Archive for January 13th, 2006

Why Gifted Children Have no Friends in Politics

Here is an exchange I just had on Stormfront:

Nordic 2005 said:

[QUOTE=Nordic2005]I also agree with David Duke that much more money needs to be spent on gifted children. The public schools, as I knew them, did virtually nothing to benefit those whose IQs were tested and known to be in the gifted to genius range.[/QUOTE]

MY REPLY:

Bill O’Reilly, whose entire “education” consists of a degree in education, has said repeatedly, I repeat, repeatedly, that no child is born with greater mental ability than any other child.

He says it’s just that ghetto children are brought up wrong.

Gifted children have no friends in politics. This is because of respectable conservatism.

Respectable conservatives only exist to provide an opposition to liberals. They only argue with what liberals say.

Liberals say that conservatives are not friends of the mentally disadvantaged. So conservatives try to prove they’re wrong by setting up NO CHild Left Behind and pushing tax credits to send black children to white private white schools.

This makes them feel really good. Nothing makes a respectable feel as good as outliberaling a liberal.

Sp respectable conservatives have no interest in gifted children because liberals have no interest in gifted children.

As long as our two-headed establishment, leftists and respectable conservatives, hold power, gifted children willl have no friends in politics.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments

Complexism

The greatest weapon in the arsenal of respectable conservatism is the word “Simplistic.”

When you point out that they are legitimizing liberals whose every proposal has always been disastrous, liberals who have lied regularly, by taking them seriously, The William Buckleys of the world will telll you you are being “simplistic.”

Respectable cosnervatives use the word “simplistic” in exactly the same way that a magic act uses the saying, “Things are not as they appear.”

There is plenty of disagreement between creationist and evolutionists. But on one item they are agree:

If most things were not as they appear, neither God nor evolution would have given us two eyes.

When I think of Communism I do not think of the endless theological criticisms that National Review dedicated to the deep errors in Communist thought.

When I think of Communism I see the Berlin Wall, I see the thousands of miles borders I crossed into Communist territory, every one of which had guards with orders to shoot anyone trying to get out and mine fields.

This was evil. This was wrong. And I did not need to quote Papal Encyclicals or the Old Testament to explain WHY this was wrong. I told NR staff many times that they should have a cover with another part of the walls of the Communist prison and the word “Why?” and nothing else, on most of their covers.

Guess what their reply was?

This would be Simplistic.

The errors that made the twentieth century such a disaster were none of them complicated. When Lenin was up there shouting that he and his fellow “intellectuals, none of whom had ever earned a living in the real world, should take over the whole world’s economy, they were not saying soomething that involved some sort of subtle theoretical error.

The very idea is infantile. But it took over a hundred million lives to overcome it.

When World War I ended up being a two-year slaughter in immovable trenches, the Allies declared that they were in The War to End All Wars. They also announced that they were fighting The War to Save Civilization.

There is no way to approach that sort of thing reasonably.

You either say, “That’s a load of crap!” or you wipe out a whole generation of young men.

There is such a thing as being wrong because you are too simplistic. But you are at least equally wrong when you say that something that is simple is actually complex.

Complexism killed hundreds of millions of people in the twentieth century. Making a simple point complex is a fundamental and classic error.

In fact, Western science is based on exactly that rule.

It is called Occam’s Razor.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments

Peter’s Makes a Big Point Quickly

In response to my comment,

RE: “I want to get your frontal lobe going and your guts capable of standing up against dictators. Once you do that, I want you to take it and run with it.”

Don says:

“Here I thought the purpose of the whole exercise was for us to complain about the latest Black crime or argue about what happened 75 years ago. Isn’t that enough, for Pete’s sake?”

Don demonstrates he has gotten my point:

If something is stupid, laugh at it and make it SOUND stupid.

Don is making a critical point. While we are here oding the work of thinking, most of the people in our movement are wildly talking about the Latest Issue.

