I.M. here does not mean Instant Messaging. It represents the one thing I can offer you that you cannot get for yourself: Institutional Memory.

So let’s do some I.M. I used to know a lot of members of the group that would later call themselves The Greatest Generation. You would not RECOGNIZE my description of the way they were in the 50s. One professor wrote an article in Reader’s Digest in the 1950s about The Silent Generation. He pointed out what I saw:

That guys who were in college on the G.I. Bill from the Korean War talked abut their experiences, but the guys from WWII never did.

Can you IMAGINE that? Back then, the WWII crowd was the Silent Generation!!!!! Now THAT’S Institutional Memory NOBODY else will tell you about.

In the last piece, I mentioned we pro-whites today are ahead of the curve of conservatism in the 1950s. You see, as Twin Rule will explain to you, Hitler LOST World War II, and the only absolutely consistent War Crime is LOSING. No one on the winning side has ever been accused of a War Crime, much less convicted. So in the 1950s everything that came from the right was Hitlerism. In the first Knesset in 1948, no one would sit on the Right… Any mention of racial IQ difference was grounds for a lynching, and I do NOT mean that figuratively. Ask Professor Osbourne of the University of Georgia.

As I said, William Buckley’s appearance on the Jack Paar show in January of 1961 was as shocking as Dr. Duke’s being on a major show ten years ago. Paar made fun of him, while O’Reilly shrieked at Duke, but it’s the same game. But I have been here before. To you this is a whole new game; to me this is where I came in.

Today, Dr. Duke’s being on national television is unusual but not unheard of, as Buckley’s was then.

While the Fanatical Losers TODAY tell us that we get no hearing, I am amazed at every time we DO get a hearing.

Or a chance to go around the System, like this blog.

Let’s look at the 80s:

Oh, yes, I remember the “Oh, God, ALL IS LOST!” fanatics. “Liberals rule all things, and will forever.” They turn out to have been right, but that is largely because of THEIR efforts. We won, so, while we concentrated on the GGS , the neoconservative strategy was being used to outflank us.

While we were trying to talk the “Reagan is not what we thought he would be idiots (no adult ever thought Reagan would be the single-minded anti-abortion fanatic they expected)” down off the ledge, neoconservatives whomadd the best of liberalism made the best of conservatism.

You see, while Gloomy Gus and Gloomy Gloria were whining about how Yesterday Will Never Come Again, those who had ruled policy previously simply adapted to the new world and ruled again. While most of us were trying to deal with the perpetual losers, the winners got into reality and won again.

In the end, I won AND I lost. As long as you accept the hypothesis of the Losers that bringing down the whole Soviet Empire was meaningless, I did NOTHING

All the Gloomy Gusses and Gloomy Glorias are saying that the enemy did not disappear; they just abandoned the Soviet Union.

Of course they did. It was a sinking ship.

But that is where GG’s interest in the whole thing ends. They want to prove it is all hopeless, that Conspiracy is All Wise and God-Like and cannot lose.

Which is exactly what enemy propaganda is all about.

So I KEEP pointing out that the biggest brag of National Review and other neoconservatives is that they stand by that liberal philosophy of John Kennedy’s crowd, “The Best and the Brightest.” So, I say, THEY got us into Vietnam and neos got us into Iraq. That is forty years of Institutional memory that could work for you.

What do I get back?

“Neos are JEWS! Read this book about JEWS!” “JEWS are all-powerful and loyal to each other and wise beyond our mere goy perception.”

Which is the propaganda your enemy ALWAYS has to PAY to put out.

I am SO sick of this! This is where I came in half a century ago.. But I am still on OUR side. I know all about selling out. I know all about it PROFESSIONALLY. I just won’t do it. I am NOT a sociopath.

But note this: Those of us who put out THEIR message will get the attention. One thing Allied Propaganda used to do was to repeat the worst things Nazis said about the Mongoloid race to the Japanese. And if you can be quoted as saying that the Jews are unbeatable, where do you think THAT quote will go?

And surrender always sells.

I have been this way before. I have been part of a group that fought its way to public and I told them what they were doing wrong and they did it.

I have been this way before.

And the fork is just ahead.

NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
AFKAN, I agree with much of what you say, but I have to point out that the author of Atlas Shrugged was one of these “demonic Jews” you rail against constantly. Also, Harold Covington is nuts.
-cl
Comment by cl

ME:

Cl, when we built the conservative movement we also made it impossible for people to understand what things were like BEFORE it. When Ayn Rand became popular in the 1950s, a book or a television appearance by a conservative was as unheard-of as a mainline publication or appearance by David Duke was a decade ago. In fact, pro-whites are AHEAD of that curve.

Buckley’s appearance on Jack Paar in 1961 was almost exactly like that of Duke on O’Reilly, though Paar made fun of him rather than shrieked. I say this to explain why we were so ecstatic with Ayn Rand’s popularity.

Ayn Rand and Robert Welch (John Birch Society) were what we old timers — ask Duke or Kelso — call “everybody’s nursery.” Say that to any of our Old Soldiers and they will chuckle.

They were ALL WE HAD, and we will always weep senile tears at the mention of those names. Remember, that was the height of the power of the Masturbation Generation, and everybody else of age or influence was telling us that Tough Guys surrendered.

Jewess or not, Ayn Rand had more balls than that whole generation of male hens.

I was just turning twenty and I could not get a rather obvious point across – not my last experience with this phenomenon. Ayn Rand was an Eastern European Jew, just as Karl Marx was an Eastern European Jew. I had read Marx. When I read Marx, it was glaringly obvious to me that she was Karl Marx upside-down.

Both of them abandoned Judaism and got a Wordism to replace it. Marx said Paradise would come were all men were equal and the bourgeoisie concept of freedom abandoned. Rand said Paradise would be reached when absolute, total individualism was complete.

There is a similarity in opposites. When me and an anti-white are talking, we are covering the same ground: Do away with whites or not. White anti-whites are more white supremacist than I am. They insist that nonwhites are animals who cannot be responsible for ANYTHING.

We both agree that whites do everything, but they are right back to the old Manicheist/ Zoroastrian idea that all is EVIL. They insist that the white man is Ahriman, Satan. I hope I avoid saying we God. But we are both talking abut the same thing.

There is a similarity in perfect opposites. Rand and Marx were talking about the same thing, from opposite poles.

Nobody understood a word of what I was saying.