LibAnon

Posted by Bob on June 30, 2006 at 8:40 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 9 Comments »

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

Dave Hits the Spot

Posted by Bob on June 30, 2006 at 8:11 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »

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.

After the Kill

Posted by Bob on June 30, 2006 at 7:58 pm  
Filed Under Bob, Coaching Session | 2 Comments »

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!

After the Kill

Posted by Bob on June 30, 2006 at 7:58 pm  
Filed Under General | No Comments »

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!

Soviet Silly

Posted by Bob on June 30, 2006 at 7:28 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session | No Comments »

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.

I Hate Math!

Posted by Bob on June 30, 2006 at 4:57 pm  
Filed Under Bob, Coaching Session | 1 Comment »

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?

Simmons

Posted by Bob on June 30, 2006 at 4:16 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 3 Comments »

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.

Motivation, Motivation, MOTIVATION!

Posted by Bob on June 28, 2006 at 1:39 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses | 2 Comments »

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.

LibAnon

Posted by Bob on June 28, 2006 at 12:56 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »

I just wrote a piece below about the decades of agony PeterGene Budarick and I have in common. We SAW what would happen today back when Europe was lily-white. But no one would listen.

In the course of that piece I pointed out to Budarick that being WRONG is not our problem. Our problem is to deal with being RIGHT. LibAnon confirms this from his own point of view.

LibAnon also thanks me for calling him “comrade.” Screw liberal versus conservative. I’m happy to have you in trench the beside me, comrade.

NOT SPAM
Bob, you say it’s a lot harder to be right than to be wrong. Well, I can confirm that from precisely the opposite perspective. I’ve been utterly WRONG my entire life, and it didn’t hurt a bit. In the wake of September 11 and Katrina, however, a few things finally started to dawn on me. Now it’s all I can do to hang on to my sanity, not to mention my friends and my livelihood.
So, am I happy I finally woke up from the pleasant little dream that was my life? I can’t yet honestly say that I am, although something has already happened to me in this new life that I wouldn’t want to have missed: being called a comrade by a teacher who has earned my respect. That’s new to me, and it feels good.

Comment by LibAnon

Budarick’s Joy

Posted by Bob on June 27, 2006 at 7:26 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 5 Comments »

Budarick’s comment makes me feel good because it is an explosion of JOY.

He is FINALLY talking to somebody who has been through what he has been through.

Nothing Budarick said has been wrong. His problem is that he has spent a lifetime knowing what is right. That is much, MUCH harder than simply being wrong.

I want to coach Budarick in how to handle a lifetime of being right, watching everything decent being destroyed, when you, like Budarick and I, are the kind of person who was born to lead your people.

We watched our people destroying themselves, we saw what Stormfronters are FINALLY beginning to realize decades ago, and we had to watch helplessly as they accepted “leaders” who would make a tick look like a giant.

This is AGONY. This is an agony that has lasted for two generations.

So when Budarick got a chance to blow his gasket, he did so. He blew his top on Stormfront. They haven’t been through that, and, PeterGene, they are the ones we have to deal with.

So I have to try to explain to you how to deal with them. I have the same fire in my gut that you do. Why can’t they just empathize and understand?

The reason they can’t empathize and understand is because what we have been through is so unique.

Compared to that, losing an arguement is nothing.

When you go through agony like that, admitting that you are factually wrong is not even as painful as stubbing a toe.

He has gone through all that, and now Budarick recognizes me as a fellow sufferer and someone who can tell him how to handle being RIGHT, PAINFULLY right, for so VERY long.

Budarick and I have no problem at all with objectivity because we know are NOT purely objective. Loyalty is in our bones.

We know exactly where we stand subjectively. So when a comrade like LibAnon gives me some objective advice, advice about how I can fight for my loyalties, it is appreciated.

But all I managed to say was that a decent person does not mind being objectively wrong. I of out of my way to make flat statements oprenly so they can be openly disputed. But I longed to explain why this was so easy for me.

I have spent my entire life fighting people who were not just factually wrong, but who were actually, literally EVIL. If you have been through THAT, if THAT has been your entire life, being corrected factually by a comrade, such an agony to so many, is just something you are grateful for.

In the piece PeterGene commented on, I explained that it was easy for me to admit I was wrong. I could only hope someone would get the rest of the message:

Compared to the agony of being so right for so long, admitting one is wrong is nothing. If you have experienced real agony, yu are pretty brave about a pin prick.