But the Latest Scandal from Iraq doesn’t mean a damned thing if you don’t know its background.

As Don says, most of those people are screaming to each other, “We have a PROBLEM!”

Now let me add something I DO NOT WANT YOU TO FORGET:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with VENTING to your comrades. One of the great blessings of hte Internet is that we can finally not feel so alone and tell each other about the latest black outrage orthe latest betrayal of our people for the good of Israel.

When Don makes fun of this, he very carefully says , “Here I THOUGHT THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOLE EXERCISE was for us to complain about the latest Black crime or argue about what happened 75 years ago. ”

Venting is fine. But if all you do is vent you are not doing your part.

If someone comes on Stormfront or my blog and doesn’t NOTHING BUT vent, it is exactly like a person sitting in a psychiatrist’s office and saying nothing but, “Well, Doc, I just don’t think the way I feel I should.”

If your thinking and attitudes are just fine, you will not be sitting in that particular office. If the people you are talking to don’t understand there is a big problem they will not be in Bob’s Blog or on Stormfront.

Somebody who goes to a psychiatrist just to tell him he has a problem really does have a problem.

The same goes for Stormfront.
Comment by Don — 1/11/2006

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

Shari and the Weakest Generation

Shari and I had this exchange in comments:

Shari,

FOUR children? In a time when whites are not supposed to HAVE children?

And what is worse, four INTELLIGENT children!

I am every bit as ashamed of you as you are ashamed of yourself.

Comment by Bob — 1/12/2006 @ 7:39 pm | Edit This

That’s right, we weren’t. Feminist was getting into full swing. Then I had a minister say to me when the fourth was on the way ” what are you doing, having another baby, when so many lives here are rotting?” You don’t forget a comment like that even if you are over it

Comment by Shari — 1/12/2006 @ 9:21 pm | Edit This

As Peter said, it is amazing where your mind goes when a group exchanges ideas.

As Shari says, the women’s libbers were breathtakingly rude.

Women’s Liberation was one of a cluster of Liberation Movements from the 1960s. It got started at the beginning of the ’70s. It was headed up by Bella Abzug, a New York Jewish congresswoman(?).

Her hallmarks were being ugly and being rude.

In fact, rudeness was integral to allthe Liberation and Love Chilren Movements of that period. Here is what happened:

The group that calls itself the Greatest Generation had had its obedience training and it had learned to obey bullies. That was the purpose of basic training. The military ideal was to make youor men more afraid of you than they were of the enemy. So sergeants were given a bunch of teenagers reaised in decent families and ordered to make groveling dogfaces of them.

As the pre-World War II generation died on, New York City leftists made a great discovery. If a Jew or a black screamed at a member of hte Greatest Generation he scarfed them and get anything he wanted.

Today, if you look at clips of the Jerry Rubins and the other hippie leaders in their heyday, you will wonder why nobody punched them inthe mouth.

As a matter of fact, I let one of those spoiled brats go before me through the door and he kept that nasty, spoiled brat look on his face instead of thanking me.

So I kicked him in the butt.

That is what previous Americans would have done, but not the Weakest Generation.

With people who have been trained in cowardice, screaming and bullying is the perfect strategy, and blacks and Jews in New York were in their glory.

So here was this woman talking to Shari about Shari’s having children. It never occurrred to her that if it was anybody’s business, it was not hers. But she was a part of a movement which had Bella Abzug as its icon. Rudeness didn’t work on Shari, but it was magic in dealing with the Weakest Generation.

You see how all that I say tends to tie together?

Peter said an idea of mine really applied to his personal and family life. That is the sort of thinking I want you to do. I want you to read over what I say and what commenters say and let it lead you.

We will find our own sexual hangups, the most personal of things, trace right back to Zoroastrianism, not Christianity.

Shari has read my discussions of The Weakest Generation, but I’ll bet it never occurred to her that that was directly relevant to the gross insult she herself received, an insult she will never forget, decades after the war ended.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments