Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

PC “Change” Versus change

Posted by Bob on August 28th, 2007 under Coaching Session


Those who talk about Change cannot deal with real, honest-to-God change, just as the last people who know love are those who shout Love incessantly. No one is a better hater than a person who insists he is fighting Hate.

Marxism believed it was obvious that the best economy would be a PLANNED one. Instead of all that inefficient competition everyone would just pull together in an organized fashion. The term Social Progress has been laughed out of existence. Now they call it Change, though I haven’t even heard that term in a while.

But Social Progress or Change, it means that Political Correctness knows exactly where society is going, that it is going in his direction, so Change is on his side. Which is the exact set of assumptions that got Social Progress laughed off the map.

Wordists all claim to know exactly where the world is headed. Every Wordist also knows that if he could consistently predict the stock market that way, he could BUY the world in a few years. When peabrains like that actually take over an economy, anybody who should be trusted with sharp objects should know what will happen. But the experts and intellectuals declared it a success until it literally collapsed before their eyes.

The fatal weakness of Change is that it cannot deal with the slightest bit of real change. Marx assumed that what he thought were the trends of his day would continue unchanged. The proletariat would get poorer and more desperate. Even as he wrote, the first we of the city proletariat was becoming management and beginning to buy property and workers were being given the vote.

None of this concerned Marx in the least. A good Wordist never lets reality slow him down.

Everything here RELATES. To an extent a present reader finds it impossible to conceive, the Middle East was the absolute basis of ALL thinking that thought itself civilized In Marx’s day. There was no real change. Every Great Civilization progressed through rigid phases. The High Culture was the pyramid-building and scribe phase Egypt had reached and we had fallen from.

You don’t need a free market to tell you how to build a pyramid. In fact you don’t need a market economy to do ANYTHING that twentieth century history says High Cultures did. All you need is scribes to plan and organize it.

Meanwhile out in the real world slamming an Egypt-style planned economy into the modern world was like taking the Wright Brothers’ plane up against a modern jet fighter.

And that is why what I say sounds so confusing. After a lifetime of being given exact plans and specifications for building an endless number of Wordist pyramids, I am trying to get you back to a system that visibly takes Wordism apart when it goes for a test flight. I do not NEED a mass movement. I need to push certain basics to keep the movement in a rational direction.

But, as with the economy, the apparent winner is the equivalent of planning, the torchlight parade approach. Just as a Great Civilization was based on building pyramids, a great movement is based on getting millions of people out on the street. That is why someone like me spends WEEKS arranging that “spontaneous” crowd when The Candidate shows up. That’s the way Harry Truman did it and, by gum, that’s the way it’s done NOW!

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, mass meetings are strictly for show. The real campaign is one-on-one or the despised “campaign slogan,” which is really an attempt to express the public mood, however crude. It is not “good” in the sense Marx would define a “good” economy. A campaign slogan is as hit-or-miss, when judged on its “goodness” as the latest trend in consumer spending. But have you ever LISTENED to the total, changeless crap that is shouted at mass meetings. They are mobs, with the IQ of mobs.

The age of TV moved from the mass meeting to the slogan. Has anybody noticed that we are no longer in the age where television is the Latest Thing? In our age, an idea very rapidly becomes either outdated or a challenge that must be met. This is the first time in history when the ordinary person has the POWER to DEMAND an answer. It is very, VERY hard to do so, but one of my favorite things is watching the old “professional journalists” get together and moan about this modern age when “professionals” no longer control every outlet.

Thirty years ago everyone knew who the Anchor Man on CBS was. I don’t. IS there one?

People always want me to present a more “solid” set of ANSWERS. Everyone you know can present you with a solid list of what constitutes Change. Everyone but me. I deal in a world that changes from year to year. Rule One: No kind of Change can deal with real changes.

