Friday, April 28, 2017

Defining "Diversity"

On a discussion board around the corner, the word "diversity" is being argued about. Sort of. One commenter said, basically, that diversity is about things like cuisine and similar customs that can be easily incorporated into other cultures without a problem. I replied that it's better to state that diversity should be limited to such things, but that it's not. And it's a word that has to be defined whenever it's used, lest one be misunderstood. In practice, "diversity" has come to mean that third-world savages can move into the West and do whatever they damn please, rape just being one cultural heritage we're getting a taste of here and in Europe.

The fact is that our globalist/liberal/neocon masters want us to think diversity is about felafel and sushi and the occasional funny hat, so that maybe we won't notice that the raping and murdering and rioting is on the rise all over the place, very much in proportion to the number of third-world immigrants we welcome in. They'll do or say anything they can to obfuscate the actual results of such immigration.

Matt Bailey, as he always does, sizes up the situation succinctly and clearly:
Guest post by Matt Bailey:

A bunch of White, Western European Christians with slightly different languages but basically identical cultural values who perforce all assimilate into an American culture isn't really all that "diverse". We tend to think it is because of Eurocentrism, but now we are being asked to try REAL diversity, importing people who don't have Socrates, Aristotle, Christ, John Locke etc in their culture past. And so far, it looks like a nation with real diversity is precisely as efficient as a boat that oarsmen are trying to row in all different directions.

The problem is that Americans are ignorant enough to think/have been conditioned to think that diversity consists entirely of food/clothing/funny accents and that everyone is an American deep inside. They don't realize that there is very real global diversity of feeling/thinking on the propriety of raping un-escorted "immodestly dressed" females or blowing up ancient monuments because they are "graven images" etc. That's how you get people who think the Iraqis will welcome Western democracy or that France can still be France after taking in all of North Africa.

Another commenter replies:

Diversity is in things like whether you retire with your children, what your duties to your parents are (and whether you have a duty to your parents to get married to someone of the opposite sex and have children of your own). Diversity involves whether you work for someone else or whether your businesses are all tied to households.

But to the Left, these are the things to liberate everyone from, into the arms of corporations. That way diversity can be reduced to a choice of whether to eat Mexican food or Chinese food.

Diversity is also whether or not torturing and eating dogs or sexual relations with prepubescent boys is acceptable. If you don't want those things in your country you have to forbid importation of cultures that practice them.

Well yes, I imagine ordinary citizen globalist types do imagine that with the importation of Syrians they'll get Middle Eastern cuisine and music or something but *not* get the same barbarism that makes Syria into the kind of place that people want to flee. They are mistaken of course. As for globalist leaders, it's hard for me to believe they are that blind to the obvious thus one tends to assign to them more nefarious motives.

Even some relatively innocuous diversity can result in inefficiencies equivalent to oarsman trying to row a boat in different directions. Western handsaws cut on the pushstroke, Japanese saws on the pull stroke. No one is "right" or "wrong" here, but having to have a diverse carpentry shop could result in some zany sub-optimal results.
Quibcags: The first is illustrated by Kagura and her alien dog Sadaharu, of Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul"). The second by a character from some anime, I forget which, who is actually named "Mithra." The last is illustrated by characters from Nichijou (日常).

Jack Vance, Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna, and SJWs Everywhere

The first quibcag is a genuine quote from Jack Vance, and to emphasize that, I use an actual picture of Vance instead of my usual anime cutie-pie, though I'm sure Jack Vance himself would have been quite content with the latter. He said and wrote a lot of very good things, and I'll be doing more quibcags from them in the future.

Now, then, the second quibcag here is a quote from Gates of Vienna [link], which one would know if one had thoroughly read my last post. Now, the blogger who runs that site uses "Baron Bodissey" as a pseudonym [link].* So it is not a quote from Jack Vance. Although, and this is no doubt why the pseudonym was picked, it is something Jack Vance might very well have said. It fits in with the way he thinks.

In my opinion, Jack Vance is one of the greatest writers of his era. I've done several posts on him and his works, and you can find them by entering Jack Vance in "search this blog" at the top of the sidebar there on the right.

