Archive for November 10th, 2006
Yes, when people think of genocide they see heaps of corpses.
Let me explain something about political warfare. Alan B had the insight that Papilon has changed the nature of debate by posting the Mantra on BNP.
Here is where Alan’s insight is so critical. He did NOT say that the entire British population had begun torchlight parades in favor of THE TRUTH. He noted a minor but critial sea change.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what power politics is all about.
If genocide has a stereotype, ad we have a definition which even the critics have to admit is valid, we can either try to justify ourselves — which is ALWAYS fatal — or we can just go on and use the real definition over and over and over and over until THAT is the accepted definition because it is TRUE.
We are inthe process of appropriating THEIR word. If Jews had kept the word genocide as a defensive measure they could still have it. But they chose to use it to describe any method by whiich whites tried to preserve their own kind. In the UN Resolutions they expanded the definition to include anything that whites could conceivably use to save white gentiles.
So the policy they are now pursuing is, by their own definition, genocide.
So now we are supposed to redefine the word to suit THEM?
No way, Jose!
They stumbled into an exact definition of the genocide THEY are practicing. They expanded it so they could vent their hatred of white gentiles.
Hate is self-destructive.
Even Stevenp quotes chapter and verse to say that I am right, what I describe inthe Mantra IS genocide. But we are supposed to let them get away with doing away with OUR race on a technicality.
No way, Jose.
As Noah Webster said, language is USAGE. We are going to USE that definition. In the meantime, it will go throuhg the standard stages of being called absurd, being attacked,and being accepted.
I’ve been here before.
They are trying to do away with my race. That is genocide. Stop quibbling.
In the late 1960s David Halbersham wrote a book called “The Best and the Brightest” which was a best-seller the media didn’t like. The media were blaming Vietnam on Lyndon Johnson and blubbering over John Kennedy’s Camelot, those glorious John Kennedy days before before the Evil Texan took over.
Halberstam pointed out, in detail, how it was Kennedy’s Harvard advisors who got us into Vietnam BEFORE Johnson took office.
They were called “the best and the brightest,” the kind of young liberal intellectuals the media worshipped.
And today neoconservatives declare that they are not the old-fashioned conservatives who opposed the glorious things liberalism did in the 1960s. They say they WERE liberal intellectuals, and they ARE liberal intellectuals in the exact image of “the best and the brightest” back then.
And they got us into Iraq, our new Vietnam.
They are neos, and Iraq is our neoNam.
Yeah, that is the first or second thing that you notice when reading the mantra for the first time. I think I read somewhere on this blog that what the mantra speaks about fits the UN definition of genocide.
I’m following the thread papillion posted. Very hard on the BNP up to my reading at page 8. I see we got some of our people in there. The mantra has really changed the tone of the discussion. Now they are trying to deny that we are victims, rather than asserting that we are victimizers.
Comment by Al Parker
As I said, this is the kind of thinking we need in 2006.
“The mantra has really changed the tone of the discussion. Now they are trying to deny that we are victims, rather than asserting that we are victimizers. ”
I have THOUGHT that way for years, and it is a relief for me to see someone else thinking in terms of moving the battlefront.
And this IS the battlefront. This is the ONLY battlefront. All those soldiers in battle were the RESULT of words printed and spoken before the shooting started. The soldiers make better stories, but they don’t make history.
This will not be the first time that someone made history by being on top of technology. The printing press MADE the Protestant Reformation. The Hussites had won victory after victory on the battlefield a century before, but they were crushed inthe end and the movement died right there.
One Jew got it right. A lady who had been watching Parliament complained to him that all they did there was give their opinions. He replied, “Madam, opinion rules the world.”
Papillon reaches more people in a single insertion of the blog than the biggest crowd Lenin ever spoke to.
Something that used to require endless printings and repetitions from the literate to the illiterate was a breakthrough in communications when printing was developed. But compared to ” the buzz on the net” that is stone-age stuff, like speeches and parties.
One papillon is worth a dozen generals, and I am grateful to Alan B for having the smarts to see it and for pointing it out
I suppose the old rules apply. There are about 30,000 people working on Capitol Hill, most of them in the House. The majority party hires something like two-thirds of them. So thousands of people who have been working for the Republicans for the past twelve years are now out on the streets.
In 1994, when Republicans abandoned their old “the votes are in the middle of the road” strategy the GOP had been following for decades and won the House. Dems had controlled the House since 1955 so for forty years career staff had lived and died on the Hill. Suddenly thousands of middle-aged Democratic staffers, people the media knew and loved, were out on the street. Their problems were big news.
Any of us who hve faced being on the street past forty can feel their pain. But in my case my heart does not go out to the thousands of respectable conservatives being bounced in January 2007. My heart did not bleed for the liberal staffers who were tossed off the Hill in 1995.
It couldn’t happen to nicer guys.
My opinion is that all those black committee chairmen for the Democrats are going to be a real minus for the Party. If they appear on national television, they will be saying leftist crap the public hasn’t heard since 1972. But with both the Party and the media to vet them, this may be minimized.
Meanwhile those who are obseesed with Iraq can discuss the significance of this event.
We should be concentrating on making history right here.
Name: Stevenp |
The term genocide, though accurate, is too strong.
We are out there TRYING IT OUT. We are getting good results.
If it is accurate and it works, why is it too strong?
Steven goes on into a long and useful discussion of what constitutes genocide, but for us, all that matters is whether it is accurate and it works. This is the kind of thing we ahev spent decades tied up in, inventing the wheel over and over and over.
Robbie gives us a long diatribe about how there is no movement and how we are not doing anything.
We are aware of that, Robbie. We are doing something here.
Something that changes minds. Something we are making the Internet Buzz. Something that is teaching us what works and what doesn’t.
Both Steven’s and Robbie’s long peices were a return to the past for me:
1) A discussion of words
2) A cry of frutration.
That is the past. We spent fifty years doing that and it didn’t work.
We are now USING words and we ARE doing something. We are not trying to wow ‘em with our detailed knowledge or organizing giant torchlight parades.
“Back when I used to my wife picked up on it and started using it herself. One day I watched as a leftie got her all defensive by telling her she was exagerating. I didnft like that – watching her trying to justify her claim was painful.”
But your wife did not have Bob Whitaker as her coach. You are simply ignoring my fifty years of experience in this business. I’m GOOD at it. I have the paychecks to prove it, and that wsn’t even my best work.
I covered the Genocide Treaty in a sentence below when someone had some trouble with that same thing. He has not reported back, but it is easy to point out that Genocide is defined many ways and only one of them involves actual killing.
They use the same crap over and over and we have 1) the Mantra, to which the only answer is “RACIST!” 2) Then we have “HERSY!” to deal with that. Now we have 3) Someone who thinks genocide is only killinng can be made a fool of just as easily, without any LENGTHY quotes. And LENGTHY is the key to the whole strategy.
We are NOT trying to get into a battle of who is the Most Informed. The ONLY question is how silly THEY are. All the erudition in the world doesn’t make a silly idea serious. But if you get tied into the quotes crap, you have let a person who is talking crap get away with it. You are taking a loony seriously.
The point is that they are loonies. They are silly. They are wrong. The second you become like a “respectable conservative” and treat them as if they were saying something serious, you’ve LOST.
I don’t play to lose.