Archive for October 25th, 2006
Fear of “big schemes” = All is Lost
Comment by Pain — 10/25/2006 @ 5:24 pm | Edit This
Way to go, Peter!
I wish we had a few hundred more comrades like you posting on a regular basis. What’s interesting is that once you get started you find yourself looking for more places to post and pretty soon it just becomes a habit. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Mark — 10/25/2006 @ 9:24 pm | Edit This
No, fear of “big schemes” does not mean all is lost. As far I as I can tell, there is no Big scheme, just a small one, until something happens. Right now, I would not trust a Big scheme.
Comment by Shari —
Forget the big scheme little scheme stuff.
Pain’s Mantra Parties are what is critical. I am enormously encouraged by that initiative.
Mark, let me join with you in hailing Pain’s efforts. He is doing EXACTLY what must be done.
Fight the fight in front of you. When the time is right, your efforts will grow on their own. The Mantra is a sledgehammer which is showing the kind of results to you that I have gotten all my life, all alone. The one-twopunch of the Mantra and then “HERESY” has been grabbed and run with.
It doesn’t take many to make it happen. Don’t worry about the hundreds. Today you can do a hundred entries that would have taken hundreds of people great effort to accomplish when I was coming up.
Fight the FIGHT.
Fight the FIGHT.
Fight the FIGHT.
This Blog is a seminar. When a professor is getting started on a book, he talks about it with his grad students. He gets THEM to do research on it.
BUT I DO NOT WANT YOU TAKING TIME OFF FROM SPREADING OUR MESSAGE TO DO THIS.
BUT I DO NOT WANT YOU TAKING TIME OFF FROM SPREADING OUR MESSAGE TO DO THIS.
I sm hoping this might interest you and give you more incentive. You are being trained to replace me. You are here to learn to do what I do.
So let’s try submitting my intro to the class. I will take it off soon to save band width.
These two pieces from my blog at
make a good beginning in introducing what I write about:
In his very laudatory Foreword to Why Johnny Can’t Think Joe Sobran said you couldn’t even really call it a book. He was right in the usual sense of that term. It is not a book because there are no talking heads in it.
I am about to write to book about American history from the Southern point of view. Those who love Southern history know that there are few places outside of Elizabethan England from which greater oratory came. That thundering speech is what most of us love to quote.
Those who look to my book for it will be deeply, sorely, heartbrokenly disappointed.
I write logic, not oratory. I am pretty good at real oratory myself. I had the paychecks to prove it.
What Sobran wanted was more quotes and especially more quotes from Great Men about how bad things are in America. My book was based on the proposition that everybody could see what I was talking about by a proper reading of the magazines in a doctor’s waiting room.
After one hundred-hour-a-week job after another, steam-cooker pressure job in Washington, I had had enough. So I took a nice, forty-hour-week career job as a writer for the Voice of America.
Needless to say, that “easy” job was the one that did me in. It wasn’t any scary assignments abroad. I could handle an assault weapon.
What did me in was the tape recorder.
All the editors at VOA came from the cookie cutter that produces all media writers today. You have to have a “talking head” in every discussion. So every time you have a TV reporter say, “Many government officials feel that lemons are sour” they have to cut to a clip that shows a man with the words, “James L. Kliphammer, D-New York” below his picture saying, “In my opinion, lemons are sour.”
This is what is called “a talking head” that says what everybody knows. Every cookie-cutter reporter has to do that.
So I was paid the highest salary of any writer in my area because I was an expert on American government. My fatal assignment was to explain the workings of the American government for foreign broadcasts.
Every broadcast had to have two “talking heads.”
To get a “talking head” that week, you had to arrange an interview with an official at the part of the government you were talking about, do a taped interview with him, and then write so that some piece of the tape you had made could be cut and quoted.
I had to cut the tape myself. Anyone who has ever done this will tell you it is, to say the least, tedious. So is setting up an interview in that week. Two of them are twice the fun.
The cookie-cutters were all trained in news departments. What I was doing was not news. I was trying to explain the workings of the many segments of the United States Government to foreigners. It is not easy to explain the workings of the United States Government to Americans. But trying to treat the Federal Communications Commission as if it were a news item and sticking in talking heads made the task impossible. The FCC was not invented this week and the place of a regulatory agency inside the administrative machinery of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches is not helped by the current opinion of some appointee.
My books were NOT cookie-cutter books. They are explanations of what you already know or should know from a different point of view. I had to rewrite “Why Johnny Can’t Think” fifteen times, and I don’t think there’s a quote in the whole thing.
I don’t WRITE talking heads. I AM the talking head here.
I WROTE the quotes they used from congressmen and senators and cabinet members and the president. At age forty I couldn’t adjust to trying to fit some inane remarks into the complicated explanation they hired me for.
And after I left they couldn’t find a product of the cookie-cutter who COULD.
So my last book was not a REAL book.
My next one won’t be either.
Ex Garbage Dump Lux
— Bob @ 1:13 pm Edit This
In the Great Catastrophe of 2050 A.D. almost all ancient records were destroyed. As civilization began to come back, historians began to try to find out about the past. But they despaired.
The reason they despaired was because they had found enough ancient records to know that historians of the pre-2050 era had only been able to find real history because of an incredibly fortunate coincidence. It happened that everything before them had been invented in the Middle East. Due to a miracle, the Middle East was the very place where all real history had been preserved.
While Europe and all other places had had rain and city after city had been built on the same spot, the Middle East was a place where ruins were found out on the desert. In the Middle East many civilizations fell and STAYED fallen. In Europe one invasion had followed another invasion.
The new historians knew the saying “Ex Oriente Lux,” “Light comes from the East,” on which history before them had been constructed. Everything old had been found in the Middle East, so everything had originated in the Middle East.
Post-2050 historians were delighted beyond measure when they found they had a similar miracle.
Out on the islands of what was once New York, there was a huge, buried area which the pre-2050 ancients had called “Garbage Dump.” Right there was where the earliest example of every kind of writing and artifact of the old civilization was found!
Everything had originated right there, in “Garbage Dump!”
The new history could be written. Everything could be traced to its origins in Garbage Dump.
Ex Garbage Dump Lux.
Be it the Middle East or the Garbage Dump, the professional historian’s motto is, “The Truth is IN there!”
Since I am asking you to read a huge hunk of my writing here, it is important for me to explain how my way of thinking, the thinking I am asking you to consider here, actually works.
My example and hero among writers was Eric Hoffer. Hoffer was a writer of aphorism, short thought-pieces that were supposed to touch on whatever was in his mind. Hoffer was one of the few real successors to
To illustrate his kind of thought, Hoffer gave an example. He said that his way of doing research for his writing was different from that of others. Instead of looking in the card catalogue to find things relating to the subject he was mentally munching on he would simply look at the first thing that hit his eye, from a magazine or a newspaper to a book being touted at the time. He would spend half an hour looking around.
If the stuff he looked at didn’t give him an insight into the idea he had come into the library munching on he would for that particular idea and go on to something else. Hoffer insisted that any concept worth thinking about related to anything worth writing about.
Hoffer, who had never entered a schoolroom in his life, was given a professorship at UCLA. He resigned before the first semester was over. He said, “These students can’t THINK!” They could not deal in concepts. They were training to be good professional regurgitators like the ones I described above as cookie-cutter products of today’s journalism.
I try to copy my idol’s idea that one’s thinking must interrelate or it is useless.
So this book was originally supposed to be two books. One would explain “Wordism.” The other was requested by publisher, a book on history specifically from an ante-bellum white point of view. It soon occurred to me that the subjects are interrelated. In fact they go better together than separated.
First of all, as stated above, today’s historian does not see history as a description of earlier people’s present. He sees everyone he writes as part of a parade leading to what we consider the perfection of human thought we have achieved today. We call it Political Correctness.
Political Correctness is not LIKE a religion, it IS a religion. It is the established religion of the United States and the rest of the West today. It views history the way all religions view history, as the evolution of mankind into an acceptance of the True Faith of our day and place. To a Christian, the Old Testament is the evolution of thought to towards the New Testament. To a Moslem or a Mormon, the Old and New Testaments show the road to the Koran.
No theologian can keep his job if he looks at earlier writings in any other light. No historian can keep his job if he looks at history as anything but a progression towards the faith he is paid to teach, the established religion of Political Correctness.
No historian is going to write a history of America from a Southern ante-bellum point of view any more than a Moslem is going to write a history of religion from Saint Augustine’s point of view, and for exactly the same reason. In each case, the writer has the True Faith, and he is not about to go back to heresy.
And heresy it is.
Each age and each society has its own term for “HERESY!” In Communist countries all heresy was denounced as Fascism. In Fascist Italy heresy was denounced as Communism. In Politically Correct America “HERESY!” is spelled “HATE.”
And as we all know Hate=Racism and Racism = any white view of the world.
A good example of HERESY!=HATE= any white point of view is what I call Bob’s Mantra:
“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 anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
There is no way to deny Bob’s Mantra on a factual basis. It has been placed in hundreds of places and the only reply has been to shout “HERESY!”
As a general statement, the ante-bellum Southern position saw the Federal Union as a Union of white people. This point of view was summed up as part of the Dred Scot Decision of the Supreme Court in 1857. There are many good, solid PRACTICAL objections to that decision, but it was solid constitutional thinking as the Constitution stood in 1857. I have never read single critique of that decision that challenged the fact that was an accurate, defensible interpretation of the United States Constitution and constitutional history as that history stood at that time.
The Supreme Court decided that the Union was based on race. Political Correctness says that is heresy today. Both points of view are correct.
During the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, Lincoln said that if the Supreme Court gave states the right to make black people citizens, he would not favor doing it in Illinois. Very, very few people are aware that the Supreme Court had actually banned states from making black people citizens. At least to Lincoln’s mind the Supreme Court had gone that far in the Dred Scot Decision, and he didn’t even disapprove of it. That was the world of 1858.
Historians are so wrapped up in the Political Incorrectness of the Dred Scot decision in today’s terms that they simply cannot put themselves in the position of the present as it existed in 1858. But if you cannot do that, you are not discussing history, you are talking about today’s established religion as applied to those living back then.
All of today’s paid historians, liberal or token conservative, must discuss ante-bellum history in terms of some version of the Northern point of view. Sympathetic though he may be, even the most revisionist must see the North as right and the South as wrong.
As a heretic, I am going to present a complete, thoroughly heretical dissent from this.
Which is the reason this an e-book and not, like my first two books, the product of a mainline publishing concern.
Under the Soviet Empire, this kind of writing was called samizdat, “self-publication.” It was illegal. Now that I am comfortably retired, the threat of arrest and imprisonment or a psychiatric ward would bother me. But the only punishment I face for this American samizdat is disapproval.
After many decades as a political writer in America in America, disapproval is something I have learned to live with.