The most “progressive” economies on earth proved that.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Dave on 08/28/2007 - 12:28 pm

    TV is an irrelevant thing because of the Internet. The real minds on the Internet show through like a cop’s 500-lumen flashlight. It has been fascinating to watch the Internet’s influence on the markets. The whole market commentariat evolves together with lightening speed based upon the highest IQs. I can trace the influencers with complete transparency and immediately detect those who have failed their homework or whose intellectual horsepower isn’t up to snuff.

    This is a new world with its speed and access for those with IQ horsepower. The blocking intermediary has been flushed out and passes to elite clubs have been made much easier to obtain.

    This process is in early stages. Take a look at Facebook.com. Facebook.com is yet another incipient engine of conspiracy, a fabulous tool in intelligent hands for loyalty coupled with a conspiracy is a badge of social class.

    For example, I remember as a kid the Patty Hearst saga: These “revolutionaries” calling themselves the “Symbionese Revolutionary Army” sold each other out in the less than 5 seconds flat. Revolutionaries indeed! They were double-digit IQ mutt niggers pretending to be revolutionaries.

    Pretending is something we do profusely as kids and we don’t usually drop the habit in adulthood. The kid who put together Facebook.com is a revolutionary. He is not a pretender. He puts to shame all Wordists.

    Responsibility is there for those willing to shoulder it and pretending comes to an end when you realize our world is far more deterministic than our “rising expectations” culture dares to acknowledge. Fear takes the driver’s seat, ebbing and flowing over great secular eras. It has been so long since America has known the flow, the mass of Americans have forgotten it exists, yet the competitive struggle deepens and the consequences for delusion become ever more onerous.

    For example, in my town a lot of kids are smoking marijuana. This is something unbelievable to me. This isn’t the 1960s. Our world today is far more unforgiving. These kids are a kind of thrill solution, blissfully ignorant of the horrors that await them. This says a lot about what is really going on in America today.

  2. #2 by Pain on 08/28/2007 - 2:32 pm

    Thinking ahead and thinking things through does NOT mean central planning.

    Populist leadership can be as simple as recognizing worth and expertise and drumming up support for those that have them, while at the same time recognizing what is insane and harmful and sweeping such people out of the way. But somebody, a generalist, needs to have an idea of what is going on, or there will be no change, no revolution, no politics.

    Another example I gave in the past is how the West was won. There was no central planning. There was a little politics and there were guide books. The guide books described the trails heading West, how to survive in the wilderness, and how to scratch out a living wherever you were. This was revolutionary. This was planning. But it was NOT central planning.

    There was a kind of bureaucracy involved in printing and selling the books, in the manufacture of the wagons, and in holding a group together while tracking months through the Great American Desert and keeping scalps away from bloodthirsty Injuns. There was planning, but no CENTRAL planning.

    It is not that anyone thinks you are trying to create a mass movement, it’s that you still have more practical knowledge to share with those who could you use it. II know you are tired, so if that’s it, then we will focus on organizing what you have already written, which is a job well done. Organizing always brings out new insights and general conclusions and this is what Dave is doing at National Salvation.

  3. #3 by Pain on 08/28/2007 - 2:34 pm

    Facebook may be good, but isn’t its owner being sued for copying the idea from someone else who is making more money than he is at it?

  4. #4 by Pain on 08/28/2007 - 2:58 pm

    Here’re some aphorisms.

    To make things work:

    Enough people must see the need, &
    Enough must know what to do.

    The more that see the need,
    The more will know what to do.

    The more that know what to do,
    The fewer needed to see the need.

  5. #5 by Hardric on 08/30/2007 - 4:36 am

    RE: Here’re some aphorisms.

    To make things work:

    Enough people must see the need, &
    Enough must know what to do.

    It is a mistake to get hung up on “enough” here.

    Someone must see the need and start doing something which meets the need. Others will follow. The important point is that “someone” must be willing to play the role of leader and teacher, not just hide their light under a bushel.

    There are plenty of “real problems.” Find some “real solutions” and “enough” will soon follow.

You must be logged in to post a comment.