Well, to continue this story, I sent a link to my last post plus the quibcag to a discussion board devoted to Jack Vance [link]. I would have expected a board of Vance fans to be a little more sophisticated than most, but, alas, one commenter pounced on the quibcag and said something sarcastic about me "hating Muslims." Interesting, no? The quote takes pains not to judge the intrinsic nature of Muslims or Islam, but rather to stress that they are different from us. And when you read the blog post that goes with it, you'll find no more "hate" there, but just the undeniable assertion that Islam is based on assumptions that we do not accept, and that therefore it is not compatible with the West. But I was accused of "hate" anyway. What's a SJW doing on a Jack Vance discussion board. But that's a bit unfair. He may not be a SJW at all, but is simply reacting in a way he's been taught. Any criticism of the flavor of the month — in this case Muslims/Islam — is to be denounced as some kind of "hate." It's an impulse that goes, as they say, to the spine and back rather than to the brain.

But it gets better. On the same board, discussing Vance's
The Gray Prince, a member comments:

Like most of us here, in view of Mr. Vance's entire body of work, it's virtually impossible to imagine he was capable of racial prejudice in his personal life. That said, "The Gray Prince" does invoke some disturbing parallels with racist practices and attitudes, particularly those in the antebellum South.
Those of you who know Vance's work (and if you don't you have a treat waiting for you) would not expect knee-jerk liberalism out of him on race or class or anything else. His attitude is typified by the quote in the third quibcag. Now, I don't know what the commenter actually means by "it's virtually impossible to imagine he was capable of racial prejudice in his personal life," but I imagine he has some amorphous thing in mind about Vance being horrified at anything that violates the liberal narrative on the subject. And that's absurd, because any reading of Vance leads one to conclude that he's profoundly conservative (not neoconservative) and well aware of the reality and utility of traditional attitudes. To put it another way, when Vance deals with race, class, nationality, ethnicity, etc., in his writing, he handled the subjects realistically as opposed to ideologically. (A great many writers, especially science-fiction writers, do exactly the opposite, lacing their stories with hard-core politically-correct ideology at the expense of all realism. Much of their work is devoted to proving a point, which is a valid purpose, but which makes their writing less valuable than in might be.)

This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. This commenter has swallowed the SJW narrative whole, and can't imagine that a great writer like Vance could possibly be anything but a doctrinaire liberal,  because he's been told all his life that non-liberals are ignorant, evil, stupid, and barely, if at all, literate. In short, the poor fellow is a Peefer if he only knew it. To learn about Peefers you must read The Cadwal Chronicles.

But on the bright side, he is a fan of Vance, and if he reads him often enough and deeply enough, the Vancian sensibility is bound to rub off on him. One can't really read Wyst: Alastor 1716 without internalizing a healthy skepticism towards all schemes for attaining egalitarianism through socialism and government planning. And a reading of either The Cadwal Chronicles or The Gray Prince will cause one to rethink the historical eras of colonization and decolonization.

For a realistic, objective, warts-and-all description of the pure cussedness of humanity, it comes down to either Jack Vance or Shakespeare. No rainbows or unicorns there. Just dragons.
Quibcags: Number one is illustrated by a photo of Jack Vance, of course, and the second by a dancer I found on the net that suggests something Islamic. The third is illustrated by a picture I found by googling. And the last is illustrated by Amy, of Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet (翠星のガルガンティア Suisei no Garugantia), who has an anthropological air about her.

*Edward S. May is not related to one of the bloggers here, Rex F. May, BTW.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Baron Bodissey on Islam

Those opposed to me in the sociopolitical world of course say lots of stupid things. It's to be expected. What is frustrating, though, is when my sociopolitical allies say stupid things. It's often understandable that they say them, but they're stupid nonetheless. This applies to many issues, but for now, let's talk about Muslims and immigration. Far too many of my allies who want Muslim immigration stopped say that it's because Muslims are crazy and/or evil. This is just silly. It's war propaganda of the demonize-the-enemy sort. I'm opposed to virtually all Muslim immigration. But it's not because I think Muslims are crazy (they're not, any more than anybody else is) or that they're evil (ditto). I oppose such immigration because Muslims are incompatible. Their faith and culture (they go together) essentially demand that they actively oppose many of the principles that are basic underpinnings of Western Culture. There's nothing new about this. Islam has opposed Christianity and Christendom since its birth.

And yes, I'm well aware that there are variations in Islamic culture, and that they differ widely from one another, from the baccha bazi (بچه بازی,)[link] hijinks in Afghanistan to the (usually) secular Turks to this, that and the other thing from the Philippines to Chechnya to Morocco.

Baron Bodissey clarifies it all, from Gates of Vienna [link]:

The Logicians of Sacred Atrocity

Friday, April 21, 2017

Libertarian Nationalism — Rockwell on von Mises

In case you missed it, I call myself a "libertarian nationalist," instead of just "libertarian" because the SJWs (liberals) seem to have taken over the Libertarian Party and most public expressions of libertarianism. Since nationalism is the sine qua non of libertarianism, or, indeed, any meaningful degree of freedom, those who reject nationalism are opposed to liberty, whether they think deeply enough to realize it or not.

One libertarian who does not reject nationalism is Lew Rockwell, and here [link] he writes about Ludwig von Mises, another libertarian who also didn't reject it:

Mises on Open Borders

Joe Salerno’s brilliant and comprehensive article, “Mises on Nationalism, the Right to Self-Determination, and the Problem of Immigration” shows that Mises rejected the extreme anti-nationalist, open borders position.
As Salerno shows, Mises supported “liberal nationalism,” one of the most important political movements of the 19th century. For him, the choices of individuals were bedrock.   People belonging to a single language community did not want to be ruled by those who spoke a different language. They wanted to form nations in which they could govern themselves.
As Mises said, “[T]he nationality principle includes only the rejection of every overlordship; it demands self-determination, autonomy. Then, however, its content expands; not only freedom but also unity is the watchword. But the desire for national unity, too, is above all thoroughly peaceful. . . . [N]ationalism does not clash with cosmopolitanism, for the unified nation does not want discord with neighboring peoples, but peace and friendship.”
Why did people want self-rule? Otherwise, they would be dominated by those who spoke another language. They would be like colonial people ruled by an oppressive empire. Because the ruling class spoke another language, minority groups were doomed to be outsiders looking in.
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Illustrated by Nyotalia mascots for some of the more prominent nations from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Civic Nationalism v. Ethnic Nationalism

It's popular on the so-called right to say that we're all for immigration, as long as the immigration is legal, and the immigrants assimilate. This is technically true, sort of. Of course the immigration should be legal, but we need different laws than the ones we have now about what immigrants we will accept. And implicit in the statement is that immigrants are all able to assimilate if they want to. That is dead wrong.

This concept can be called "civic nationalism," and it sort of harks back to the Roman concept of "Roman citizen," wherein the Roman government granted citizenship for whatever reason to people who weren't ethnically Roman at all. That's one reason the place collapsed, of course.

Another concept is quite contrary to all this, and can be called "ethnic nationalism." That basically requires that if you want to be an American you need to have American ancestors, or at least be cousins to Americans, like Brits or Swedes or Frenchmen.

The first concept is erroneous and unstable, and the second is accurate and stable.

A guest post on the subject from KC:

There needs to be a balance between civic and ethnic nationalism, because pure civic nationalism is based on egalitarianism, which is a false god. Ethnic nationalism is hyper-collectivist and civic nationalism is hyper-individualistic.

While individualism is always preferable to collectivism, one must be careful not to overflow - hyper-individualism is, pretty much, the ultimate form of collectivism, where one views the human kind as one group. This is, as you can imagine, more destructive than any ethnic nationalistic idea.

Reality must never be ignored for the sake of feels, as bad as that may feel.

Human beings are not all the same, they differ greatly. There are differences that are very noticeable on individualistic scale and there are differences that can only be noticed on a scale where we are looking at groups of people (demographics) and not just individuals. A good analogy is high frequency noise vs. low frequency noise. Or a simpler one: if you stand right in front of a tree, you can't see the forest.

One can ignore reality, but one can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Facts like the one that over 50% of all violent crime in the US is committed by members of a certain group that constitutes about 12% of the population (and they are not Amish, I can tell you that much). Demographics matter.

Another thing that civic nationalists tend to ignore is genetics. Human behaviour is, to a significant degree, determined both by nature and nurture. Every government action is reflected in the gene pool of the next generation, because it changes selective pressures on different groups. For example, the welfare state creates domesticated humans which are unable to survive without the state. In essence, every government programme is a eugenics programme (or dysgenics, depending on your perspective).

We also must consider the phenomenon of regression to the mean - unless the evolutionary pressure is applied throughout many generations (say, 10 or more), the next generation reverts to previous characteristics. Even if you have extreme vetting for immigrants from different ethnic groups and they all pass the test of cultural compatibility perfectly, their children will regress to the mean and you will end up with unrest. The fact is, as much as you want it, you will never have a racially diverse nation without an increase in crime, poverty and unrest.

This is why a nation built on purely civic nationalistic ideas will, in a generation or two, end up with the cancer of communism. Ethnic nationalism prevents that, but does so very unfairly on the individualistic scale, so the balance of the two is necessary and very difficult to accomplish.
Quibcag: Illustrated by Sensei of  Denkigai no Hon'ya-san (デンキ街の本屋さん?, lit. "The Electric Town's Bookstore"), who has lots of feels.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

The Mother of all Quibcag Dumps

I may have used some of these before, but they're all good and worth repeating.

This one is aimed at my "pure" libertarian friends, who, when they figure out that the Non-Aggression Principle means that we have no right to prevent our country from being overrun and destroyed by third-world savages ready to rape, murder, and sign up for generous welfare benefits, do not drop the obviously idiotic principle but cling to it and drop reality instead. Of course it applies to all such idiots, not just libertarian idiots. It's illustrated by the kids from Detective Conan (Meitantei Conan  名探偵コナ). Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン).

This is a quote from the Anonymous Conservative [link] and is a splendid, succinct description of the liberal mentality, explaining both their eagerness to send our troops to die overseas and their intransigent advocacy of the importation of millions of third-world savages. Illustrated by Sumomo of Chobits (ちょびっツ Chobittsu), who is herself a robot of sorts. A cute one, though.


And here I have three versions of the same Enoch Powell quote. The one at the bottom, illustrated by characters from Little Witch Academia (リトルウィッチアカデミアRitoru Witchi Akademia), seems frivolous now, and the first one from Neon Genesis Evangelion (Japanese新世紀エヴァンゲリオン HepburnShin Seiki Evangerion?, literally "Gospel of a New Century") only slightly less so. I think the best is the middle one, and I found that illustration on Photobucket.

And a marvelous quote from that least feminist of women, Clare Boothe Luce. Some speculation about her here [link]. Illustration from Inuyasha (犬夜叉).

Found this one on the net. Can't hardly argue with it.

Matt Bailey says something apparently paradoxical but not really. An old Oscar Wilde trick. Illustration found on the net.

Sent in by a reader. Gotta love it!

I did this awhile ago, and just redid it, substituting "political correctness" for "socialism." Gogatsu of course meant self-proclaimed socialist parties and their ideology, but some people misinterpreted it to refer to something intrinsic in the theory of socialism, which it is not, of course. So I changed it to clarify matters. Illustrated by Hinagiku of Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!).

Chateau Heartiste is a sharp cookie. Read him here [link]. Illustrated by one of the girls from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) 

This is a quote by a commenter at somebody's blog. Steve Sailer's or somebody's. I forgot. Ilustration found on the net by Googling anime girl communist.

And another undeniable observation from another commenter. Illustrated by characters from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul").

And old Fred Reed, who, when he's right, is very, very right. Illustrated by some version of Azumanga Daioh (Japaneseあずまんが大王 HepburnAzumanga Daiō?, lit. "Great King Azumanga") characters.

And Karol Traven reminds us that the left used to love Russians, until they dropped communism. Communist girl I found on the net.

And another Traven quote on the nature of leftists. Illustrated by Akane of Ranma ½ (らんま½), who isn't acting ladylike here at all.

Another Traven quote, just kidding around. Illustration found on the net.

This is a gif on my blogroll, but it was suggested by Jay's TeeVee [link] that it be a quibcag, so now it is. Illustrated by the girls from Joshiraku (じょしらく).

And this quote explains why judges keep finding flaky liberal ideas in the Constitution. You know the illustration.

Matt Bailey offers this up as an argument against flaky (that word again) liberals who think Jesus wants them to import babies from Africa instead of having their own. Illustration from the net.

Monday, April 10, 2017

The Purpose of it all

The old joke is that we've been developing technology for millennia so that we could watch funny cat videos 24/7. But that's just a joke. Far more serious is the fact that we're using technology developed by civilized people for the benefit of relatively uncivilized people. Making their lives easier and more enjoyable without their having contributed to the creation of the technology. That's bad enough all by itself, but looked at internationally, it also encourages an outrageous population explosion among the least civilized of us. Which, is what the word "unsustainable" actually means, I point out to my liberal friends.

Karol Traven cynically comments.

Reminder: this is what America does. it uses unprecedented and unsustainable prosperity to import illegals to slaughter animals and fry their meat so that we can stuff it down African-Americans' throats until they're too fat to walk. America literally trains people in the cutting edge of math, science, finance and management to erect offshore platforms to suck up the carbonized remains of extinct species in order to provide the necessary fuel for the Hispanic/African-American cycle. I guess i never really grasped the goal of civilization before. why did Newton discover calculus? what are Maxwell's equations for? why did Mendeleev deduce the periodic properties of elements? the answer to these and to all questions: to stuff African-Americans with fried meat until they become crippled from overeating, then to provide them with heroic medical care until they gracelessly expire
Quibcag: the nurse with the heroic syringe I found on Photobucket.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Let's hope Trump is all talk on Syria

That's what I hope. It's interesting to me just how often Trump's knee-jerk reactions to event are similar or identical to mine. And my reaction to alleged events in Syria is that it's not our business and we should stay out of that particular bar, because there's always a fistfight going on there. And I can't help thinking that Trump feels the same way, but also sees that he has to pay lip service to the situation, expressing horror, etc., at the alleged atrocities. More on that in a minute. Now, I'm not indifferent to the plight of Arabs, Muslims, or, in particular, Syrians. I'm related to Syrians. They're much less of a mystery to me than they are to most people, evidently. And if these atrocities are real, I'd like to prevent them or make them unnecessary. If I had the power. That is, if I had the power to stop the atrocities without causing even worse atrocities. As the Bard said, there's the rub. Syrians are probably better off under Assad than they would be in a country without a central authority to keep the factions from murdering each other. And yes, Virginia, they have factions. Lots of factions.

Assad is one of those strongmen the Arab world and environs keep ending up putting in charge of countries. And it ends up that way because only a strongman can hold on to power most places there, because if he isn't tough enough to rule, there are many others on deck, and he ends up getting overthrown. Hell, sometimes we overthrow Arab leaders, though our favorite seems to be overthrowing strongmen who rule fairly stable countries. You know. Saddam Hussein, Gadhafi, Mubarak, and now the American* chicken hawks want to crush Assad and turn Syria into another basket case.

So I think Trump is reacting publicly and verbally to demonstrate the proper horror at the atrocity photos (see my last post for the atrocity stories we fell for and blundered into World War I as a result [link[). I think and hope hope hope that Trump knows damn well that intervention in Syria would be idiotic, and I also think he knows damn well that Assad or someone just like him is the best leader Syria could realistically hope to have at this point in history.

And I feel especially good that Scott Adams [link] pretty much agrees with me on this. He writes:

The Syrian Gas Attack Persuasion

According to the mainstream media – that has been wrong about almost everything for a solid 18 months in a row – the Syrian government allegedly bombed its own people with a nerve agent
The reason the Assad government would bomb its own people with a nerve agent right now is obvious. Syrian President Assad – who has been fighting for his life for several years, and is only lately feeling safer – suddenly decided to commit suicide-by-Trump. Because the best way to make that happen is to commit a war crime against your own people in exactly the way that would force President Trump to respond or else suffer humiliation at the hands of the mainstream media.
And how about those pictures coming in about the tragedy. Lots of visual imagery. Dead babies. It is almost as if someone designed this “tragedy” to be camera-ready for President Trump’s consumption. It pushed every one of his buttons. Hard. And right when things in Syria were heading in a positive direction.
  • Interesting timing.
  • Super-powerful visual persuasion designed for Trump in particular.
  • Suspiciously well-documented event for a place with no real press.
  • No motive for Assad to use gas to kill a few dozen people at the cost of his entire regime. It wouldn’t be a popular move with Putin either.
  • The type of attack no U.S. president can ignore and come away intact.
  • A setup that looks suspiciously similar to the false WMD stories that sparked the Iraq war.
I’m going to call bullshit on the gas attack. It’s too “on-the-nose,” as Hollywood script-writers sometimes say, meaning a little too perfect to be natural. This has the look of a manufactured event.
My guess is that President Trump knows this smells fishy, but he has to talk tough anyway. However, keep in mind that he has made a brand out of not discussing military options. He likes to keep people guessing. He reminded us of that again yesterday, in case we forgot.
So how does a Master Persuader respond to a fake war crime?
He does it with a fake response, if he’s smart. 
Watch now as the world tries to guess where Trump is moving military assets, and what he might do to respond. The longer he drags things out, the less power the story will have on the public. We’ll be wondering for weeks when those bombs will start hitting Damascus, and Trump will continue to remind us that he doesn’t talk about military options.
Then he waits for something bad to happen to Assad’s family, or his generals, in the normal course of chaos over there. When that happens on its own, the media will wonder if it was Trump sending a strong message to Assad in a measured way. Confirmation bias will do the rest.
There is also a non-zero chance that Putin just asked Assad to frame one of his less-effective Syrian generals for going rogue with chemical weapons, and executing him just to calm things down.
I don’t think we’ll ever know what’s going on over there. But I think we can rule out the idea that Assad decided to commit suicide-by-Trump.
For more Adams on the subject, thanks to Matt Bailey, go to:

A wonderful reason for our not intervening in Syria:
*American, though many hold dual citizenship.
Quibcag: Illustration is Ba'athist-chan, "enemy of ISIS." Read about her here:

Denazification was just practice

It's always been a popular exercise to try to determine which American President has been the worst. Lincoln usually is in the lead, because of the sublimely stupid and destructive civil war he presided over. FDR gets votes for his putting in place a lot of bureaucratic nightmares and for getting us involved in WWII. Lyndon Johnson, especially to my generation, is often picked as the worst because of the whole Great Society mess, which included the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Bill, and the 1965 Immigration Act, to name but a few.

But many of us vote for Woodrow Wilson as the worst, and if everything else he's ever done had been wonderful, his dragging us into World War I would be sufficient grounds to brand him as the worst President we've ever had. And it's not that we had huge American casualties. On the contrary, the Civil War and World War II were much worse. It's the effect our entry had on history. First, it led to a virtually unconditional surrender on Germany's part — never called that, but in effect that's what it amounted to. Without our participation in the war, chances are the defeat would have been less overwheming, or the war could even have ended in a stalemate. In either case, a new war twenty years later would have been less inevitable. It was the aftermath of the war that led to future disaster, including World War Two and the aftermath of that.

I've been saying for years that denazification was just practice. The bolshevik-style brainwashing of the German people after World War II was just a test. If they can do it to Germans, they can do it to us, and they've been doing it to us for decades now, and political correctness is just its latest incarnation. And we have our own campus Red Guard enforcing it all.

You know what today is the 100th anniversary of? This is from the Occidental Observer [link]:

The War to End All Peace

F. Roger Devlin and Stephen J. Ross

Today, 6 April 2017, marks the one hundredth anniversary of America’s entry into the First World War, probably the decisive factor in the eventual outcome of that war a year and a half later. Most schoolchildren, if they are taught anything at all about this event, hear it attributed to the German sinking of the Lusitania with American passengers aboard. Many do not know that the Lusitania was a British ship, that its sinking occurred nearly two years before our entry into the war, and that it was carrying a substantial amount of munitions, making it fair game under the laws of war. The existence of the munitions was only publicly acknowledged in 1982 after a salvage operation was announced; the British government finally admitted the truth, citing fear that explosives still inside the wreck might claim a few lives even yet.
Anti-German propaganda made much of the fact that the Lusitania was not a warship, but failed to mention that Britain had commonly disguised its warships to look like merchant ships and even to fly the flags of neutral nations. It was in response to such illegal practices that the German navy adopted a policy of treating any and all ships heading for Britain as potential enemy combatants. In the case of the Lusitania, the German Embassy in Washington even issued public warnings to potential travelers that if they sailed on any ships headed for Britain, they did so at their own risk.
A prominent representative of the New York German-American community also tried to take out ads in 50 major American newspapers, warning Americans of the risk of embarking on any transatlantic voyage to England. Only one paper, the New York Tribune, ran the warning—on the very morning the Lusitania sailed, too late for anyone to make new travel plans.
Also absent from the usual accounts of the Lusitania is the information that it was a response to the British blockade of the Central Powers, illegal under the laws of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as well as the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War. This blockade led to terrible shortages of food and medicine for German soldiers and civilians alike. The people were largely reduced to subsisting on turnips from 1916 onward, and by the end of the war, malnutrition had contributed to over half a million deaths. Unrestricted submarine warfare was a desperate effort to break through the blockade, and the attack upon the Lusitania was consistent with that announced policy.
These were not the only falsehoods that helped nudge America toward involvement in the bloodletting. The outbreak of war was accompanied by copious propaganda about fictitious German atrocities, such as bayoneting Belgian babies, raping nuns, and nailing Entente prisoners on barn doors. The present authors know of a recent case where a US Marine recruit heard the “bayonetting babies” story in boot camp just within the last few years!
Another atrocity story destined for a great future, was the supposed German Corpse Factory. This lurid tale claimed that the Germans used the corpses of their own war dead for industrial purposes such as producing tallow for candles. This entirely discredited story may have inspired the later holocaust chestnut involving soap made from murdered Jews.
The British government went so far as to appoint a commission to “investigate” the allegations; they dutifully reported back that the stories were true. When historians tried to examine the committee’s papers after the war, these were found to have disappeared. Surviving correspondence makes clear that members were in fact skeptical.
Of course, the greatest fabrication of the whole conflict was the claim that Germany was uniquely responsible for starting the war. The historical record shows that it was Great Britain—and in particular King Edward VII and his Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Gray—which invested years of diplomatic effort into the isolation and encirclement of Germany. They accomplished their purpose in 1907 when the Triple Entente was established: an alliance between Britain, France and Russia against Germany.
On the home front, America’s entry into the war was accompanied with an intimidation campaignSchmidt to Smith, or Müller to Miller). As a result, many of their descendants are unaware of their German heritage to this day.
against German-Americans, and all things German. Sauerkraut was renamed “Liberty Cabbage”; breeds of dog associated with Germany were at times reportedly killed, and it was not uncommon for German Americans to be assaulted. German language newspapers and periodicals were forced to shut down; German schools and social clubs getting forcibly closed; German churches switched to holding their services in English. Many German families in America even began changing their family names (i.e., from 
Ultimately, as we have seen, such lies employed by Britain, played an important role in whipping up popular support for America’s entry into the conflict. Most Americans, then as now, will support wars if they can be framed as a struggle between good and evil. The priggish Woodrow Wilson promised his countrymen they would be fighting variously the “war to end all war” and to “make the world safe for democracy”—making the venture very much the prototype for today’s so-called humanitarian interventions.
After the guns fell silent, Wilson insisted upon the inclusion of the “War Guilt” clause into the Versailles Treaty, stating that Germany “should, morally, pay for all war costs, but, because it could not possibly afford this, would be asked only to pay for civilian damages.”
Germany was dismembered and forced to pay crushing reparations, wrecking what was left of its economy and making the rise of a revanchiste German nationalist political movement virtually inevitable. But rather than adopt this natural direction of causation, many still prefer to project Hitler back onto the history of Imperial Germany.
The work of the Versailles Treaty was completed by the occupation which followed the Second World War. It is essential to understand that so-called denazification was not limited to eliminating vestiges of National Socialism in the strict sense, but sought to destroy any sense of German pride, identity, and healthy self-respect. And if this did not entirely succeed among those who actually remembered the war, it succeeded beyond its creators’ wildest dreams with those born later, who were happy to think of themselves as morally superior to their parents’ and grandparents’ generation.
Today’s Germany is a kind of Through the Looking Glass anti-German caricature, and it can come as no surprise to anyone who has lived there that the country is now taking the lead in opening up Europe to foreign invasion. They are doing this on the basis of what they were taught by those who defeated them in the two world wars. Denazification was the original form of political correctness, and German guilt was the prototype of today’s White guilt. There is a grim justice in the way such psychological warfare has turned on its original creators, the western allies, who never imagined they would fall victim to what they self-righteously unleashed on a defeated enemy.

Go here for the original, which has some very striking illustrations:
Quibcag: I found the first illustration on Twitter, here: The second is from Zerochan, and that last is from Pinterest.