

That it is possible to do a thing, and the labor and organization to do a thing are something different.


Socialism vs Communism


National Socialism (Tribalism) Pro Western vs. International Communism (Classism) Anti-Western.

National Socialism: Defensive Strategy: Monopoly High Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public limits on and cooperation with Industry, Private commerce, Not autarkic but highly nationalist trade biases. With the purpose of policy the intergenerational family, and the suppression of the underclasses. Right of Exit. (Middle Class and Working Class Bias)

International Communism: Offensive Strategy: Monopoly Low Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public control of industry, public control of commerce, Not Autarkic but Expansionist. The purpose of policy the ‘individual’, and the expansion and ‘uplifting’ of the underclasses. (Laboring Class and Underclass Bias)

You know the ancient world origins of judaism, christianity, and islam are in the underclass revolution against the (white) aristocracy, by replacing tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Achilles (the wealthy farmers), with the tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Jews, Jesus, Muhammed (the poor pastoralists).

Why do you think that National Socialism (Nationalist Middle Class, Economic warfare) versus International Communism (Universalist Underclass Economic Warfare) is any different in our era than the battle between the high trust middle class agrarian traders, and the low trust lower class pastoralist laborers?

What is the difference between postmodernism and christianity? None. They’re both for the purpose of making false promises to the underclasses so that they use their numbers to destroy the aristocracy and create a dark age.


Difference Between Class(Hierarchy) and Category (List) – is just that.

—“My question concerns technical and scientific language rather than colloquial language: I would like to ask if there is any inclination in English to give the words class and category more or less different meanings or shades of meaning, or are they completely interchangeable in all kinds of use?”— From Elsewhere

You CLASSIFY things that exist (Science – referents that exist into a hierarchy) whose organization doesn’t change, and you CATEGORIZE ideas (Philosophy – referents that have meaning into a list) because they can change.

So classify(things, hierarchy or order, relatively invariant), vs. categorize(concepts, terms, that might be categorized differently in different contexts).

So just as english words have origins in german(commoners, farmers, craftsmen), french(nobility, ruling class, wealthy), Latin and Greek(scholarly or educated classes), English (like all european languages) uses specialized vocabulary for mathematical, philosophical, political/Legal, and scientific classes of vocabulary.

English is very ‘precise’ in its use of sets of terms the same way that german is precise in its precisely descriptive terms.

Now, do uneducated people conflate terms? All the time. In fact educated people do all the time as well. My favorite examples being the conflation of mathematic (axiomatic), philosophical(rational), and scientific (theoretic), terminology.

It’s not uncommon to hear someone make an argument with terms from math, philosophy, and science without having the faintest idea that the terms in each limit the possible properties of argument. For example, True in math and logic is binary(Deductive and Necessary). In philosophy it can be binary(non contradictory), in law it’s ternary(True false and undecidable), in and in science it’s multivalued with False being the only certainty, and truth being little more than an ordinality by triangulation).

If someone disagrees with you on usage you can correct them. 😉