Archive for July, 2006
Mark seems tt think I confused him with Joe:
My name is Mark, not Joe, Bob.
Comment by Mark — 7/31/2006 @ 10:55 pm | Edit This
Not Spam Not Spam
“So Joe, the Tough Old Guy Let’s Surrender approach…”
I didn’t say we should surrender. I believe that for whatever reason the white race dooms itself instinctively and that we as a race will have to face far worse than we are facing now BEFORE we begin to fight back and win territory.
The basic point I try to make, as an agnostic and sometimes even as an atheist, is that much of our problem comes from the fact that whites tend to believe in a neo-jewish religous system which is, if one views the absurdities of christianity w/o making up excuses for it, fundamentally jewish. Since the elite jewish power brokers are committed to destroying the white race, it is diffucult to do battle with these jews as long as we are tied to a jewish form of superstition/religion.
Comment by Mark
When I talked about Joe, I was talking about JOE.
Joe has openly taken the position that we should give up.
I seem to have convinced Mark that HE says we should surrender. I didn’t mean to.
Whites DESERVE to lose. Nobody despises them more than I do. But the new generations do NOT deserve it.
Please read what I said, Mark.
I keep writing about what is TRUE.
People are always telling me that the world of truth is not one they want to live in. Joe would say, “Bob, hwat do YOU get out of being right?” In a practical world, in the world of a truly Tough Guy, it is absolutely absurd for a guy to keep harping on that is simply true. He gets nothing out of it.
Which is why Bob’s Blog is unique. I couldn’t care less about whether I look tough. I couldn’t care less about looking practical. I just want to be right.
Respectable conservatives make their livings by saying that what the media want to be true is true.
Christians expect to avoid eternal unbelievable agony by being what the preachers tell them is right.
So what incentive do I offer?
They tell me, “I cannot live in a world without faith.”
But what is we live in a world you cannot live in?
Then, you say, I refuse to live in it.
And that, ladies and gentleman, is what Bob’s Blog is about. I do not offer anybody what they WANT to believe in.
Mark is in here fighting for the opposite of faith. Mark is saying what I believe. Mark is respectful of Shari but he objects to my expression of respect for Shari’s IDEAS.
This puts me in a bad position, because while I have the good reasons I expressed below for praising Shari, it is the Marks and the Pains who represent what I want to pass on.
Mark represents uncomprising adherence to what is simply true. Shari us loyal to the Old Testament. Once again, I don’t think you can be in doubt as to where I put my chips.
Cut me some slack, Mark.
As a matter of fact, my REAL belief is that we need, a diamong hard belief in REALITY. I am more monmaniacal than you are, Mark. Mark is a rainstorm in the middle of a desert to me. In the perfect world, I would do nothing but urge him on.
The problem here is one you may have noticed: This is not a perfect world for those who believe in the simple truth. The world is full of Sharis and Joes. Mark is a rare bird.
So I am in the position of urging Mark to get more monomaniacal while I am praising Shari.
The woods are full of worshippers of the Old Testament and the Big Book. The world is NOT full of this kind of people who understand the importance of race. I have to deal with the world as it is.
Which does not mean I APPROVE of the world as it is.
Shari and Joe have different loyalties from mine. In our day, it is generally accepted that my job is to make them think like I do.
Shari (ladies first) and Joe and I cling to a distinction here that is alien to accepted ideas today. I think I have some intellectual exercises that Shari and Joe can use. They agree.
But what I have to offer them is not to turn them into tape recoding of what I believe. They use me as an unfortunately unique opportunity to hone their OWN thought.
This, as Shari and Joe would be the first to tell you, is called education. They consider me a qualified teacher. They can learn something from me, I can learn something from them. That’s why they like the blog. That’s why they consider it worth their while to trade thoughts with Bob and his commenters.
LibAnon considers Bob’s Blog, written by a Reagan appointee, to be a godsend. I have a very useful WAY OF THINKING. Joe and LibAnon and Shari want to make use of that way of thinking. In an age that seems alien today, that is what education MEANT.
Education is NOT indoctrination.
On the one hand, to a rational person this is obvious. But in today’s society, it involves a kind of thinking on the part of LibAnon and Joe and Shari that is as alien as visitors from Mars. They are not here to become Bob clones. If you read the comments nobody here comes close to being a Bob clone, though I feel that would be the height of brilliance.
Naturally I consider that you are wrong and I am right. But just as naturally it never occurs to me that YOU need to take it for granted that you are wrong and I am right. This is so obvious that I feel a little crazy just SAYING it. But underlying this ishte siple fact that we live in a society that is nuts.
In the present world it is the mark of an “educated” person that he BELIEVES all the things an “educated person” is supposed to believe. Today you judge whether a person is educated by whether he can recite the beliefs that “educated people” are supposed to have.
To me, a person who recites Political Correctness is a RE-educated person.
A human robot.
During the Korean War, the group that calls itself the Greatest Generation was still a unch of youngsters and ost Americans had a pre-WWII mentality. At that time, we kept hearing about our POWs being sent to “reeducation camps.” Back then the average American’s hackles went up the moement RE education was mentioned.
Today, no one ever hears the term “re-education.” The Greatest Genration simply cannot see any difference between education and reeducation. So when any aocial problem comes up, everybody agrees that the solution to it is “education.” So when it was discovered recently that babies discriminate racially, everybody, especially respectable conservatives, instantly agreed that “education” was the “solution” to this “problem.”
Note the words in quotes. Is this a problem or a natural phenomenon?
Commmunists agree that what they call Greed and what others call self-interest is a PROBLEM. In te eraly 1950s every Intellectual had to agree that greed was unique to human beings. It was absolutely agreed that no animal desired more food than it could eat, more females than any other male. No animal held territory and kept others off of it. No animal tried to lord it over any other member of his own species.
In fact, it was taken for granted that a peson who believed that races or men and women were different was a product ofhis training, of his education. It was taken for granted that he needed RE-education.
Then there were the Americans who had not yet become a product of The Greatst Generation. The objected to the concept of REeducation because they felt that THEIR training was NOT warped.
As “The Greatest Generation” took over, this idea was denounced as prejudiced. By the 1960s “everybody who counted” accepted the idea that our prejudcies were warped. Those who did not admitted they were “just old fashioned.”
So today we accept the idea that when an animal sees some things as natural and other things as innatural, that is a statement that somes from the soul of said animal — or aborigine — that we must listen to. But when a white baby prefers its own kind, that is something that needs correction.
The American population that passed the GI Bill of Rights which gave money to vetereans to go to college was the same group of people who reacted violently to the very word REeducation in Korea. They were happy to pay for education but the very concept of REeducation turned their stomachs.
I defy you today to find one American who understands the difference between education and reeducation.
Mark and Shari are fighting it out over faith, and that is welcome.
As I said, I don’t agree with Shari, but she made some good points. But Shari has made it clear, up front, that her loyalty is not to her race, but to a book. But we need these allies, and Shari spoke for a very large group of them.
She did it eloquently.
It is a regrettable fact that if we limit ourselves today tho those who are driven by loyalty to their race alone, we would indeed be preaching ot the choir. Now I happen to know that Christianity succeeded by insisting on preaching to the choir every single Sunday. It is essential.
But you can’t succeed by peaching ONLY to the choir. Shari and Joe give us needed input from other points of view. In time, as race becomes more nad more obviously central in America, when the illusion that we are the ruling majority which should be “objective” disappear, the Old Testament is going to be less and less a convenient excuse for avoiding this loyalty.
This is what happened inthe Deep South. We were also the Bible Belt, but race never eased to be central. Whites ere never a comforgtable majority, so it is only recently that we have had the comfortable illusion that we live as part of a country where whites dominate. We are simply behind the times.
At the moement when the rest of the country is gradually coming to grips with the central nature of race, Southern suburbanites are absorbing the outdated idea that race is NOT important. I see all this movement, and when someone says, “But it’s all HOPELESS! Everything is mving in ONE direction!” it makes me tired. Things that will make our future are happending all over the place.
So Joe, the Tough Old Guy Let’s Surrender approach and Shari, the Old Testament loyalist, are part and parcel of the people we have to deal with. The crew is always telling each other Deep Wisdom and superstition, but they would be appalled if the Captain paid attention to anything but the charts and his sextant.
That’s the ONLY reason he is the Captain.
Shari made the kind of comment that makes this blog worth while. I do not subscribe entirely to what she says, but it is a unique contribution. Besides, the one thing I hope we all know about Bob’s Blog by now is that it is NOT dedicated just to Bob’s opinions. We are a SEMINAR, not a lecture. That is the exact disctinction between a lecture and a seminar.
Reacting to my quote from Mark Tawin, “Faith is believing in what you know ain’t so” Shari tied in our themes here in rejecting it:
Well Twain’s definition of faith is just the opposite. It’s the definition of no faith. Faith is not closing your eyes tight and repeating I believe, I believe. It’s opening your eyes and taking alook. Certainly we can see that western civilization has been based on very different things than the ant heap. The notion of social distinctions was not based on me am the sun god and the rest of you are cattle. It was based on the notion that a leader serves his people. A very Christian notion, even if men failed. As for territory, it wasn’t called “fortress Europe” for nothing, we believed in defence, but not cannibalism. After taking a look, faith has the imagination to take the next step. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the realization of what is hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Twains definition is the one used by college professers, which is then followed by their antheap history with lies thrown in. This is the jewish problem, no faith.
Comment by Shari
Mark Twain said, “Faith if believing in what you know ain’t so.” Today, this is so true it’s funny.
I thorughly enjoy “documentaries,” but I get an extra kick out of them that is denied to modern young people. Documentaries discuss the lastest information about history, about DNA analysis and the finding of fossils and carbon dating.
There are lot of different people watching these documentaries. What young people do not know is that there are a lot of us older people watching them. Most of us were raised in a world of certainties which every documentary makes look sillier and sillier. Let’s start with one example.
In our day it was absolutely proven that man was vilent whereas chimapnzees and apes were peaceful. We now have documentaries showing how chaimpanzees hunt down monkeys and tear them apart for meat. To a young person this is routine. To us this is a violation of our whole mentality.
It is quite impossible to explain this today, but in our time it was taken for granted that only men fought over territory. The beasts of the field ignored territory. In nature, there were no borders. Marxism and Christianity explained to us that borders were something the fallen nature of man or capitalism engendered in us. That sounds a nit nuts today. We now that ALL social animals are territorial.
But there is a lot more to this than a simple factual correction. All of our philosophies were based on the innocence of animals and aborinigal peoples. In nature there were no borders and no social distinctions.
Once again, these ideas were more than just factual conclusions. They were the basis of our entire philosophies of life. Asbolutely no one, from Ayn Rand to Karl Marx to evagelicals, made any room for the idea that man was not a uniquely fallen being. Only humans had social disctinctions. Only humans had borders.
One thing we all agreed on was that humaity was unique in patrolling borders or maintaining diffferences based on class.
I cannot take you back and rub your nose in it, and that is a shame. If a young person today could really see what all of our present orthodoxies are based on, he would laugh himself silly.
We BELIEVED that crap!
In the 1980s one required statement was that “Men and women are the same.” Outside of genitalia the only difference between men and woemn was the way they were raised. Everybody had to BELIEVE that.
Now let us go back to the documentaries. What young people and older folk with corrected memories donot realize is that every single documentary contains material that is alien to my generation. At the end of many documentaries on PBS or BBC is a discussion which explains why the foregoing was not REALLY a contradiction ofhte line we were raised with.
One example. One thing that was absolutely agreed on in my day was that American Indians never practiced cannibalism. Spaniards had reported cannibalism among Mexican and Central American Indians. The official line was that the Spaniards were just trying to excuse their conquest of Native American Civilizations by claiming this.
Recently I saw a documentary which reported some analyses of the feces of fifteenth century southwestern American Indians which demonstrated that they were eating people. Tha took about fifteen minutes. The restofhte show was devoted to the following point:
1) This cannibalism was imposed on wotuhwester Indians by the stronger civilizations invading from Mexico. Those were the civilizations that we had been taught had never practiced it:
2) The next fifteen minutes explained that the word “cannibalism” was introduced into Europe by a Spandiard who said it was common and overstated it. He just wanted to justify the Spanish Conquest;
3) The next half hour was devoted to saying that Euroipe practiced cannibaism because people ate parts of the human body as medieine against illness. I have studied medical history on and off for fifty years, and I never heard of such a thing.
Today, it is taken for granted that all social animals are territorial and that all social animals have a rigid heirarchy.
Like chimpanzees, Native Americans needed some meat in their diets. Like chimapanzees, Native Americans had a shortage of meat animals until the horse was brought from Europe so they could hunt buffalo and the like. So the chimapnzees tear monkeys apart and NA’s tore other humans apart.
Young people today cannot even UNDERSTAND the last forty-five minutes of that documentary. Why did a discussion of southwestern Indians require a forty-five minute talk about the sins of Europeans?
Young people will never ask. And older people will never explain.
I just marked 59 “comments” as spam.
None of them had
NO SPAM at the top.
It took me about one clock minute.
Joe says I am attacking him “in front of the class.” He doesn’t seem to be intimidated by this, since he has made several commemts in his usual bashful way since he said that.
Hey, gang, I get to have a little FUN here.
I hit at Joe because I enjoy it. The world is not exactly full of people I can drop the hammer on and not have to worry about it. What I say to Joe doesn’t bother me. What may concern me is htat readers, especially those new to the blog, may think that these two old dogs are actually BITING each other. Our snarling and mixing it uyp may make others uncomportable.
It shouldn’t. Joe and I enjoy each other because we have something irreplacable in common. And that was true long before we discovered we were both in “the program.”
One thing that suprises newcomers in alcohol and drug recovery is how us inmates talk about the most tragic things and LAUGH. Long before I entered the program at age 51, I had learned you hvae to either laugh or end up in a padded cell. If you see people tortured to death, if you see your world being destroyed, you HAVE to learn to laugh at the absuridty. Someone put it perfevtly, “We laugh and we joke but we don’t PLAY.”
Laughter in the program was just a late manifestation of this. Joe likes my brutal humor because we couldn’t have survived without it. This is important:
Man is the only animal who knows he will die. Man is the only animal who LAUGHS.
I have just as much if not more in common with the young idealists like Dave and the older idealists like Budarick. But each thing I have in common with you is irreplacable.
I don’t mind admitting that I’m not tough. I’ve been HURT with Elizabeth, I seek faith like Shari. I was a drunk like Joe. It hurts me to see a white person with a black adoptee the way it does Dave or Pain.
Joe talks about how he would have personally executed Ted Bundy. I have been in a lot of fighting, and I doubt there is a single commenter here who would NOT be willing to pull the switch on a cold-blooded killer.
That includes the women. In fact that may ESPECIALLY include the women. But Joe seems to think he is especially tough. He look down on mere words. The problem is that we do not have the CHANCE to pull the switch on people who deserve it. The battle is words. That’s the fight, and that’s the battle I fight. Pullling hte switch is a luxury I don’t have. But if I do what I am trying to do, my young idealists will get to pull it.
The humor Joe and I share is the pain Joe and I share.
No war hero ever made the slightest difference in real history. Only those who fought with words determined reality.
I am not the slightest bit concerned with whether I am bragging or not. or things like that. I have said that it would be mistake for me to be in any clique because I woud be destructive there. Nobody is less qualified for electoral politics than I am, because that requires an absolute obsession with leaving the right impression of ONESSELF and that most low and superficial of talents, remembering people’s NAMES.
Since Dale Carnegie people have freely admitted, even bragged, that they elect people to decide the future of their race and their children on the basis of whether a person remembers their NAMES, whether a person made sure they weren’t personally insulted. I would rather be accused of about anything than to admit that I let someone’s remembering my NAME determine the future!
No one else seems to consider that an insult. They say it is “human nature.” It’s sure as hell not the nature of THIS human. I think a human should have frontal lobe, not just a herd instinct. But REVEREND Dale Carnegie, the philosopher for psychopaths, said it was OK.
I have just recited a list of things above. Each would merit a book, but I have written all the books I plan to. Each of the observations I have made show how people have stopped being human, and not just in politics. I will use words to help make some of them human again.
I don’t need a faith or Judgement to make me act human. I judge myself every day. If I face a Judgement, I do not expect it will be an exam on the Old Testament or a test of how I followed any other theological BOOK. If God is THAT shallow, I don’t stand a chance anyway.
Say what you think.
No one else is going to do either.
You know what gets scary?
Look at what ORIGINAL BLOOD just said. It is the simplest kind of truth at the most basic level. We keep explaining the simplest kind of truth at the most basic level here.
The problem is that if you have to keep telling Ted Bundy that it is not good to torture young women to death, over and over and over, you begin to feel a little crazy yourself.
You keep explaining to them “Genocide NOT good. This is NOT GOOD THING.”
They keep saying it IS “Good Thing.”
And YOU begin to feel like YOU are the one who’s crazy.
You simply can’t keep explaining to people that blue is not purple, over and over and over, without beginning to wonder whether you yourself are completely sane.
Originally Posted by ORIGINAL BLOOD
Interesting post LilPaleGirl the problem with WNs is they dont know how to be proud of their race but respectful of others.
Bob, you are being too lenient with me.
But i am glad that you can see beyond the words i make.
That tells me that here is a man who has been around
who in any data-gathering work he may have to do,
is not going to get derailed by some imprecision
of language usage his target makes.
Now if i were the normal scumbag i would say,
“Oh i was just testing you Bob”.
Well i was NOT testing you.
No, i believe Hitler wanted to transcend “politics”
but he realized he had to fully understand it first.
He had to understand how it works.
I am a bit worried in that he probably did NOT understand it.
Because if you understand politcs you don’t enter that domain.
Joe is clapping now!
But Hitler was not your normal liberal hippy artist idealist.
He attempted the impossible.
For this reason he was deemed mad!
I believe it is fruitful to analyse his work from that perspective.
Not bloody likely!
You are in the midst of a thought process. I want to see how you come out.
Don’t give me “I believe it is fruitful to analyse his work from that perspective.” I want to see what YOU come up with.
Lenient, hell! Where the hell are you going? And if you don’t know, say so! Hints won’t do it in Bob’s Seminar!
You have left yourself utterly open. You have not retreated behind Joe’s Tough Guy crap. Damn, you’re GOOD! You made ME think.
I don’t want to put you on the spot. But do you have more?
Hitler was so ALONE! One man can’t work everything out. I think he was wrong on some obvious things that I know. I think his devotion to dictatorship was part of his time. But I am part of MY time. I am alone, too.
Why in heaven’s name did he turn to Goering instead of Hess, the man who helped him every inch of the way?
Joe keeps telling me I am attempting the impossible.
Am I nuts?
No doubt about it, I AM nuts. But take a look at what normal has come to, and you may have a new appreciation of us nutcases. Revolution is never practical. Joe is right. Revolution never succeeds. It has been said before: treason never triumphs, because if it is victorious it is not treason. So the Virginian Washington was called rebel, but he ended up a patriot, while the rebel Robert E. Lee, another Virginian, was a traitor.
Joe talks in tautologies.
Damn it, Budarick, where do we go from here?
I’ve noticed a profound difference between myself and most of the
people in my age bracket: because neither of my parents were
adults or even teenagers during World War II, I didn’t get
conditioned from birth with the same assumptions they
were — the ones about the sanctity of Israel, the
greatness of the U.N., and so forth.
While most of my elementary and high school classmates’
parents were “making the world safe for democracy,”
my parents were learning their multiplication tables
and how to use long division
Comment by Elizabeth”
Elizabeth keeps talking about how bad her parens were, but here she praises them. There is, for what my opinion is worth, no contradiction here. My father was a disaster. But he had an understanding of reality I stand by to this day.
There is nothing more understandable than for a human being to concentrate entirely on what was done TO THEM. Nothing is more understandable, nothing is more forgivable. If your interest is only what is understandable and forgiveable, analysis ends right there.
Elizabeth is not satisfied by that. I am not satisfied by that.
Gosh, isn’t it wonderful that someone can suffer endlessly from the failures of one’s parents and still understand some solid virtues that they had?
Well, if your final goal is to be “objective” the answer is “YES, you are a paragon of impartiality!”
And if your final goal in life is to praised as a paragon of impartiality, you have achieved Nirvana.
Can you really imagine that Bob or Elizabeth would consider this paragon of impartiality to MATTER?
I think this is the reason actors are leftists. They believe that reality is drama. Like the Greatest Generation they say, “You haven’t EXPERIENCED that!” Reality to them is something called Real Pain or Real Combat.
To Elizabeth and me, reality if simply what IS. Most of reality is NOT dramatic. To Elizabeth and me, however much we may state what hurt us, it is INSULTING to say that what hurt us is our REALITY. Our experiences of being hurt may be something others do not credit sufficiently. They may need to understand it.
But does that mean that we, like Hollywood actors, think that pain is the same thing as truth?
“Happens to be that I am a fanatic also when it comes to freedom of speech. I believe you are too because I expected you to kick me off your blog quite awhile ago. I have to give you top respect for permitting people to “speak” on your blog. The past 3 or 4 pieces have been very informative. ”
I read every comment over and over AFTER I approve it. But if somebody has
I don’t even bother to read it BEFORE approving it.
When you write
It means that you are a member of this seminar and you said something. Today a grad student is just an undergrad who has to make a B. I keep talking about what a real seminar WAS. If you WERE inthe seminar it was not up to the Old Prof to decide whether what you said made sense or not.
Joe, you are a smart old bastard and I am a smart old bastard. You have something to say and I have something to say.
I am the Old Prof. That means I LEAD. But I don’t TEACH.
In a truly intellectual situation, one LECTURES the undergrads. They are undergraduates.
But if I, as a professor, give someone a DEGREE, they are supposed to fall into a different category. The whole point of giving them a degree is supposed to he that I put them in a different category.
The word Doctor, as you damend well know, comes from Latin doceo, docere which means TEACH.
A doctor teaches the undergrads. But REAL seminars are in a category the modern “Doctor” cannot understand. The modern “Doctor” is a Wordist. He helps you to repeat the Final Truth and you help him repeat the Truth.
There is no difference inthis process between a teacher and a grad and a neophyte. You are all together in trying to learn to repeat the word of the True Faith.
So the concept of someone who is not trying to repeat the True Faith, but who is trying to explore truth, no matter where it leads, is totally alien.
Ayn Rand gave is the Truth, Karl Marx gave us the Truth. William Buckley and the Pope give us the Truth.
Bit what if you are l ooking for what is simply true?
To get back to your point, a good solid Wordist Doctor, a good sound Wordist teacher, would correct your deviation from the Truth. That is his job.
I don’t believe in any Truth.
Ole Bob USES you. Bob really couldn’t care less about what you consider Truth. To me, the idea that some BOOK needs to be studied endlessly is, to use a word you hate, just plain silly.
If you think that is very tolerant of me, please continue to do so. I don’t think I am being tolerant. I just want to stop being silly and make myself a part of a group that is using its frontal lobe. This is not idealistic.
I cannot anything more BORING than using my brain to learn to repeat something some clown who wrote a book said. I want to THINK. As a social animal, I need some others to stop drooling and repeating the Old Testament or Mein Kampf and SAY SOMETHING.
For social animal with a huge frontal lobe, listening to people repeat crap doesn’t just make me feel lonely, it makes me DESPERATE.
So in contrast to what is normally called Idealism, my motives may seem a bit selfish. An “Idealist” is someone who is fanatical about a BOOK.
Joe, I USE you. In the seminar you make me THINK. If you are practical, you will get a lot from this nut Whitaker because he’s very smart and has things to say you can benefit from. That’s YOUR problem.
What really scares me is BOREDOM.
All I ask is that you don’t BORE me. How does that fit on the ego scale?
I think I’m bragging, big time. Demanding that you don’t BORE me takes more ego on my part than lecturing does. If you say something I don’t like, I assume that Ole Bob can handle it. Tell me that doesn’t involve a strong ego!
Budarick climbed all over me. But with my iron ego, I figured that I, the Heroic Bob Whitaker, could handle any point he hit me with. If I couldn’t, then my Hero, Bob Whitaker, had better start learning HOW.
My seminar group is a bunch of iron wills. If the average professor had them in his class he would panic.
I am not your average professor.
I don’t want anybody here who would not cause the average professor to dirty his trousers.
Can you imagine how anybody could make a bigger brag than I just made?
Can you imagine anyone making a bigger brag about you, my collection of nutcase, than I just made?
You fit right in, Joe.
That last sentence should make you ashamed of yourself. That last sentence should make any member of this seminar think twice about being here.
But it won’t.
We are either absolutely superior or absolutely out of it.
You know where I put my chips.
If you want to understand my world view, one part of it is in my ongoing dialogue with Joe.
When you have been in this game as long as I have, you have long since run into a set of categories. I tell you about the people who call themselves “intellectuals” and boiled it dowon to “Nobody needs to call himself an “intellectual” unless he is insisting that his obvious absurdity is worth listenting to.”
When I say, “Call HIMSELF an intellectual,” said “intellectual” will say that he has never called hiumself an intellectual.
True. But the fact is that those of whom he approves always say that anyone who says he is talking crap declares that calling it crap is “anti-intellctual.”
The same is true of the Weakest Generation. They did call THEMSELVES the Greatest Generation. When a write called them the Greatest Genreation they just bought millions of copies of it. The children they had brain=washed bought it by the million. Robert Dole never said he was a war hero. But the staff member who didn’t say that over and over and over lost his job fest.
Joe, bless his heart, is definitelynot one of the drooling worshippers of The Greatest Generation.
Joe is one of another category, The Tough Old Guys.
I like Joe. He has the right instincts and he makes me think.
But it is critical to Joe that he never admit I taught him anything. So when he talked about the Big Book and I made a distinctionbetween that and Wordism, he ignored it and said my other comment was funny.
But the point is that I got what I can only get from Joe. He specifically said that the Big Book was a religion to a lot of people in the program nd I explained why the Big Book, properly used, is not Wordism.
The subtext here is that I got waht I wanted and Joe got what he wanted.
Joe didnot say, “Gee, Bob, you were right. I learned something here.”
“Gee Bob” is not in a tough old man’s lexicon.
Joe understands that he has something I need. That something is NOT some sort of agreement. I need his MIND, not his agreement. He makes me make points I ned to make.
Whenever I make a point, Joe dances away from it. When I make a point, the average libertarian/respectable conservative/leftist dances away from it. So what is the difference?
The difference is that when I hit back at a libertarian/respectable conservative/liberal/neo it’s THE SAME DAMNED DANCE. I have been dealing with their dances for fifty years, and I am SICK of them.
Joe will never admit he was wrong about anything. He will never admit I taught him anything. That is just as well, because Joe knows I have heart trouble and a shock like that could put an end to this blog.
The question is, do I want Joe to say he learned some4thing from me or I won an argument?
I make it cery clear that I make lots of mistakes. I am not ego-driven. But one thing I hope everybody here takes for granted is that the last thing Bob is worried about is winning an argument.
NEVER worry about winning an argument.
I want to make points. I want people to forvce me to make points.
Joe is a mean old bastard who forces me to make points.
He’s not about to change, and he knows that change is the last thing I want from him.
Us mean old bastards understand each other very well.
Until Hitler, in the Bunker, appointed Admiral Doenitz as his successor, it was generally assumed that the Number Two Man in the German Reich was Goering and, until 1941. the Number Three Man was Hess.
Hess was a Hero of Peace. He is beyond praise for bailing into Britain after the attack on the USSR. He did not know Churchill was dictator of Britain and Chruchill was a omplete psychopath. He took the chance and he lost.
