Archive for March 19th, 2008
While the “Oh, God, all is LOST!” crowd concentrates on people who come and go, someone who is familiar with REAL politics sees the numbers in an entirely different light.
In the 1950s there were about 25,000 members of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA).
Conventional wisdom faced two problems here:
1) Obviously, those 25,000 represented only a fraction of the real Communists in America. Even Henry Wallace later admitted that his Progressive Party in 1948 was run by them.
2) McCarthyism said there was a legion of closet Communists in the government and that it dominated the media and other power elites.
So they settled on saying that, for each CPUSA member, there were ten closet Communists.
Then came the 1960s, when Commie was Cool. The media proudly reported college games between Communists and Anarchists. Opposition to the Vietnam War became marches of hundreds of thousands sporting Viet Cong flags.
Phone banks were set up to call families of soldiers and tell them falsely that their son had been killed.
The media now nostalgically calls this The Love Generation.
Extrapolating from KGB files, there were 25,000 closet Communists in the Federal Government alone.
I can confirm this. When I worked at the Voice of America, every attack on the Ideological Homeland, the USSR, was met with a flood of anonymous attacks on the bulletin boards. Those who smuggled in letters to VOA from behind the Iron Curtain found the police at their door.
Have you ever tried to get someone to get on Stormfront? