Archive for September, 2005

Conspiracies or Networking?

I have real trouble getting my message across to most people because they carry two contradictory ideas around in their heads. The first is that success is a matter of “not WHAT you know but WHO you know.”

The other is that we are ruled by a group of Evil Geniuses who have a superhuman plot going.

So when I trace a major part of our problem down to college professors who think they are geniuses and who are being allowed to get away with what any group of human beings in their position would do, I get ignored.

When people start to reas David Duke’s Jewish Supremacism, the last thing they expect to see is a hundred thousand words of common sense and facts they can easily look up.

From the word go, the biggest burden David and I had to bear was the Conspiracy Nuts.

Yes, there are definitely political reasons David’s books are ignored. But there is a common sense reason, too. People assume Jewish Supremacism will be like The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the discription of a tiny group of master geniuses who direct every move all
the Jews on earth make.

They think of The Bilderberger Conspiracy, where a tiny group of dedicated geniuses already rule the world cloaked by secrecy.

The Conspiracy Nuts have made real revelations based on obvious facts and logic enormously difficult.

If you subscribe to a conspiracy theory you are half beaten already. It makes you feel brave to be taking on the group that runs the whole world. You whole theory is based onthe idea that that tiny group owns and commands the whole world through pure dedication and talent. True, they cheat, but they’re so good at it that they might as well be unbeatable geniuses.

They are great and you are small.

If you believe that, you are, as I say, half way to defeat already.

A giant conspiracy ruled by secret geniuses is not the way the world works.

They are evil, but they are not geniuses and there is nothing secret about them.

A person who gets wealth, power or fame almost always does it with more than just luck. But he has to have luck to get to the top, and lots of it. For every person who makes it to the top in corporations in New York there a dozen people in Minneapolis who are just as talented. They own a huge auto dealership in Minnesota, but the ladder they were climbing had a ceiling.

The man who gets to be head of a national television network doesn’t set out to to do that. He goes into the corporate structure and it becomes part of the group that runs that industry.

Charlie Sheen and Kirk Douglas and Jeff Bridges all produced sons were became major actors. Every one of them had talent, but the obvious fact is that their sons got to show it where other actors were ignored.

They didn’t ride into town on a bus trying to Make It In Hollywood. They knew what was what and who was who from their childhood.

No one will deny that Bill Gates is a genius.

Bill Gates built his fortune on creativeness and savvy, but he used the fact that his mother had enormous contacts in the field that he could use and that his father was already a very wealthy man.

This is a VERY practical matter when it comes to real world politics.

Nobody denies that George Burns had enormous talent. But he pointed out that he got his first break in show business back in the beginning of the twentieth century because the advertisement specified that the Jewish theater owner wanted a Jewish actor.

The great writer Ayn Rand got her big break when she was an extra on the movie lot in the 1930s. Cecil B. DeMille was riding in his chauffeur-driven car and saw her among all the hundreds of actors who would have given anything for a nod from him. He saw an obviously very Jewish girl and stopped and picked her up and talked to her.

Jews are the world’s best “networkers.” They promote each other, which is exactly what the Jewish religion and the Jewish culture has always taught them to do. They are always hungry to find JEWISH talent.

And Jews have a blood grudge against white gentiles which is very openly advocated in every synagogue. In fact, if white gentiles expressed the same “grudge” against Jews that Jews regularly express against gentiles and preach from their pulpits, it would be called “Hate.”

And everybody knows about that Jewish “grudge,” that endless preaching about the persecution of Jews by white gentiles.

Were it not for Political Correctness, this situation would be expressed in plain English:

Jewish culture teaches Jews to hate us. Jewish culture teaches Jews that their overriding goal is to rid the world of white gentiles.

If this is a Secret Jewish Conspiracy then it is the worst-hidden secret in history.

But Conspiracy Nuts have made this common sense look like something out of an insane asylum.

Anti-anti-semites are always frantically denying that liberals or Jews run Hollywood. Ben Stein said, “Of course Jews run Hollywood. You’re just now figuring that out?”

Ben Stein is a Jew and has spent decades as a leading conservative writer. He is NOT a NEO-conservative. He says leftism was wrong from the word go.

Ben Stein attacks the fact that liberals run Hollywood. But, as a Jew, he is proud of the fact that Jews run the place.

Those who write gaint books about giant conspiracies simply don’t understand the basics of how the world works.

Secret Conspiracies are unusual. And they are always very small.

As Ben Franklin said, “Three people can keep a secret, but only if two of them are dead.”

Networking, not secret conspiracy, is how the world works. If you are in any business and you are looking for someone at a high level or for creative work, you don’t put an ad in paper. You call up somebody else who is in your position and say, “I need somebody to run so and so or to do the writing for my new play. Who’s available?”

If this is a secret conpiracy, then the secret has been as poorly kept as that of the Jewish Conspiracy.

Liberals prefer liberals, Jews REALLY prefer Jews. A good American Communist in Hollywood
would not hire anybody BUT another Communist to do his writing or producing or directing for him. Like any other serious group, the Communists demanded that as a duty.

Ask any Communist and he will tell you he takes that for granted.

In the 1950s it appeared that all the talent was in New York City. That was because the people the guys in power in New York knew were in New York.

This is not rocket science.

It is also not a Secret Plot by Evil Geniuses.

I you try to sell the public a Secret Plot, you will have a good time.

But if you explain how the world works, they will not have to read a lot of books to see you are right.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 Comments

The Day I Didn’t Get Arrested

Every now and then I go out on my veranda, take out my false teeth and my glass eye, and sit there with my mayonnaise jar full of white lightening.

Pretty soon I begin my senile cackling over incidents in my past.

I want to recite one I may have told you before.

If you’ve heard this one already, try and stop me.

I was doing the press conference for an anti-busing march. I paid all my own expenses, as always, including the trip to the city where the march was being held, which was not next door. As always, I also joined in the march.

Brave policemen started to beat some of the WOMEN on the march. I walked up to one as if I was going to protest, then jumped under his truncheon and knocked him out cold.

They took me to the station and got a call. Somebody told them they were about to arrest the PUBLICITY MAN for the march for cold-cocking one of their cops who was beating up women.

The newspapers would never report one more incident of police violence against a right-wing demonstration. They often don’t mention such protests at all unless there is a press conference.

At the press conferences, you hand out press releases which means most of their writing has already been done for them. A major demonstration doesn’t matter. But a major protest AND a press conference cannot be completely ignored.

But I could have gotten headlines if they had arrested me that time.

The cops hated letting somebody go who had knocked out a cop. But I understand they got a call from the mayor himself, “Don’t you DARE arrest him! I don’t want any record of this!”

I, of course, would have liked nothing better than to be arrested, even though it might have cost me my Federal job. Fighting is on the few offenses a Federal employee can be fired for, much less hitting a cop.

So there I sat. The cops hated me and I kept grinning at them.

They did NOT offer me a ride home.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments

I Prefer My Human Sacrifices the Old Fashioned Way

In the Middle Ages, parents would routinely obtained the blessings of the Church by bringing a young child in to become a monk or a nun.

If they were truly blessed, their child would spend sixty to eighty years in hunger, exhaustion, self-loathing, physical self-torture, sleep starvation, and humiliation. That was what GOOD monasteries were for.

Usually, in the less perfect convents and monasteries, the child would learn homosexual sex early.

There is one authenticated case, and probably thousands more less well documented, where a boy was delivered to the monastery after his mother died delivering him. In his long life of eighty years he never saw a single female.

That was a GOOD monastery.

In the pagan world they would leave a newborn out in the open to die of exposure in a day or two. For some reason, that was better than actually KILLING the child.

There is an old American country saying, “A man should shoot his own dog.”

In other words, if your dog has to die, you make sure it is done right and painlessly by doing it yourself. To my country mind, if you want to kill a newborn, you should kill it yourself instead of leaving it in hours or days of uncomprehending terror and thirst in the cold and in the sun.

That is the Golden Rule talking. No churchman ever even mentioned that aspect of the matter. The suffering of a newborn doesn’t matter, or we wouldn’t have circumcised hundreds of millions of male babies.

The only thing that mattered to the Church was that the child was exposed and actually killed rather than spending a lifetime suffering. That would been a holy act.

A lot of the sacrifices in pagan days were voluntary. But the Church abhorred that kind of human sacrifice. Human sacrifices in monasteries were usually voluntary, and that makes all the difference.

The difference mystifies me. According to the Golden Rule, you shouldn’t do that to yourself.
The Church disapproved of other forms of suicide.

Political Correctness says that when the Temple Jews convicted Jesus and turned him over to the civil authorities, the Roman, they had no idea he would be executed.

A good conservative can swallow that line, but back on the real earth there were only two alternatives if the Temple Jews convicted a Jew of heresy, stoning by Jews or crucifixion by Romans.

Christianity abandoned the cross when it took over. Instead it used a very slow burning at the stake.

After days or weeks of torture, which the family had to pay for.

When a heretic was burned, the Inquisitors held a celebration feast.

The family paid for that, too.

If they were lucky. Many a person confessed and went to the stake because if they died heretics, everything the family had would be confiscated. They couldn’t pay for anything.

That sort of self-sacrifice was usually futile. The whole family of a heretic was suspected of heresy, so another member was usually arrested later. Eventually the Church would get the whole kaboodle anyway.

My favorite professor made himself a human sacrifice. He and a friend were in a boat when the lake was suddenly flooded and the boat overturned. He was to shore, but his friend couldn’t swim well, so he went back, though exhausted, to try to save him. He drowned trying to save his friend.

He was no Christian, but he died to do something for another person. He died according to the Golden Rule, as Christ did.

That is ONLY reason for human sacrifice, even if the person being sacrificed is you.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

A Great Northern Neighbor

I like it when people appreciate my humor. So I’m not COMplaining, I am EXplaining

Some time back I wrote a piece about how I wished America had a Great Northern Neighbor the way Mexico does. All of the commenters thought it was a joke.

It wasn’t.

Do the math.

Mexico is trying desperately to bring itself into the year 1900. Its Great Northern Neighbor is, technologically, wel over a century ahead of Mexico.

What if we had a Great Northern Neighbor who offered us the tecnolgy of 2100 AD today?

Mexicans seem to HATE that.

I wouldn’t.

If a Mexican can steal his way across the border of Mexico’s Great Northern Neighbor, he can increase his income TEN TIMES.

So if I were an entry-level American worker and I could steal across the porous borders of MY Great Northern Neighbor, my minimum wage would be forty dollars an hour!

If there is a threat, like Communism, my Great Northern Neighbor would protect me from it.

If there is a disaster here, my Great Northern Neighbor would pour in help beyond my wildest dreams.

Consider this: That Great Northern Neighbor would be a century ahead of us in medicine. Think of the diseases the average Mexican contends with today. Think of how it would be if they did not have American and white discoveries in medicine.

Then do the math.

What would OUR health be like if WE had Great Northern Neighbor which lived in the next century in medical advances?

Oh, goodness gracious, but this Great Northern Neighbor, who were Nordic as the snow compared to us, would LOOK DOWN on us!!!

Oh, the pain, the humiliation!

This Great Northern neighbor would EXPLOIT us by sending us industries that paid only five or six times the wages we could normally get.

Oh, the pain, the humiliation!

That’s what the average Mexican thinks about.

I am NOT the average Mexican.

I want a Great Northern neighbor.

I REALLY do.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

It Didn’t Go Wrong, It Just Went Ahead

In a recent article National Review talked about how liberals fought for righteous causes until about the middle 1960s. National review was saying that National Review was wrong to fight liberalism for the first ten years of the existence of that publication.

National Review says that National Review should not have been founded in 1955 as an opponent of glorious liberalism. National Review says that the people who founded National Review were on the wrong side.

In the 1950s all of us redneck segregationists were saying that integration, which is now The Holy Grail of conservatism, was wrong and would lead to disaster.

No respectable conservative today would dare even hint a suggestion that integration, the final solution to the race problem, which means the final solution to the white problem, is anything less than holy.

When a white country becomes dedicated to the proposition that the white race must go, it is a very sick society.

Everything we predicted for integration came true. But nobody who wants to be on the national media could even allow that fact to cross his mind if he wants to keep his job.

So everybody in the spokeman business agrees that integration was glorious, progressive, inarguable and holy.

How do they explain that every single disaster that us rednecks and most of the founders of National review predicted is now a fact of life?

They say the only thing they CAN say:

“All that progressivism was right and wonderful and us old reactionaries were just evil. We right until about 1970 Then all of a sudden, something went WRONG with liberalism.”

That is the doctrine of neoconservatism. Neoconservatives say were right when they were liberals and they are right now. National Review agrees.

I say liberalism did not GO wrong. It is obnvious to me that all those “progrssive ideas” went on to their natural conclusion.

Which is the natural conclusion I was predicting as a teenager.

Once the Holy Grail of Integration and the other ideas liberalism fought for were estalished by 1968, we were headed for the disasters we are experiencing right now.

Nothing suddenly “went wrong.” Progressive policy just went on to its natural conclusions, the ones we predicted, with uncanny accuracy, fifty years ago.

This realization is critical. This is the sine qua non (without which nothing) of a sane society.

If we are to recover, we must reject the insanity entirely and go back to basics. We must get “simplistic.”

If you are totally involved in today’s latest revelation about Iraq or Bush’s foot odor, you can miss this overriding, critical historic fact.

A lot of people are wrapped up in the realization that the official spokesmen for neoconservatives, the people National Review worships, are Jews.

That is true, and that is important in the present war for Israel we are fighting in Iraq. But in the long run, that is not the essense, the real meaning, of the neoconservatism today’s entire conservative establishment adheres to and worships.

I just wanted to remind of you of what, in the sweep of history, neoconservatism really means.

You may now return to frantically e-mailing each other about Iraq.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 Comments