Meanwhile who the hell was Goering? He was a war hero in his twenties, as Hess was. But did Goering ever DO anything?
If you read the piece I wrote about state socialism, you will probably understand why I don’t favor dictatorship. No matter what a racial idealist Hitler was, the bureaucracy under him had its OWN politics.
And in the jungle warfare of bureaucratic politics any idealistic purpose is totally forgotten.
My experience with bureaucracy tells me that it really makes no difference what the dictator believes. Dictatorship does not mean that the dictator is beyond criticism. It means that the BUREAUCRACY can hide behind the cloak or dictatorship. I have seen what the label “Top Secret” did to the intelligence bureaucracy. I personally do not remember a single case where it protescted a source. When the Church Committee wanted sources, it got them ALL.
The REALPOLITIK of bureaucracy did not ever think, not for a moment, that “Top Secret” was for the good of America. From the word go they used it to cover their own … well, CMA. I cannot imagine that a dictatorship bureaucracy would for a moment use the idea of Der Fuhrer for the good of the white race. As a matter of face, they would suppress those of us who are genuinely interested in our race and us the Fuhrerprinzip to avoid any criticism.
That is how the real world WORKS.
When it comes to free speech I am a fanatic. But not because I am some kind of “libertarian.” The very idea of being called a liberatrian makes my stomach queasy. Wordist “libertarians,” like any other respectable conservative, are the kind of people the REAL dictatorship, Political Correctness, cannot survive without.
Dictatorship doesn’t WORK. For me, that is the final condemnation.
I was watching a movie about Hitler and the incident was probably fake. But in it Hitler was at Bergtesgarten and some skiers came down a hill and met him. He was nice enought to them but he was not nice about skiing. In the movie, he said, “Skiing is dangerous and pointless exercise. IF I HAD MY way no would ski.”
The point of the movie, I suppose, was that Hitler was a Puritan bore. They concentrated so hard on that that they didn’t realize that had presented a very interesting insight about THEIR idea of Der Fuhrer.
I said below that the movie “The Night of the Generals” made a point which shallow people would accept. When the policeman went in to arrest the Nazi SS General — not just NS, but SS! — there was sudden alarm, so the Evil SS General just shot him and got on with business. One got the distinct impression that, if that copy had not come in at the very moment his division was being scramble to deal with the Hitler Assassination Plot, the SS Genral might have gone meekly away with him in handcuffs.
I find myself being harder on German generals than the movie is. If a cop walks up to a dictator’s general to arrest him, be the dictator Saddam or Stalin or Hitler, he g3ts shot.
So wehile all the morons are nodding and drooling over Hitler’s boorishness, I was amazed that the Fuhrer of National Socialist Germany would use the words, “If I had MY way.” Does anybody but me realize how WEIRD it is for a DICTATOR to use the word “If I had my way?”
Pardon me for being naive, but I had always assumed that the whole point of being a dictator is that you HAVE YOUR WAY. I doubt Hitler ever used those words with any German. Those words would mean he WASN’T dictator. But the movie-maker seemed to assume that Hitler just let people do what they wanted to do.
If Hitler decided that skiing was too risky to be good for Germans,he would have said, “No skiing.”
But the movie assumed Hitler was too libertarian to do that.
If you haven’t live under a dictatorship, if you insist that America is just like a dictatorship, you tend to get a bit screwy.
I warn that America is on its way to a complete dictatorship. But you won’t prevent that by being unable to recognize what a real dictatorship IS.
Notice the last article was explaining that state socialism didn’t WORK but this article is titled “Why IT Doesn’t Work.” You see, it used to be assumed not only that economic dicatorship was more efficient, but that ALL dictatorship was more efficient. So I will now explain why economic dictatorship is not more efficient, but later I will go into other forms.
OK. Below I explained to Budarick that there is nothing political than a nondemocratic state. The image most people have is of the idealist at the top giving clear commands and the millions of people under him carrying them out. Now let’s look at how this actually works in an economic dictatorship.
When the Communist took over and tried to command the economy, it was actually a comedy of errors.
A COMEDY of errors.
For example, how do you tell your bureaucracy how to produce glass? Each bureaucrat you put in charge of a glass factory must be judged by his productivity. So you have to SPECIFY what he must produce with a quota. You will think that what happened next is a joke. No adult could be inthe middle of a charade like this. But it HAPPENED!
The government specified a quote for glass production. They ordered each glass producer bureaucrat to produce a specified number of square feet of glass. If he did not produce the specified number of square feet of glass, he was fired and/or disappeared. So they produced endless square feet of glass. But the glass was so thin that it fell apart as soon as it left the factory.
So they tried TONS of glass. They got slabs of glass so thick they were useless. But they got lots of TONS.
How does a planner say, “Good God, man, be REASONABLE!” We want GLASS! You know, glass?”
Thigns were rough and something had to be done, so Lenin declared War Communism. War Communism was a return to the market system for as long as the Russian Civil War continued.
After the Civil War, the Soviets took a deep breath and went back to trying to explain to a bureaucracy what GLASS was.
Let us flash back to market economics. In a market economy the consumer will tell you right quick whatglass is. If your glass is too thick or too thin, your business collapses. But this is consumer signal. Under state socialism, there are no such signals. So you, the planner, must explain what glass is.
I told Budarick that when democracy ends, real politics begins. Let’s go down to the bureaucrat in charge of a glass factory. He gets a long, detailed quota about exactly how many square feet AND tons of glass he must produce. Then he must deal with the bureaucrat in charge of making automobile windshields or builders of the outside of houses that must USE his glass. This guy has a quota, too. This is where the politics comes in.
Our glass maker sits down with his glass users over a lot of vodka. They work out how he can produce the largest amount of quota glass so that the manufaturer or builder can use it. It will be LOUSY glass, but it will be usable for meeting the other guy’s quota. The glass will be hard to see through but it will satisfy the category “glass” for the purposes of the quota the front of a car-maker or house-bulder has to meet.
You may think that the guy in charge ofhte next step holds all the cards. But under state socialism, they ALL need glass to meet THEIR quotas. So they have to work it out so they et the glass, though the quality may leave a bit to be desired.
That is POLITICS.
So the front-end car maker or the outside of the house builder works out a formula by which the glass-maker can meet HIS quota, in exchange for some favors. Now these guys need to work out a means by which THEIR front-ends and outsides can give them the maximum quota and be ACCEPTABLE to the nest step up the line, hte car-makers and house-builders.
At each stage the end product gets shoddier and shoddier. By the end, every single Soviet product was a mess. Every single car was a clunker. But the Soviet consumer had to buy them. In fact, these clunkers were in such short supply that a Soviet consumer had to wait YEARS to get his clunker. Not one single Soviet product was ever saleable abroad.
All theoretical crap aside, no bureaucrat can actually explain what GLASS is. Any consumer KNOWS wht glass is. No 1950s intelletual understood this. The CIA did not understand this. Any professor who tried to explain this was FIRED.
Common sense tells us that the market is a mass of waste and inefficiency. Common sense tells us that if someone just takes charge from the center and makes us PRODUCE, the system will be a dream of efficiency.
As I keep saying, the only problem is that it doesn’t WORK.
And, as the Soviet Union proved at incredible human cost, that is a FATAL problem.
Let me explain to you why Communism doesn’t work. But first, let me explain why everybody assumed it DID work.
In the 1950s, every “intellectual” took it for granted that socialism, meaning central control of all the means of production and exchange, was “inevitable.” Ther was no future for small business or individual creativeness. The idea was that when you look at all the waste and inefficiency of capitalism, wtih small businesses being created and dying, the whole thing would work better if you cut through all the complications and just had everything produced cooperatively, without all the wasteful competition and waste.
Everybody assumed that Communism was more EFFICIENT. Every year, using indices I explained below, every Commmunist economy announced how it was growing wildly and gaining on the USA. I remember that one journal explained htat the Chinese economy was not YET at that stage, and that was why Chinese annual reports explained how they were gaining on the British economy. But all of them were overtaking the West. That, I repeat, was TAKEN FOR GRANTED.
The ONLY disagreement inthe economic community was 1) Whether the inevitable socialist future cold be democratic and 2) a charming nostalgia.
The charming nostalgic admitted that state socialism was more efficient. It admitted that the “centrally planned economies” would get bigger than the inefficient Western economies and the West wou d fall as the socialist economies truimphed. But the mostalgic crowd said it was too bad. They were pining for the Good Old Days or individualism. They all agree that Stalin’s Five Year Plans had been wildly successful, but “the success came at a huge human cost.”
So some people did say socialism was a bad idea, but they all agreed it was EFFICIENT and therefore INEVITABLE. Anybody who didn’t agree with that obvious proposition was considered a nut case and didn’t get promoted. The CIA and all Western intelligence agencies went along with this assessment.
It was not until the early 1960s that a few economists, especially one of mine, started pointing out that Communism was a bureaucratic mess where the economy got worse every year. They were whoputed down. At the University of Virginia, they were removed. But they won anyway. That was at the same time that every mainline geneticist and psychologist insisted that the innate IQ level of all raes was absolutely equal, and anyone who challenged that got fired.
We won BOTH battles. No one insists the Communist system was efficient today, and no one insists that the races are innately equal today. No one even bothers to argue either point, and everybody has forgotten anybody ever said either of these things.
Check it out.
As I say, you know when the other side has completely lost a point because every respectable cosnervative suddenly forgets they ever made it. That is what respectable conservatives get paid for.
All this is leading to an important world-view that I want to share with you. It is ABOUT economics, but please keep in mind it is a WORLD view, not economic quibbling. Bear with me through the next piuece and don’t shout about how boring it is, because it is necessary to understand where the winners for the minds of the future are coming from.
I will begin hitting on that in the next article. It will be WORK for me, and I do not need people shouting at me that I am getting lost in economics.
Back then no one in the mainline economic community
From a primitive state, Russia had advanced incredibly by the early twentieth century. The Periodic Chart we use in chemistry was invented by a Russian. The blood pressure cuff we use still has a Russian name.
As soon as they came under the sway of other whites, the Russians leapt forward.
The came the Soviets, and they did something unprecedented.
Under the Soviet Union from two to three hundred million WHITE people spent two generations accompishing NOTHING. By that I mean that, as the developementof things people want leapt forward inthe rest of the white world the Communists managed to keep a major part of the white race from producing ONE SINGLE consumer good anyone outside their captive market wanted to buy.
Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe in 1913. By the end of the Soviet regime, the only thing that kept Soviets alive was massive importation of American wheat. So you may wonder what I mean when I say the USSR did NOTHING.
The Communist regime accomplished a lot, the way non-whites do. They did a lot of killing, enslaving on a scale unheard outside of Communist Asia, a lot of things. They did nothing WHITES do.
Let’s get this straight. The most fundamental and ignored fact about the races is that nobody can mention one single sin the white race is supposed to have committed that was NEW. Genocide and conquest, all that was accomplished by blacks in Africa as they drove out the earlier race there and were only stopped when they ran into the Afrikaaners.
The only people who did not make a regular practice of slavery were people like the Australian aboriginals who were too primitive to do so.
But white society is the only one where starvation is considered unusual. The Great Chinese Philosophers sat under trees and impressed their pupils while they could sell the ammonia smell children give off as they starve to death.
Yes, the Soviets built up a war machine, but I do not know of one single thing they invented even in that area. Since Klaus Fuchs, a decalred Communist, was a member of the Manhattan Projest, it is amazing it took three years for the Soviets to steal the atomic bomb. Their weapons can all be traced to their Western origins, down to the Karishnikov.
Unlike Orientals, the Soviets even did a bad job of COPYING.
“Hitler did not believe in Politics.”
******** If you will reread Mein Kampf, you will see that when he decided wht to do with his life at the end of World War I, he says, “I decided to go into politics.”
Hitler did not believe in democracy, but under a dictatorship a huge bureaucracy invariably burgeons. If you don’t think bureaucracy involves politics, you’ve never worked in one. NS Germany was a beehive of politics.
You just got the word wrong. I do that ALL the time.
Now that you are putting
at the top, my problem with spam is almost solved. Now I just go through and look for the
at the top, approve those, and approve them.
Then I just go back, hit the “Mark all as spam” for the rest, and out go the whole 200 or so.
This is great!
I almost lost Simmons because he put his NO SPAM at the beginning of the first paragraph.
Joe used to put No Spam into the first paragraph, but I’ll miss him if he does. I think Joe’s saying No Spam with the small letters if a kind of macho, “I’m not going to follow orders from Bob.” The rest of you realize these are NOT orders. It is just hwat I need and it saves me a LOT of time to just look for
in big black letters so I can zip through.
Yes, Joe, even you.
You will never hear a liberal or a respectable conservative admit that the old liberals were
just plain WRONG. That is why respectable conservatism has embraced neoconservatism.
Neoconservatism says that liberals were never just plain wrong. Neoconservatism says that
those of us who warned where liberalism was heading before 1970 were wrong.
Neoconservatism says that liberalism was perfectly right until on or about January 1, 1970.
On that date, leftism suddenly went nuts. National Review today says that the founders of
National Review were wrong and evil when, in 1955, they founded that publication on the idea
that leftism would lead stright to all the disasters we have today. National Review insists
that it is all for every liberal program until 1970.
On the other hand, if you look at the intellectual basis of liberalism in the 1950s, it is
laughable. They insisted that anone who hinted that the average IQ or even the running
speed of different races was innately different was anaziwhowantedtokillsixmillionjews.
They would FIRE any professor who insisted on the importance of genes. They made it law
that anyone who said animals had the kind of discrimination that capitalist society has
produced was a Hitlerite.
And that was just one of their absurdities. Today we know that every social animals has a
rigid caste structure.
So how can liberals/respectable cosnervatives/neoconservatives insist they were right?
First, by strategic forgetfulness. No one at National Review will admit that liberals said
what they said back then.
Second, there is code for saying they were just plain wrong. Now that all the crap about
how there was no such thing as heredity is known by everybody not only to be crap, but to be
OBVIOUS crap, they use the code term, “Does not exist.” So today, instead of admitting they
were just plain WRONG that there was, practically speaking, no such thing as heredity and
everything was environment, liberals/respectable conservatives/neoconservaties/libertarians
all agree that there is no such thing as heredity and environment.
So they used to say that environment was everything. But now that that is obvious nonsense,
they say they were never WRONG, it was just simplistic. You see, there is now no such thing
as heredity or environment.
On race, it is pretty obvious that different races run at different speeds. Ask whites in
the Boston Marathon if they think they can beat East Africans. Well, since that argument
was ridiculous from the get-go, they say there is no such thing as race.
Just as the code term for anti-white is “anti-racist” the code term for “We were ridicuous”
is “Us real Intellectuals know that whatever it is we were wrong about never existed.”
“NOt Spam. Not Spam.
I wasn’t going to comment on this but I changed my mind.
You said, “wordism is loyalty to a BOOK, to WORDS.” That’s your definition. I’m willing to accept it. In fact, I think it’s your creation. I don’t fool with anybody’s creation. That’s personal.
This piece caused me to think about the Big Book. Now you know what the Big Book is so we can sort of make it personal this time. When I first came into the Fellowship in this part of the country almost nobody referred to the Big Book. The group was small. One old-timer mentioned the Big Book and I inquired about it. I gobbled it up and soon we were having what is called Big Book Studies. After a time I chaired many of these meetings. Soon the house was packed. They came from all around. It was a wonderful experience. I came to find that nationwide and even worldwide there were many people who were “loyal” to the Big Book, specifically, the words in the Big Book. Without this they might never have made it. They will testify to that. If this is wordism it’s working for a whole lot of people. I’ve seen lives change for the better as a result of this loyalty to the Big Book and the words which express ideas that have changed their lives. It’s not the only book but it’s the book I’m talking about at the moment.
I’m not trying to promote anything one way or another. I’m just telling what I know to be a fact. ”
If I do electrical work, I USE a book. My loyalty to my race is unshaken.
Those who wrote the big book made it very clear it was not a religion. If you use the book as I did because it works, you are not a Wordist. But if you WORHIP the big book and say, “My loyalty is to other drunks. Anyone who happens to be black is therefore fine to marry my daughter,” you ARE a Wordist, and a lot of people do that.
You are halfway there, though. Your entire dialogue here is telling us to give up fighting for our race, but you would never say such a thing when you are trying to save drunks. In fact, you or I would consider it a moral violation to urge people to give up on drunks as hopeless, but you have no effort to spare for your race.
Wordism is a transfer of LOYALTY, not using some book that works in a particular case.