Archive for June, 2006

LibAnon

Before I got this comment, I answered it in the latest pieces.

Joe is tough guy who has nothing in his whole life to apologize for. If you live in that world, I have nothing to tell you. Joe owes nobody anything, he has no loyalties, he is above it all. If you have Joe’s halo shining over your head, you sure as hell don’t need me.

I have been in on a lot of kills, but if you have no loyalties, none of them would mean anything to you. If you are above mere loyalties, you would have been wiser to have remained neutral through my whole fight.

The why is in you.

As far as I can see, the Truly Wise and Practical Man would never get out of bed.

So let me ask you, WHY would a Wise and Practical Man get out of bed?

NOT SPAM
“Your test is how much intellectual satisfaction you get from being here.”
Recently, there was an interesting pair of comments on one of your posts. One of the comments was mine, and the other one was Joe Rorke’s. What was interesting wasn’t the comments themselves, but the pairing, because Joe and I had almost exactly opposite reactions to what you said.
My comment was basically an expression of joy. I said, in essence, “Thank God! At last I have found a real graduate seminar! An intellectual feast! There’s intelligent life on this planet after all!” Joe’s was basically an expression of disgust. He said, in essence, “Bob’s Blog is a graduate seminar. Great. We sit around talking about how to talk. But are we ever going to DO anything?”
So taking, for the moment, Joe’s side instead of my own, and in Simmons’s spirit, I also ask “Why?” Why, indeed, are we talking about silly things like how to persuade approximately 200 million white Americans one by one? Why, especially given Bob’s experience, are we not talking instead about how to bring the illegal establishment of the PC religion in our educational system to the attention of Capitol Hill? Or how to get it before the Supreme Court? Or at least how to politically organize, like that “intelligent design” outfit in Seattle did, to the point that an American president has to say about PC, like Bush recently did about Darwinism, that “both sides should be properly taught”?

Comment by LibAnon

9 Comments

Dave Hits the Spot

Dave writes:

Our colored enemies do not possess an argument; they possess permanently fixed inferiority.

And our white enemies do not possess an argument for they must answer to treason.

Let it be known that our injuries shall be requited wound for wound. And confessions shall be gained and payments made in humiliation

Nothing less than everything shall suffice for Bob’s mantra is forbearance to a reckoning that is owed and what is owed shall be paid.

Our enemies do not have a right to argument. For these 65 years they have said enough and they have had their say and by God we shall have ours.

Comment by Dave

MY REPLY:

YES! YES! YES!

Our white enemies must CONFESS to treason.

“Let it be known that our injuries shall be requited wound for wound. And confessions shall be gained and payments made in humiliation.”

God bless you, man!

I have lived a life of humiliation and you have promise to make them PAY for it. I remember hearing about a Progressive teaacher in Elizabethton, NC who FORCED a white high female white studnet to dance with a black. She was crying but no one came to her defense. I would have knocked the son of a bitch cold.

Like the Jews, FORGET NOTHING.

Dave is my hero, because he is the hero of our race who understandds everything.

Dave, you will be in on the kill. But you have pledged to me that you will no more forgive evil than the New Englanders did when the South was defeated, you will not forgive any more than the Jews forgave Germany. That is the opposite of what people like to say. But that is the only thing that works.

When a Southerner wanted anything after the Civil War he had to sign ANOTHER pledge of treason to the Confederacy, another pledge of loyalty to the Union. We ended up poverty stricken from the tariffs and the discriminatory rail rates for a century. Even our h istory has been stolen.

Why? Because you do not win on the day of surrender. You win when you grind it into their souls. They have wealth, take it. They have pride. Take it away from them for the humiliation they gave your comrades every day in every possible way.

As I always said, “There is nothing that is too bad to happen to an integrationist.”

Make their obvious and silly even a hot iron no one will ever dare touch again. Turn treason from today’s morality to tomorrow’s terror.

Thank you, Dave. You cannot imagine what you just did for me.

No Comments

After the Kill

I ended the last piece on this note, “Suck your thumb or be in on the kill.”

I have already been in on several kills. As I said, one of the joys of my life was standing onthe bridge across the Moscow River, looking back at the Kremilin after the Soviets had fallen, and giving it the bird:

“We DESTROYED you evil, silly bastards!”

Now, of course, everybody will tell me that wasn’t a victory. I won’t try to list all the “real problem” crap I get for saying that. The same is true for the fact that no one in academia today even bothers to object when Rushton and Jensen publish an article about how race is family. A few people I have been working with for decades wrote me about that great breakthrough, but only they know it.

All the effort I have spent fighting for these victories is put forward by those who insist they were not victories. Liberals and respectable conservatives will insist that they always believed that. Historians will write so that they always believed that. Most of the members of Stormfront will put forward endless effort to prove that those were not victories, and all is lost.

Meanwhile, those of us who won those victories while the John Birch Society frothed and the liberals shrugged live on the Panet Earth.

You know this fact: When taking the side of a hated truth is all cost and no benefit, only two types of people will stand on that side:

1) Those who are smart enough and experienced enough to see through it all, PLUS having the raw courage and Nordic dedication to truth for its own sake to take the world on, decade after decade

AND:

2) Nut cases.

The nut cases have no sense of reality. No matter what happens, they will still be nut cases. Their imaginary reality will be there until they die.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, no war is ever completely won. We live ina world where all the meidda are still controlled by the enemy. So we have an obvious alliance here betweenthe crackpots on our side and the media. Both the media nad the “All is lost!” crackpots devote most of their time to proving that those of us who spend our lives in the thick of it never won a single victory.

Both agree that there is not even a struggle going on. The media say the Liberal Idealists always were for whatever won, and the “All is Lost!” crackpots say that the Evil Left foresaw every move and it all fits into the Pattern. I have been living in this nuthouse called hte Political Right for over fifty years. I have learned to tune out the screams of the innmates.

For God’s sake, if you can’t see we have done anything, then go SURRENDER and get behind me, Satan! I am sick of listening to you shriek every time I try to tell people how the battle should be fought.

Go away! Cry on somebody else’s shoulder. I am sick of you beyond the imagination of anyoone who has not listened to you for half a century.

I want to talk to sane people about how this war can be fought and won.

You can whine anywhere. You whiners nad the media can go anywhere else in this big, wide world. Us sane people only ask for a tiny space in which we can continue winning the victories you say are impossible.

Maybe I can break that down into language even you can understand:

GO AWAY!

2 Comments

After the Kill

I ended the last piece on this note:

I have already been in on several kills. As I said, one of the joys of my life was standing onthe bridge across the Moscow River, looking back at the Kremilin after the Soviets had fallen, and giving it the bird:

“We DESTROYED you evil, silly bastards!”

Now, of course, everybody will tell me that wasn’t a victory. I won’t try to list all the “real problem” crap I get for saying that. The same is true for the fact that no one in academia today even bothers to object when Rushton and Jensen publish an article about how race is family. A few people I have been working with for decades wrote me about that great breakthrough, but only they know it.

All the effort I have spent fighting for these victories is put forward by those who insist they were not victories. Liberals and respectable conservatives will insist that they always believed that. Historians will write so that they always believed that. Most of the members of Stormfront will put forward endless effort to prove that those were not victories, and all is lost.

Meanwhile, those of us who won those victories while the John Birch Society frothed and the liberals shrugged live on the Panet Earth.

You know this fact: When taking the side of a hated truth is all cost and no benefit, only two types of people will stand on that side:

1) Those who are smart enough and experienced enough to see through it all, PLUS having the raw courage and Nordic dedication to truth for its own sake to take the world on, decade after decade

AND:

2) Nut cases.

The nut cases have no sense of reality. No matter what happens, they will still be nut cases. Their imaginary reality will be there until they die.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, no war is ever completely won. We live ina world where all the meidda are still controlled by the enemy. So we have an obvious alliance here betweenthe crackpots on our side and the media. Both the media nad the “All is lost!” crackpots devote most of their time to proving that those of us who spend our lives in the thick of it never won a single victory.

Both agree that there is not even a struggle going on. The media say the Liberal Idealists always were for whatever won, and the “All is Lost!” crackpots say that the Evil Left foresaw every move and it all fits into the Pattern. I have been living in this nuthouse called hte Political Right for over fifty years. I have learned to tune out the screams of the innmates.

For God’s sake, if you can’t see we have done anything, then go SURRENDER and get behind me, Satan! I am sick of listening to you shriek every time I try to tell people how the battle should be fought.

Go away! Cry on somebody else’s shoulder. I am sick of you beyond the imagination of anyoone who has not listened to you for half a century.

I want to talk to sane people about how this war can be fought and won.

You can whine anywhere. You whiners nad the media can go anywhere else in this big, wide world. Us sane people only ask for a tiny space in which we can continue winning the victories you say are impossible.

Maybe I can break that down into language even you can understand:

GO AWAY!

No Comments

Soviet Silly

When I got to the University of Virginia grad school of economics, everybody agreed that the Soviet Union was making huge strides toward overtaking the United States in production. I took the course in Soviet Economis taught by the one heretic on this subject, Warren Nutter. He became one of Barry Goldwater’s two economic advisors for the 1964 campaign, along with Milton Friedman. He was not one of the two Nobel Laureates who were in my faculty.

I say all this, once again, to point out why the man in line to become dean repeated publically that he planned “to clean out that nest of right-wingers in the Economics Department.” He was typical of the Free Speech Left in the 1960s. When he took over three years later and fired the faculty for its views not one liberal offered a breath of objection anywhere.

I point out the level of Nutter and others because there was no question of competence here. It was completely a matter of politics and nobody doubted it. In fact, when I went out into the job market, everybody knew that the University was one of the top economics departments in the world. If this had happened to a leftist, we would still be hearing about it. But it NEVER happened to a leftist.

Nutter went to the Soviet Union a lot. He saw the poverty there. He saw what Solzheitsyn saw, that the standard of living kept going DOWN, not UP. On the other side, tanged against him, was the entire profession of economics. Not only that, alined with the entire economics community was the Central Intellligence Agency. Like everybody else, the CIA insisted that the Soviet Union was hard on its people and crushed freedom, but it was making huge gains.

Nutter kept making hte argument they were being silly. But Nutter’s problem, like mine, was that the explanation for the mistake was so obvious a child could see it, but a bureaucracy couldn’t. Here it is:

If you and dozen other people set to build an automobile from the iron ore up, it will take you maybe a million hours of labor time. You have to learn everything. You have to learn every field of knowledge. You have to build every piece of equipment for transforming the metal, rubber, glass and everything else into forms usable in a car.

The Soviet Union had no price system. They measured everything in terms of Marxist economics. Marxist economics says that the value of every good is the “objective labor time” invested in it. Nutter used to explain to us how the Soviet Union tried to produce glass. The planners would order a factory to produce so many square inches. The result was glass that was so thin it literally felt apart when it was lifted. When they tried tonnage, it was too thick. Then they tried more and more specifications.

It is simple fact of life that the price system does all that. You know what glass is because if you produce glass people can’t use you can’t sell it. Doing without a price system is like doing without eyesight. You suddenly realize that trying to use hearing and touch have limitations you never considered before.

So for Communists, making glass is a problem but making a CAR is a nightmare. That’s what happened to the Yugo. They still were not used to the market. What one could get away with under Communism was dead on arrival in the free market.

So the first attempts at making automobiles were hilarious to Nutter, but not to the guys responsible. Stalin lacked a sense of humor about it. They got parts that woldn’t fit together when they tried to ASSEMBLE the car.

OK, they finally got a few cars. But the amount of labor time expended on each car, even ignoring the false starts, was astronomical. So how did they measure their car output? In terms of money paid for them?

Not bloody likely. The only market for Soviet cars was literally the captive market. NOBODY outside the USSR, Communists included, wanted a Soviet car. So, to repeat, how do you measure the car output?

In objective labor time. So a “car,” in Soviet terms, cost ten thousand hours or more in objective labor time. A car in the United States cost a member of the United Auto Workers maybe two hundred hours of his labor time, and most of hte money didn’t go to him. So as the Soviets, by copying American cars as best they could by translating them into quotas, made models that could not be sold outside the USSR in increasing numbers, each car went onthe Soviet production index as another ten thousand hours of objective labor time.

The Soviet Union has seventy seasons of bad weather throughout the Soviet period. A leftist or a CIA economist would look you straight inthe eye and tell you that. So a bushel of wheat took a hell of a lot more Objective Labor Time to produce on a Soviet Coolective or a State Farm than it had even with serfdom. This fact alone doubled the value of wheat produced inthe Soviet Union in terms of Soviet economics.

No one has EVER noticed this, but Soviet Russia was the ONLY white country in all of history that went through seventy yeras without producing one single new good that anybody outside the USSR was willing to buy. The biggest white NATION on earth! That is a feat only a bucnh of “intellectuals” could accomplish.

But in the 1960s, when the CIA was desperate to prove the Soviet threat and was full of pro-Soviets, when a professor not only could, but DID get fired for challenging this CIA-Soviet line, all this obvious stuff was heresy.

In those days, I would have sworn that exposure ofhte myth of Communist efficiency simply could never be overcome, b ut I stood solidly with the truth even when I was in intelligence.

At the same time, I would have sworn that the myth that was in absolute control, “Modern anthropology has proven that all races are equal in inhertied abilities” would NEVER be unseated. But I have seen it totally destroyed.

The statement now is that race doesn’t exist. But they use that as a cover for admitting that “groups” have huge heritable differences. They just aren’t races. They are east and went Africans and so forth. But Jensen and Rushton publish major articles now, and nobody even tries to shout them down inside academia.

By the time the USSR collapsed, it was generally admitted that the whole system was silly. Not incorrect, silly.

Inside the USSR, when Reagan called the Soviet Union an the Evil Empire, it made a huge difference. People living under it only kept a shred of respect for it because broadcasts from the West said it made some kind of sense. Harvard was a major factor in keeping hte Communist system alive. To CALL it evil, to CALL it silly, was destructive. The liberal howls at those adjectives should give you some idea that they were hitting home.

Nobody ever heard of our constant fight to break the “modern anthropologists have proven that all races are equal in inhertied characteristics” line. Liberals and liberatrians are still trying to prove that the Soviet Union broke during Reagan’s term in office because of sunspot activity or Yeltsin’s treason to the Communist cause. When the Communist kidnapping of Gorbeczev was under way, every libral I heard talking about it blamed the crackdown on Yeltsin.

That was all tossed into the Memory Hole three days later.

People need to hear that what is going on is as evil and as sillly as they think it is. That brings systems down.

An opposition that respects silliness and evil is the best friend that silliness and evil can ever have.

When you, alone, ask somebody “Why?” about the Big Lie of today, you, alone, are striking a blow that person will never forget. I have thought it was hopeless many, many times. But today no one can even understand WHY I thought it was hopeless. It’s so obvious now, you see. And when we had won the battle, some Ann Coulter or Bill Rusher or some neo repeated it and the revolution started there, you see.

There is no problem if you join the mob and give the wrong people CREDIT. I don’t mind that. But if you do that, you also have totally warped idea of HISTORY. You think you have a right to whine abouthow hopeless everything is, the way I did. I didn’t know I was MAKING history. But I didn’t discrouage my comrades by whining about how hopeless the whole thing was. What I truly did not realize was the power of subversion when something is silly and evil and no one says so.

You can make history. But you must ignore all the history books and all the official commentary. If you hammer away it spreads. The offical commentators are the LAST to use what you say. Almost every person you talk to, if you hit what we all know is true, will remember it. It gets around.

“If I had a hammer…”

I have a hammer. The Soviet Union did not survive the fax and the Internet. Academia today is on its way to being a laughingstock no one could have imagined a generation ago.

Suck your thumb or be in on the kill.

No Comments

I Hate Math!

I hate math, but I had to be good at the most advanced kind of calculus and other areas I cannot even remember the name of now. Someone who loves math for its own sake is a puzzle-solver. I am NOT a puzzle-solver. I am entirely creative. I figure out questions to ask and their answers.

I finally did get by in math when I realized what we were trying to find out. Which leads us back to the same old problem: math professors are provincials. So a professor goes to the blackboard and starts telling us that, if we assume that b is so and so then a is so and so, and then he proceeds to make all this into an equation. I could learn it if he began with what the point of all this was:

“This year we will produce ten million brick for sale. How many will we produce next year? Let’s list the things we have to take into account: population increase, increase or decrease in per capita income, preference for brick houses, and so on and on.”

“We are going to have to put this in short order. We can’t discuss each ofhtese factors separately because some of them are interrelated.

Here is hte mathematical term for those are interrelated (I don’t have that little curlecue on this computer).

So instead of saying population increase, increase or decrease in per capita income, preference for brick houses, and so on and on” we can get them all in one place if we iuse a code-letter for each of them, that is we say next year’s brick production is bp and we say that bp is related to population change, percapita income change which we put in as pc, and so on…”

To a new mathematics student, this could get very interesting. He is showing how to get all that crap on one page.

Once he begins, he begins to show, in concree (excuse the pun) terms how this language works. He would show how rodays percapita income is related to tomorrow’s population in ways it would take a book to spell out, and then show how the same thing can be said onthe same page in mathspeak.

I don’t know about anyone else, b ut I conly got higher math when I finally realized the question was, “What is this moron trying to SAY?”

My doctor brother IS a puzzle-solver. He enjoys this stuff. He is probably in the one percent of readers of medical journals who actually check the statitistics and the graphs and the equations in an article with the conclusions drawn from them. In every journal he says, there is at least one case where the statistics or the equations were misstated in the text. He has long since ceased to write authors or editors about this. They don’t like math either.

The point is, math is NOT a substitute for routine logic, it is a way of putting complicated logic into usable form, or it is pointless. In fact, math is used by most “intelletuals” in EXACTLY teh same way untranslated French was used until recently, or Latin was used in the Middle Ages. It is a “Keep Out” sign for those who aren’t getting paid to do this:

“No Amateurs Allowed.”

If I had a board full of advanced equations, I could tell you, in English, what it said. I wonder how many people who use equations in journals could do that?

1 Comment

Simmons

Simmons just came up with a good idea:

NOT SPAM If I could add something to your repetition ideas. I would like to add the word “Why”
to our vocabulary. We should always be asking “why” of PC, and we should always be challenging
the authority of PC amongst our target audience, hence the word “why.”

Comment by Simmons

As with all seminars, most of the good participants do some “practical” outside the classroom. In our case, a large part ofhtat consists of the work we are preparing for here: Spreading the word, talking to people.

Let’s develope Sommons’s concept.

Ideally someone would say that people are equal or at least, people have rights. I would love to hear how they react if you were to say, “Why is that?”

Now, you are not necessairily trying to MAKE a point. You just want to find out what you can by making THEM think. So don’t get off the point. WHY did he say that? What reason does he have to believe that people are equal, or even that people have rights?

I want somebody besides me and you to have to some thinking about basics. If he has some rational answer, you don’t have to press him. But if yu do this a number of times, you may get some interesting results. In any case, the person you ask this of will never forget that somebody actually ASKED him that.

Don’t make it a fight, just drraw him out. DO NOT LET HIM GET OFF THE POINT.

Secondly, remember that HE said it so HE should give you some reason for it. I have had a lot of enjoyable conversations this way, but I can’t give a blow-by-blow to handle it the way I can a number of other things. This would take practice. I don’t KNOW what you will get out of it.

But, as Simmons says, it’s a hell of an exercise nobody ever forgets. NOBODY asks them “Why?” in Ameriuca any more than they would in Soviet Russia.

DON’T let them throw the argument back to you:

“How can you have a civilized society if you DON’t bellive human beings have rights?”

“YOU said people have rights. Now you say it isn’t true, but a civilized society requires it. So you are ot longer sayingit is true, you are saying I HAVE to believe it. That’s not hte same thing.”

Or:

“Every social animal besides man has a regular pecking order. Why must MEN be equal?”

“No social animal allows outsiders ANY rights. Why should we?”

Remember we are doing real graduate work here. In our day, “Graduate work is exactly the same as undergraduate work. Graduate and undergraduate students sit inthe same class most ofhte time, and the grads just do more than the undergrads and have to make better grades. It’s the same.

But there was a time when Karl Marx got his Doctor of Philosophy degree in one week, because all he had to do was comeup with a thesis and defend it. As a REAL graduate student,w hat you must do here is some up with your own approach and report back.

Today, just as undergraduates and graduats are the same thing, no one says any more htat a professor is LEADINF a seminar. I think any college student or professor would look at you funny if yu used that expression. In any case, he would conisder it quaint.

Today, a prpofessor TEACHES a seminar. After you have learned what he has to say and done the prescroibed reading, you sdpend a year doing two papers that are called theses. The trick is do something that goes right along with “the literature,” what is being said in academia right now, and fit something uncontroversial into it.

Then you become aprofessor and you spread the exact same word you were given to captive students. You do NOT think outside the bxo. Which has led to what we all expect. Therehas not been one single interesting idea coming out of the social sciences for a century. Only a ffew full professors who have tenure and do not look forward to any grants or any promotiojn ever come up with anything that is interesting or surprising.

So what THEY call a seminar fits into this stagnant bureaucracy.

So I send y9u out to do your own use of Simmons’s idea. I give you a couple of pointers like staying on the point and never letting THEM use YOU as an excuse for saying what they said. I recommend you try to make it an interesting conversation rather than a battle, which is what we usually do.

From there on, it’s your baby. I want you to report to me your sucesses and failures. This is the place to discuss how to get around the roadblocks.

I have a lot of good stuff you need. That is why I am LEADING this seminar. I have some good stuff to ADD to Simmons’s idea, and I am a good judge of his idea’s potential. But your test comes out there. Your test is how much intellectual satisfaction you get from being here. That is NOT undergraduate work.

3 Comments

Motivation, Motivation, MOTIVATION!

I was looking at Budarick’s piece again, which is quoted below. Like Budarick, you will have to be satisfied with my having your complete comments here and my demanding that people read them. I have read Budarick’s over and over. I have read every comment you send more than once. But what I cannot do is answer every point you make.

Every point you make send my mind into a dozen areas. Here is a good example:

Budarick says,

“I am wrong not because people tell me, though often they DO help me see it – even when they have other motives [being themselves always right is one of them].”

This is a leading comment for something else, but I must devote a whole piece here to what hit me from his full understanding of that word “motive.”

Some time back I wrote a piece called, “Repetition, Repetition, REPETITION!”

So if I am coing up and someone says, “Oh, my God! Here’s Whitaker. He’s going to repeat that Bob’s Mantra again:

” Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

As Budarick says, the average person wants desperately not to be wrong, and I don’t really take it that seriously.

Here is another thing the average person cannot bear. Someone saying that he is a BORE, that he is going to repeat the same thing AGAIN. And they repeat it to make me look bad, to make me look like a bore, to prepare the audience to look at me that way.

At that point, I have won what I am after. Never again can any person there think of some objective race problem where “the races” are being mixed. Years of carefully selected mental training just went down the garbage chute. He must now prove that genocide is something a Good Christian will accept or something that one must shrug at. But the point is that I have pounded it in so many times that the old question, one of simple “toleration,” is dead.

Repetition, repetition, repetition. Staying on message. Respectable cosnervative are PAID to back off when something really btohers the other side. Once again, what I say is so obvious that it sounds like a joke: if you have an enemy by the throat, don’t try to bite his leg. If you have him squirming repeat, repeat, repeat.

So Budarick brings up another continuing theme of mine ( another theme besides repeat, repeat, repeat).

If you want truth, you must always ask yourself: “WHY did he say that?”

But you must REPEAT it. You must repeat to yourself over and over and over, “WHY did he say that?”

This is the one answer that can destroy a Big Lie. You don’t ask if it is true. You START by analyzing WHY he said that. Why does a person say, “All men are created equal.” You can explain why Jefferso siad it. There was a war going on at the time, and if Jefferson’s side lost it, they would be hanged. So he threw in something silly that would appeal to silly French liberals at Versailles.

THEIR revolution, when the Rousseau French types took over, turned into a bloodbath and tyranny. OUR revolution was a success. But when he wrote the Declaration, Jefferson had to appeal to them. So he wrote that absurd statement.

But if you’re not in a war and about to be hanged, why on earth would YOU say that?

Motivation, motivation, MOTIVATION. If our conversation were limited to saying things because they are true, this would be a very silent world. When a person tells us that he will not say something because it is racist, you are in a perfect position to say,

“So you don’t care whether it is TRUE or not, you only care whether it is RACIST or not?”

Nobody, but NOBODY says that.

Why?

Becauise it requires a discipline every scientist should be aware of. Never fall in love iwht your theory. Examine yourself. What to you WANT to be true?

You are going to make it true if you want it to be true. That is how humans are. If you don’t keep saying “Motivation, Motivation, MOTIVATION!” over and over and over, you can forget research and just draw up a wish list.

But once you master the technique of “Motivation, Motivation, MOTIVATION!” once you learn to REPEAT it to yourself as a discipline, the Big Lie is at your mercy. His mindless repetition of the Big Lie b ecomes a battle for the survival of his big lie.

The Big Lie is at your mercy.

Don’t have any.

2 Comments