Archive for November 28th, 2005

More Reply to Mark

I had a great deal to do with the fall of the Soviet Empire.

Why?

Let’s start with the fact that not on single highly-paid, degreed, awarded and honored Sovietologist had the slightest idea that the Soviet Union was about to go down in 1980. If that remark, which I have repeated, doe not hit home, not much more that I say will make sense to you.

I was in Pat Buchanan’s house when he and other Catholic theologues had returned from a visit to the USSR.

Pat said, “All the Soviets ask of us is that we take them SERIOUSLY.”

I kid you not. Those were his words.

And he was dead right.

But let us put ourselves back into 1980. The Soviet buildup and the Carter cutback had made the USSR the apparently militarily superior superpower.

In fact Pat was a major step ahead of the Sovietologists. He realized that the leaders of the Other Superpower were farid, above all, that others would think of them exactly as they thought of themselves.

Communism was SILLY.

Pat, like all theologues, had a half realization. He saw that anyone who wanted to dialogue with Soviet leaders had to recognize them as a real power, a real thing, not just a faith of western academics that, from the inside, looked ridiculous.

To return to the theme, an equation has TWO sides.

When I heard Pat say that, I felt like I did when, a few years before, Pat insisted that American troops at Normandy INTENTIONALLY died so that Europe would be open to third world immigration.

Every liberal and every official spokesman of The Greatest Generation has asid that repeatedly, but not in such blunt language. As a good theologue Pat recited the catechism perfectly.

But the Church didn’t want it put that bluntly.

Pat, as a good theologue, NEVER comes to logical conclusions. There is no OTHER side to the equation.

A good theologue is capable of saying, “We all deserve death,” by which he means that, because of Original Sin, all humans deserve eternal damnation. But he cannot come to the conclusion that every infant deserves to have hot coals rubbed into its eyes.

So if a theologue says, at the height of Soviet power, that all they ask is to be taken seriously, he is incapable of reaching the conclusion I had long since reached:

They are ridiculous and they know it.

Somewhere in the mass of words that is whitakeronline.org, I wrote a piece called “What Happened tot he Communist Conspiracy?” The first sentence was, “It went public.”

Robert Welch tried hard in the 1950s to convince people that the ruling establishment in Washington was pro-Soviet. In the 1960s they said so.

Welch’s problem was that he thought of the Communists as a Great Power, a serious group of people who really wanted to rule the world. He never looked at THEIR side of the equation.

The Soviets had all the power. The Soviets had out entire intellctual establishment on their side in a world that was divided between Communism and freedom.

How could the Reds lose?

All this left me totally puzzled. I knew they didn’t exist. They had guns and mines and barbed wire, I saw it. But there was nothing THERE.

Buchanan could say that the Greatest Generation fought to open Europe to the third world, but he could not conclude that they wanted the end of the white race. Which is exactly why what he said gave liberals the shivers.

Buchanan wrote an excelent book called “The Death of the West.” He went into all the statistics that prove that there was a program to rid the earth of whites.

He concluded that the death of the west was a decline of Catholic Church values.

Liberals can trust Pat, though they will never understand him. How can he not see what is obvious to anyone else? Why can he not understand the logical conclusions of what he says?

Because he is trained not to.

Look at the list of approved respectable cosneratives, the one show, thought the establishment denounced them, as allowed to speak for discontent with liberalism.

Buchanan, O’Reilly, Hannity, Chris Matthews, and you can add to the list. Every one of them is a perfect and trained theologue.

Falwell, Swaggert, Bakker, Bob Jones V, to the Northern Irish are added the Southern theologues.

This was titled a “Reply to Mark.”

I have yet to explain how it relates to the price of tea in China.

Mark, do you have any idea?

3 Comments

Reply to Mark

In response to my article “Future Physics,” Mark asks , “What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?”

As a former economics professor and one who has had a lot more than he wanted to with Communist countries, I am equipped to tell you about the price of tea in China.

The price of tea in China is extremely low. It is set at a level which would cause consumers in other countries to salivate.

The problem is that you cannot GET tea at that price. If you stand in line for hours, you may get to the store before the tiny amount of tea runs out.

In other words, one problem is the price of tea. The other side of the equation is whether you can GET any tea at that price.

If you are worried only about the price of tea in China, I assure you that it is very, very low.

That would be wonderful.

If an equation didn’t have TWO sides.

2 Comments

No, Joe, I Did not Insult YOU

The last article ended with “You make me sick.”

And it was a reply to Joe. Joe was trying to lay the blame on the media or the congress.

The critical sentence in the article was, “YOU in the sentences below refers to the electorate. ”

I do not want Joe to be excusing the electorate.

No, Joe, congress is not to blame. The media is not the cause of our troubles.

No one is causing our sweet, strong people to become warped.

Aryans had power and can take power again. But only if they are allowed no excuses.

No Comments

Reply to Joe

Joe has a thing about the congress being responsible.

What is the congress? Congress is a bunch of people who get reelected every two years.

There is omething we must get over: a lot of people see that congressmen keep getting reelected. They therefore think the congressman who keeps getting reelected is independent because “He’s got it made.”

Backwards.

YOU in the sentences below refers to the electorate. The congressman gets reelected because he has your formula down pat.

A permanent congressman is someone who could not care less what happened to YOU.

Why?

Because an equation has TWO SIDES. You vote for someone who is not too extreme. You vote for someone who gives you the line that convinces you and does not offend the Powers That Be.

A permanent congressman is someone who gives you the line that convinces you and does not offend the Powers That Be.

Everybody but you makes a LIVING at this.

They have got you figured.

The electorate is the ONLY responsible group. Anyone else can blame “the congress” or “the media” or “The Communist Conspiracy.”

I was part of the group that played you like a cheap musical instrument.

I just don’t think my people should allow themselves to be treated like that.

That’s OK for blacks. That’s OK for Orientals. That’s OK for Old Testament freaks and others whose whole lives consist of Obedience.

That is NOT OK for Aryans. That is even less OK for AMERICAN Aryans.

You make me sick.

4 Comments

Future Physics

Now that I know there are some other physics geeks, I mean students of science, in my audience, I want to go out on a limb.

PLEASE don’t write me this was terribly boring. I have spent many hours listening to people speak to each other in languages I did not understand. It was pure cruelty to me.

But this is WRITTEN.

That means you do NOT have to sit there through the whole endless crap I did.

Scan it. If you don’t like it, forget it.

PLEASE don’t write me about how boring it is. I will figure you are an idiot for not being able to scan it.

But I’ll try to be more diplomatic than that.

OK.

Quantum physics says — yes, I know the quibbles — that electrons come into and out of EXISTENCE on a random basis.

Before it collapses into a Black Hole matter weighs a million tons a teaspoonful.

What is a Black Hole? A Black Hole is gravity field which light cannot escape.

Why is it Black?

Because we can only see light.

OK. Let’s remember simple statistics. Once you get into the thousands, much less the millions, things even out. We live in a consistent universe.

Did you notice the word “WE?”

We experiment by what we observe. Do you understand the word “observe.?” It means from the observer’s point of view.

It is not just the observation, but the observer’s point of view that determines the equation.

An Equation has two sides.

We exist INSIDE the equation, not outside. Electrons do not come into EXISTENCE on a random basis. They come into the equation of which we are a product in a bell curve.

But when you get into the quadrillions, much less the googles squared, the bell curve is nothing.

The equation of which we are part has two sides, and we, the observer, are one of those.

Have I made myself sufficiently obscure?*

* From IMAS

3 Comments

Future Physics

Now that I know there are some other physics geeks, I mean students of science, in my audience, I want to go out on a limb.

PLEASE don’t write me this was terribly boring. I have spent many hours listening to people speak to each other in languages I did not understand. It was pure cruelty to me.

But this is WRITTEN.

That means you do NOT have to sit there through the whole endless crap I did.

Scan it. If you don’t like it, forget it.

PLEASE don’t write me about how bring it is. I will figure you are an idiot for not being able to scan it.

But I’ll try to be more diplomatic than that.

OK.

Quantum physics says — yes, I know the quibbles — that electrons come into and out of EXISTENCE on a random basis.

Before it collapses into a Black Hole matter weighs a million tons a teaspoonful.

What is a Black Hole? A Black Hole is gravity field which light cannot escape.

Why is it Black?

Because we can only see light.

OK. Let’s remember simple statistics. Once you get into the thousands, much less the millions, things even out. We live in a consistent universe.

Did you notice the word “WE?”

We experiment by what we observe. Do you understand the word “observe.?” It means from the observer’s point of view.

It is not just the observation, but the observer’s point of view that determines the equation.

An Equation has two sides.

We exist INSIDE the equation, not outside. Electrons do not come into EXISTENCE on a random basis. They come into the equation of which we are a product on a mathematical basis.

Have I made myself sufficiently obscure?

No Comments

It’s EUROPEAN!

One episode of Seinfeld showed him wearing a fur coat and carrying a purse. But, as the characters kept saying, it wasn’t a PURSE, it was a European wallet.

At the end of the show, someone snatched Jerry’s purse. Someone told the cop, “That guy snathced this guy’s purse.”

Seinfeld shouted shouted, “It’s not a purse, it’s EUROPEAN!”

Then the show ended when Seinfeld shouted, “OK, it’s a PURSE!” At that point the show ended with a freeze-fram of Sinefeld with his hands in the air, with his fur coat on.

Before AIDS hit the scene, we bigotted rednecks kept saying that the reason womens’ fashions were so ridiculous was that all the clothes designers for women were queer. This vicious accusation was simply quoted by the mainstream media to show how ridiculous the idea was that womens’ clothes designers were queer.

All they had to do was to put us bigots’ words in quotes: “Fromer KKK leader X says womens’ cloths designers are quote queer unquote.”

Which proved that they weren’t.

Then AIDS hit. Barbara Walters did a special bemoaning how AIDS had wiped out the designers of womens’ clothes, who were Great Artists?

“Why is it,” Barbara Walters continued, “That homosexuality gives a man such a perfect appreciation of colors and designs …” And so forth.

Knowing networking as I do, I would guess offhand that if you were NOT a homosexual you weren’t admitted into the mutual admiration club that is womens’ fashions.

Back to Seinfeld and his “European wallet.”

In the early 1970s there was an all-out effort to get men to carry purses, wear “bell-bottomed trousers” that were straight out of womens’ clothing store, and “Italian heels,” which were high-heeled boots that were also straight out of a womens’ store.

It wasn’t queer, it was European.

When I was on Capitol Hill, one of the male stars on M*A*S*H* showed up to testify. The girls rushed out to attend the hearing.

Liberal or conservative, they were sickened. “He had on high heels and he was carrying a PURSE!”

I don’t know if anyone else remembers the guys walking around in bell-bottoms with purses and high heels and blow-dryed hair.

It was the Latest Thing.

It was the sign of Progress.

And no one remembers it but me.

1 Comment

Actress

In response to my piece on “My Girl Friday” Elizabeth described a movie in which Ethel Barrymore, the queen of THE Barrymores, played a real bitch.

Ethel Barrymore alternated between roles which made her the soul of kindness and the sort of mean old woman you have nightmares about.

Which, in my naive definition, is the definition of the word “actress.”

Political Correctness has stricken the word “actress” from the English language. Try to find the word “actress” in any review or any discussion of the theater today. It is sexist.

So “actress” is now the “A” word. We all know what the “N” word is.

You know how they had to expand the area codes? Soon they will be expanding the alphabet to accommodate the letter words.

(Parenthetically, which is why this is in parentheses, I still chuckle at what joe o said:

(“A few years back, McDonalds would have a sign under the arches showing how many hamburgers they had served in their history. Perhaps each European nation should have a sign at each international airport indicating exactly how may jews that particular state believes were killed by the nazis.”)

But the idea of calling Marilyn Monroe an “actor” is simply beyond my reach.

She was, in fact, an excellent actress. But calling her something with hair on his chest is something I cannot do.

No Comments