But I couldn’t say that. I would have sounded like The Greatest Generation, and the very idea makes me sick to my stomach.

There was no way for me to make the point I wanted to make.

Budarick to the rescue!

Budarick spread out his guts to us. He talked about his agony. He talked about his illusions (which I remember sharing, but that’s another story). And he said that Bob Whitaker was the only professor he would accept.

I’ll deal with Budarick’s specifics later. But this is Bob’s Blog and let me Egize. Right now the point is that I have another person who has lived this agony and sees me as his professor, his seminar leader.

In addition, Petergene allowed me to make the REST of the point.

For every Budarick or Whitaker, there are a thousand who learned to love Big Brother. If you hear from us, you are hearing from a tiny minority who were ALWAYS sane.

And PeterGene says I amnot only one of them, I am a LEADER in that select fraternity.

Budarick says he thinks Ole Bob may be able to give him some points on how to deal with the seemingly impossible task of getting rid of Big Brother.

This is Bob’s Blog. The point is that the comments below made Bob feel very, very good:

Bob, you realize that you can be wrong.

No surprise!

I always sensed that you are an honest man, but i am impressed by eloquence in stating it, and raisng issues from it, worthy of our consideration.

Let me tell it from my perspective.

I am sort of here telling you what your Blogs evoke in my mind and WHY i am attracted to them.

First of all I am a German and a NAZI [not Neo-Nazi] who wants to exterminate 60 million Jews [ 6 million is far too few] and i am proud of my crudeness. I have survived nearly 60 years without hurting a hair on a child’s head and i sleep like baby each night! And i have created my own flag too which is NOT even the Nazi Flag but far more prevocative.

As a 8-yo boy i thought i was the reincarnation of Hitler and i told everyone about it. How honest and foolish children are! “Ich bin Hitler” I have no idea how that came into my head even [you are the first one i have told it to Bob - it never seemed important before].

In Germany 1955 that was a NO NO for a boy child to do. But i did it, and i did not know why until about 50 years later! Therefore i copped a lot of abuse as a child. I was “that NAZI kid” even though my biological father was a USA GI [Scandinavian descent] stationed in Germany who abandoned me and my mother at age 1-yo!

OK, lets get on the ball.

I got no way of knowing if Bob is wrong.

Only Bob can know that.

And ONLY Bob can fix that.

AND only Bob can understand what that fixing means from his perspective.

So i am not worried about Bob being wrong or being able to fix it – if indeed it needs fixing.

Because sometimes being wrong DOES NOT NEED fixing!!!

I am an anti-Semite. That is WRONG! No doubt about it! But it needs NO fixing!!! But if i were to tell you all “but i love Jews” then i would have a major problem.

Now i figure Bob is a racist.

I don’t believe that needs fixing!

And you note it does not even need putting “racist” in quotes.

Why?

Because Bob is concerned about the white race.

Not like DDD’s concern with being labelled KKK.

KKK was a valid movement and mostly they did nothing wrong!

So DDD should wear it as a badge of honour as i wear Hitler as a badge of honour.

I figure Bob can handle that stuff/ideas and far more.

For me that means trust in Bob.

Now i reveal,

I am WRONG most of the time.

Does that feel bad for me?

Yes it does! BIG TIME!

If it no loger feels bad, then the application of a certain small sword the Japanese Samurai carried in their daishu may be in order!

Does it feel bad for YOU that i am mostly wrong?

Well i will NEVER be your hero!

Should therefore the mostly wrong Peter-Gene be banned from this Blog as he has been banned from StromFront?

Of course not it is silly!

OK.

To the main point now!

Being wrong sure beats living a life of delusion!

Right?

Follows naturally since we all suffer pain in life and must die!

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].

But i do need other people to help me!

I need Bob to help me!

I am proud of the fact that i get it wrong MOST of the time!

Yes MOST of the time!

I pity people who are always right.

They don’t learn or evolve.

I admire Bob because he understands these things and can express them in a completely different language to what i use.

I conceptualize it like this: Suppose we are doing science.

That means making a model [which is a creative act] and most likely will end up a wrong model. It involves fantasy, imagination, intuition, rationalism [math], life experience and having a go at a problem without fear or respect for conservatism or morality. And there is emotional investment in that model and thus it is not easy to give it up.

Then you do experiments and try to show that your model in Reality [your mind] is isomorphic with the “object” or “process” in Actually [WHAT IS] it is supposed to represent.

Most times this scientific work shows you that you are wrong.

So true scientists are always a tiny minority.

Why?

Because NORMAL people like to be right all the time.

Well for them i recommend religion. Something which can’t be proven wrong! Which is quite valid BTW because it has been part of our evolution toward white Godhood a lot longer than science.

But back to being a scientist.

It is like prospective parents [before they have children] have theories about how children respond and behave etc. But when they actually have their own children and actually have to raise them in the real world, they soon realize that all their theories are wrong.

If that sort of thing gets one down then one is not cut out to be a scientist or a parent [or mentor of childen as in my case].

Truth is WHAT IS. And like in a good soccer match it always hits us from a side where and when we least expect it.

Well that is what Bob said too in his Blogs! Right?

Watch the ball not the feet!

But we shall never find truth [from moment to moment] unless we have the motivation to engage with life and become exposed to the fact that we are going to be mostly wrong.

It is in this spirit that i engage with Bob.

PGB

Comment by PeterGene Budarick

LibAnon, I was WRONG!

Posted by Bob on June 25, 2006 at 12:51 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 5 Comments »

You see the last three words in the title above? They seem to cause a huge portion of the population acute pain. The desperatopm varies, but I do not think that, among any million people, there is any limit to the extremes a considerable number of people will go rather than utter those three fatal words: “I was WRONG!”

So when I say it, please do not put my name in for the Martyr’s Prize.

I have no trouble with it at all.

When I gave LibAnon my standard Reaganite answer that the government must not interfere except where it pays for education, I forgot another standard Reaganite answer. They oppose affirmative action, saying it constitutes government interference. When it comes to the universities I support drastic affirmative action against the professor-priesthood.

So LibAnon is saying that I damned well know that is government interference and I agree with him. This quiet little conspiracy throughout the educational establishment must not just be ended, it must be REVERSED and PUNISHED. Everything a professor has is due us in reparations. Everything every foundation that has supported this destruction has is subject to due penalties, and what is “due” is HUGE.

Government action?

You betcha!

LibAnon Sitcks to the Point

Posted by Bob on June 25, 2006 at 9:58 am  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 1 Comment »

LibAnon says:

Your main point is that PC is an established religion and that professors comprise its priesthood. Aside from all of the usual problems with established religions, they happen to be illegal in this country. That is a brilliant insight, and I still agree with it. I believe that alone justifies what you were trying to do on Capitol Hill.
When I have trouble on this Blog, it’s usually when brilliant insights like these degenerate into garden-variety Reaganism. In this particular post, you seem to be lapsing into particularly vintage Reaganspeak, along the lines of “The State of California has no business subsidizing intellectual curiosity.”
Yes, I do happen to be a liberal in that I don’t believe education is at all like a “product” that is sold to “consumers”, exactly like paper clips. But that’s not my point here. Instead, my point is that YOU are, in this particular post, wandering off the main point and getting into the liberal vs. conservative weeds. The ESSENTIAL point, I think, is that PC is a religion and for THAT reason, the taxpayers shouldn’t be funding it. “PC is a religion” is a mantra we can win with. “Education is like paper clips” is not.

Comment by LibAnon

MY REPLY:

The ONLY important thing here is that LibAnon is sticking to the POINT.

In a crisis, the ONLY important point is how does our cause win, not how goes the debate?

I was the one who saved the Space Telescope, so I certainly would be the last to be able to say that I opposed government’s paying to satisfying intellectual curiosity, though I am absolutely mystified as to what that has to do with social science.

Saleability Versus Truth

Posted by Bob on June 24, 2006 at 6:10 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session | 2 Comments »

I wrote a piece below called “What Only Amateurs Can Do” dedicated to the proposition that professionals write what present-day opinion and fashion pay them for.

Simmons then asked me about his Peak Oil Theory and my reply was in this vein, as he predicted. Since 1971 the newspapers have been full of oil and the Middle East. So if you have a theory about the future or the past or hte present, you sell it by tying it to oil and the Middle East. We become even more obsessed with oil and the Middle East.

I would therefore be astounded if the real problem that slammed us in the side of the face came from the direction we’re looking at, i.e., oil and the Middle East.

Simmons and Oil

Posted by Bob on June 24, 2006 at 5:35 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 3 Comments »

NOT SPAM I guess my “Peak Oil” babble falls into this futurology category?

Comment by Simmons

MY REPLY:

Have mercy!

I have been listening to theories on the Ultimate Oil Crisis since 1972.

It used to be the left which combined the ruin of hte West with its hoggish desire for a high standard of living.

About my twentieth theory of Oil Crisis and Hoggish Desires I sort of fogged out on that. Let me get over the FY2K disaster, and I’ll get back to the oil ones.

LibAnon?

Posted by Bob on June 24, 2006 at 5:17 pm  
Filed Under General | 1 Comment »

NOT SPAM
“Intellectual life is an infomercial.”
After making this same point on a previous occasion, you added that the solution to this problem is to subject intellectual life to government oversight, thereby holding intellectuals accountable.
I doubt it’s simply a coincidence that you once happened to serve on the Congressional subcommittee that oversees education. So I wonder: is Bob’s Blog an infomercial, too?

Comment by LibAnon

I never said “intllectual life” should be accountable to government oversight.

I DO believe that if the government puts a dime into something called “education” than that “education” has to be delivered. Exactly the same thing is true of paper clips for goverment offices.

You are talking Libspeak here. The tqxpayers should finance those who call themselves artists or intellectuals, but the taxpayer is being tyrannical if he 1) doesn’t pay up or 2) demands to say what art eeucation ARE. If I pay for paper clips, they better be paperclips.

If I DON’T pay for it, you can have all the invgellectual life you want.

The problem is, of course, that without a publically-granted monpoly and publically-paid money, all those self-styled “intellectuals” would have to do something useful for a living.

Yes, Bob’s Blog must be subjected to the same scrutiny. I pay for it, but I demand criticism.

It will be a long cold day in Hell before any “intellectual” does either of those things.

What Only Amateurs Can Do

Posted by Bob on June 24, 2006 at 1:01 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session | 4 Comments »

We have all heard the term “a ship of the line” from the days when Britain was in absolute command of the seas. The man who invented the “line ahead” formation that wa so instrumental in giving Britannia true control over the waves has one especially interesting attribute. Not only did he never leave Britain, but he was never on a ship in his entire life, even in port.

The famous Brirtish redcoats got their uniform from Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army. Cromwell was in his middle age when he developed the New Model Army, training his troops in the methods Gustavus Adilphus had been using in the Thirty Years’ War before he was killed at, I believe, Luetzen. The New Model Army, from its first day in battle, swept every opponent from the field. Cromwell always beat everybody.

Cromwell’s New Model was the basis of all British ground combat for about two centuries.

As I said, Cromwell was a middle-aged man before he led his New Model Army to its first victory. Before that, he had never been in the army, he had never been in a battle, he had never even HEARD a hostile shot fired.

One thing you are NOT going to see emphasized in a military historyis that, when the Brirtish Ampire was at its height and Britannia rules the waves, it might not have ruled anything without the techniques developed by complete military amateurs.

So let’s ask a question. Please note that this is 1) a question with so obvious an answer one feels silly asking it, and 2) a question absolutely no one ever consides when they look at history or anything lelse that doesn’t have the word “Advertisement” written all over it. That question is, “Why wouldn’t a military academy textbook emphasize that the developer of the line ahead formation and the New Model Army were both amateurs?

The obvious answer, so obvious it seems silly to state it, is that those who buy books for military academies want to emphasize how PROFESSIONAL military men are the only ones who know how to run an army or a navy.

Thisis rather obvious, but no one seems to take it into account. For example, when I was young I always heard that absolutely everything was created in the Cradle of Civilization, the Middle East. Even as a teenager, when this belief was absolute, it struck me as unlikely. The Middle East was made up of asbolute, topto-bottom, rigid tyrannies. All intellecutal life was owned bythe priests. How could such a rigid tyranny invent NEW things?

It took me a while to reallize WHY this doctrine ruled. It was taught in schools where the ability to read and write and do arithmetic were also taught. So history said that the societies that read and wrote and followed rules wwere the places where everything began and the only means by which truth triumphed over a mankind that was not better than the apes.

This was not a conscious choice. But that was the hsitory schools at the time would obviously want so that was the history they got.

Isaac Isamov wrote his whole Foundation Trilogy in the early 1950s based on the idea that only an Empire could produce original ideas. After the Fall of Egypt or the Fall of Rome, history said, everything became stagnant and brutal and filthy until a new Empire based on scribes and bureaucracy came again. That is the absolute basis of the Foundation Trilogy, and it is exactly what everybody took to be true history in 1950.

The idea was that only a totally centralized bureaucratic state could INVENT things. New ideas only came from a rigid, bureaucratized state. It was assumed that the only argument against Communism, with everybody reporting Soviet leaps and bounds in production with every Five-Year Plan, was that it took away too much freedom.

No one doubted Communism was as successful as it claimed to be. It was just too mean about it.

Of course, everybody was wrong on every single point.

But how could you PREDICT they were wrong, when every statistic and historical instance and Future Inevitability they all the professionals announced said they were right? The way to do it woul dbe to analyze each and every piece of information, each Theory of History, each Future Inevitably by ONE criterion:

Does anybody have a reaspn to WANT this to be true?

Professional scholars wanted it to be true that only a society which had a huge army of bureaucrats and scribes could accomplish anything. Asimov took this to a laughable extreme, but only laughable TODAY. At the time it was a sober analysis.

Intellectiual life is an infomercial.

Treat it accordingly.

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Posted by Bob on June 24, 2006 at 12:35 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session | 1 Comment »

If you will read the piece below on Revisionism, you will see that you should never read

anything as if it is true.

But it is not wholey untrue, either.

You should read everything produced by the mass media, historical, current, and futuristic, as if it were an infomercial.

And please keep in mind that, as usual, much of what I am about to say SOUNDS like a joke.

But the reason it sounds funny is because it is so TRUE, not because it is false. So on to which history to believe and which not to believe.

On an infomercial, if the person talking says he has a little dog named Scottie, you can be

reasonably sure that, if he does have a dog, its name is Scottie. If he is just telling a

side story that doesnot ERQUIRE that he have a dog,but can be about anything else, you may

be reasonably sure he actually has a dog.

In other words, in an infomercial, the further you get away from the PRODUCT, the more you

can believe what is being said. By hte same token, when reading history or social

commentary or futurology, the further you get from the PRODUCT, which is how the present

intellectual fashion wants to have been or to be or going to be, the more you can believe

what they say.

So if a history book says George Washington was born in February of 1732 instead of June of

1732, there is no reason to doubt it. But if it says he only survived because an old

black slave woman who was later thrown to the wolves came up with a brilliant cure for the

illness he was dying from as an infant and murumurred to herself, “It takes a village to

save a child” in her native Manica language, you can be be pretty sure it’s not true.

All history, all news, and all futurology are infomercials. You know what the Product is.

Revisionism

Posted by Bob on June 24, 2006 at 12:21 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 2 Comments »

A commenter reminded me that there is such a thing as historical revisionism.

So let me remind you of three rules:

1) The past is never what the historians says it was;

2) The present is never what the official commenters say it is; and

3) The future is never what the paid futurologists say it will be.

So, the commenter asks, how can we review a history that is so often wrong? He is loooking

at point 1)

The truth of the matter lies in point 2)

All history and all futurology is based on the present, and on NOTHING else. Everything a

professional historian writers or puts on a documentary is cleared with those who have power

in the present. Just as all roads led to Rome, all history leads to the present.

To put this in plain English, the purpose of history is to show the influences that led to

the year 2006 as described on the newscasts. Today, interracial marriage is what every

decent person in history aspired to, but the production of a chuman by breeding humans with

chimpanzees, on which both Japanese and Russians began work, is an abomination.

That is how it is, os htat is the way everyone in hitory looked at it. If they didn’t, you

excuse them and show how they went wrong.

When the movie Soylent Green was made in the 1970s, every campus rang with the cry “Zero

Population Growth!” Every official historian and demographer showed how all decent opinion

had always led tot his conclusion.

Japan is a GREAT copier, like all Oriental countries. When we took up the ZPG cry. they

took it up better.

Every advanced country’s population is now aging. The biggest argument for open borders

today is how in the 1970s America, by some odd coincidence, did not produce enough young

people, so the third world, which was not listening to the ZPG crap, has to pour its

surpluses in here.

The connection is never made, of course. No historian or commenters could keep his job if

he made it. So the futurologists who predicted Soylent Green are now a little older and a

lot better paid, with all that experience and seniority behind them.

This is not a contradiction. They ARE more experienced. You have to understand what they

are experienced AT. We all knew thirty years ago that the only reason you would look at

what a demographer or a futurologist wrote thirty years before would be to get a good horse

laugh. But we still made a good try at destroying ourselves on their say-so.

Japan, as a the ultimate Oriental copier nation, is actually dying out because, along with

all that technology they superadopted in the 1970s, they also superadopted the West’s ZPG

craze as Eternal Truth.

So if futurologists are always wrong, what are they Experienced Experts AT?

They are experts at producing the kind of prediction that gets grants and gets published.

You do not tell those in power today that they will be out of power tomorrow. You do not

tell today’s ruling intellectual elite that people will be laughing at their present

fashiones — like ZPG — so hard they will be busing a gut.

It is true that futurologists are always predicting things that has the next generation

laughing so hard it busts a gut. That is what they do for a living, and they are good at

it.

You see, a historian, a contemporary commentator, and a futurology is EXACTLY like a

respectable conservative. He knows how to produce history or predictions or criticisms of

Political Corectness, respectively, which are just radical enough to look like a serious

challenge to modern thought, but never attacks anything BASIC.

Anyone who is worried about the information he receives should first think carefully over

the fundamental question: How is that information PRODUCED?

You wouldn’t buy a computer mouse without considering this question, but when policy determinations are made, it is totally forgotten.

Joe Rorke? No Way!

Posted by Bob on June 22, 2006 at 7:17 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 3 Comments »

Joe, somebody is using YOUR name to grouse about my not hitting “questions” and “topics” without specifying what any of them are:

Bob, I try to keep you humming. That’s my function. But I’m starting to get a little bored. There are too many questions that are not being asked. Some of the topics are very trivial compared to what the people need to know.

Comment by joe rorke

Simmonx

Posted by Bob on June 22, 2006 at 12:39 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 4 Comments »

In response to “When Reality is Other People’s Fantasy,” Simmons says:

NOT SPAM Well in market speak we have had basically what amounts to the “final
washout”, and now is the time to buy. Personally I can conceive of the
final days of “Liberalism”, and regardless if BW renounces anti-communism
or not Liberalism is aging faster than Elizibeth Taylor. The West’s god
of cheap energy is failing and the halcyon days of acting like messiah
to the dark masses are mostly in the rearview mirror of history. Two things
research “Peak Oil” and recommend a book about the last real white men
fighting the good fight in Rhodesia.

Comment by Simmons

MY REPLY:

That is my point today!

We need to stop bitching and start taking advantage of the fact that the Communist system went out with a whimper and the present Western one is dissolving before our eyes.

It makes me tired all over when I see somebody telling us how bad things are the way they have done all my life. It makes me tired all over when somebody seriously — as opposed to a recruiting tool — talks about closing the border. There are already planty of minorities here to destroy the white race by the “assimilation” conservatives keep demanding.

Whites were never a majority in the world. They RULED the world. Our task is actually a little easier. We need to SURVIVE in the world of today, when transportation is infintely easier. Nobody, but NOBODY, wants to live the way any other race but the white race lives. So they keep chasing us.

Soon liberals and conservatives, Republcians and Democrats, will be as forgotten as the Whig Party that held the White House in 1853 was by 1856. There is no place is a completely racial situation for anybody who blathers about how things are not racial.

So how do you deal with this new reality? Do you bitch about Jews and nothing else? Do you talk about border enforcement?

HELL, no! You position yourself to take over the position as spokesman for whites in a society where each race has its own spokesmen.

If these people want to keep repeating what they said twenty years ago, all I ask is that they get out of the damned way and let me and mine do something useful.

The Advantage of Being WRONG

Posted by Bob on June 22, 2006 at 12:22 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session | No Comments »

He who searches for truth is no diplomat. That’s why I like flat statements. A flat statement is right or wrong. All I am interested in is whether one is right or wrong.

I have the same problem with someone who quotes the dictionary. That’s French.

As an Anglo-Saxon I agree with Noah Webster:

“Usage is everything.”

In order for a word to become officially a part of the French language it has to be approved by the Academie Francais. Someone talking about home schooling pointed out that, in France, every single student in the entire French school system is on the same page of the same textbook on the same day if they are the same age. This is a scandal to an Anglo-Saxon, and when some aspiring Acadamie Ingese member quotes a dictionary at me, I mentally give him the finger.

Mark and Some Rare Birds

Posted by Bob on June 22, 2006 at 12:09 pm  
Filed Under General | 2 Comments »

Mark says:

“Find me an American Indian who wants to live like an Indian and I’ll find you a diamond that weighs a ton.”

A client of mine is a full blooded Indian. She is a chief in one of the Sioux tribes (had no idea a woman could be chief before meeeting her) and she loves to talk about how hard working and industrious Indians are. You get the opinion that god created man dnd then he created the Indian to make up for his mistakes.

It’s intersting to note that her home is surrouned by waist high grass that never gets cut. She doesn’t hesistate to go on float trips down the river and loves to swim, but also doesn’t bat at an eye when her welfare paid home health care worker comes to clean the house for her.

She had the audacity to tell me that when and Indian gets too old to be a productive member of the tribe they, by instinct and tradition, find a river to sit beside and die. I guess that’s after welfare has finished cleaning their teepees, of course.

Comment by Mark

MY REPLY:

Mark, old buddy, there are several people I would like to meet:

1) An American Indian who looks like an American but who is NOT a chief;

2) A Jew over the age of sixty who is NOT a Holocaust Survivor;

3) A member of The Greatest Generation who did NOT liberate a German concentration camp;

4) A conservative who is talking about race who will ADMIT that he is talking about race;

5) a liberal who does not EXUDE hatred;

6) A “Christian” who quotes Christ more htan he does the Old Testament;

7) A person denouncing extremism who doesn’t sound like a Grand Inquisitor;

8) I am sure readers can add to this list.

Tim’s Credit Rating

Posted by Bob on June 21, 2006 at 5:29 pm  
Filed Under General | 4 Comments »

Below is Tim’s comment that led directly to my writing the piece anout how the secret to power is NOT taking credit.

As so often happens, what actually happened to me sounds like a joke, but it happened.

While writing the blog entry about not taking credit, I was unable to find the person to give the credit to.

During my frantic search, it never occurred to me that my desperate search for whom to give credit to was a bit of a contradiction to what I was writing about.

So now I don’t know whether to give Tim credit for this or not:

Not Spam,

The Ann Coulter situation is getting interesting. Ann Coulter just wrote a book saying “Liberalism IS a Religion”. Bells and Whistles went off when I read this. For obvious reasons I posted it here and got dogged for doing so by someone (I forget who?). Ann I guess is a big respectable Conservative and a traitor to us. Or so they say. We are in a struggle. In a struggle, new folks come in and grab the message and catch religion. It happens in a variety of ways. This type of thing to me is liking driving a car—To go from Reverse to Drive —You first have to go through Neutral. Ann is in Neutral steering harder to the right. I find it ammusing.

Recent Comments:

Ann called the Arabs Jihad Monkeys and said they should be shipped out of the West. When asked how the Muslims would be shipped out—she replied—”on their flying carpets”.

She was recently asked by a British reporter why she supports Isreal. She replied:”For the same reason I supported Apartheid South Africa. They are both small countries surrounded by Savages”.

Now, she has said some funny things in the past. She has always been called Racist etc. But she is getting more interesting by the moment. Anytime someone with “primetime” coverage is starting to copy and paste BW’s ideas—this becomes interesting for me at least.

The SA Apartheid comment was funny. She has more balls than Sean Hannity (that is not saying much). The Magic Carpet bit was good as well. I will be even more happy when she states BW’s Mantra. I won’t hold my breath. But NO respectable Conservative would have made the SA comment. No one outside of our circle would have had the stones to say that to the London Guardian Newspaper. Good for her. Now all she needs to do is state BW’s mantra and few thousand times on Fox News and have some White Babies. I would buy her books, love her and support her.

Comment by Tim

Dave Gives me the Shivvers

Posted by Bob on June 21, 2006 at 5:04 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »

Dave, with my my comments in ***

I know I’m getting repetitious about the *** bit, but I keep hoping we have NEW readers:

When I was a kid I staked the new kid down to an anthill. I still remember how enjoyable it was to be able to hear all that wailing and screeching more than a mile away.

*** Many years ago my brother and I were sitting watching his three little girls at play. Everything they were doing, the least hazardous of which was hanging by their legs six off the ground, seemed calculated to make them paraplegics. But every time one of us took them out of a dangerous position, they got into a worse one.

*** Finally we gave up. We sat down and my brother leaned back and said, “You know, Bob, it is statistically impossible for any child to survive to the age of ten.”

*** Little boys are worse. They do the same thing, but to other little boys.

*** I am the last person on earth wants any new International Commissions on anything.

*** But many a time, watching cheerful, innocent children at play, it has occurred to me that we might need to apply the Geneva Convention to THEM.

Later when I was collared a preacher was called to save me and said: “Someday, conscience will hold you to account”. Was that preacher ever right because when I grew up I got shanghaied into sitting on a “Board of Ethics”. You never want that to happen to you.

*** You had a problem because you were the only person sitting there who was not a sociopath.

*** Ethics are easy for sociopaths.

*** The few priests or preachers who actually BELIEVE have the same problem.

Everybody started talking about “conscience” and it immediately took flight. The yapping got pretentious quick and then more and more pretentious until someone noticed and then they started yapping about pretentious yapping until the yapping got to such craziness I was sorely tempted to tune them all up with a baseball bat, an anthill not being handy.

*** That’s EXACTLY the way I have been feeling about The Greatest Generation since before I read that comic book I mentioned at the age of ten.

These politicians who are “positioners” are like the people who lay “conscience” on us in a Board of Ethics. They are crazy, pure and simple. That’s why BW is such a cool drink of water, he understands.

*** I sure do. And it wasn’t water I drank to cure it.

Comment by Dave

Joe and History

Posted by Bob on June 21, 2006 at 4:40 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 2 Comments »

Joe has some commentary on Pontifex Maximus, which I am stealing here for my blog.

My replies, as always, are in ***.

From now on, Bob wrote it.

I can’t find much to disagree with except to make it clear that I have wholy different attitude.

You see, despite our similarity in age, Joe is a mean old cynical bastard whereas I am still a sweet model of personal diplomacy.

To put that last sentence into English:

“A lot of times Joe said what I would LIKE to say but I prefer to blame it on him.”

Joe says,

Not spam. Is it not amazing the egotism of the human being? As if your essence and what you are called are the same thing. King, Emperor, Queen, Duke….. the whole idea of “first among equals” is pure nonsensical egotism. As if the name, the title, makes a difference in the humanity. So much for the title. Titles are misleading and fraudulent. Is it not amazing the crap men feed each other with their stupid titles? I think it is. It’s pomposity, pridefulness, theft of truth.

*** Fortunately I am far too perfect to be pompous. ***

I didn’t expect this piece to move from human titles and egotism to politics and gangsterism (same thing) but I should have expected it to do just that. They do rather go together when they get organized.

From this background you have moved to the concept of chastity in America which I have seen you mention on previous occasions. I have never seen any of this chastity that you speak of here in the mountain country. Obsession with chastity? Not here, Honcho. Not in West Bygod. Ain’t seen no chastity here much less any obsession with it. No, I haven’t even seen it brayed about in the churches. Not here. Home of miscegenation. Sorry, no chastity here. Anything but. Hey, I’m just passing through, Honcho. These ain’t my people.

*** You have observed enough preachers and priest to know that an OBSESSION with chastity in a sociopath has very little to do with the real thing. ***

Yo Daddy was right! An atheist SHOULD know his Bible. He might find himself in a trench someday.

I read Mein Kampf. It took me a long time to read it because I was taking notes as I read it. When I was done I was thoroughly convinced that there were and are incredible similarities to the time that was being written about and our situation in America today. I was not reading anything into it. The damage the media had done to the country that Hitler was writing about is only one of the similarities that I saw. It’s almost as if the story is being written again.

I agree with you, Bob, that history is crucial. I did say earlier on this blog (over a year ago) that there is such a thing as historical revisionism. It’s one thing to say “I know” and it’s another thing to actually know. How much stock can we put in what we have been told? That’s the question as far as I’m concerned. Economic history, military history, religious history. Maybe we ought to talk about it. As I understand it, economics is your forte. Why don’t we start with that? Isn’t that what they call the “dismal science?” What science? It falls under “social science” as far as I know. What kind of science is that?

Comment by joe rorke

*** This last paragraph requires a separate article. You are working my butt off today, Joe. ***

Next Page →

Switch to our mobile site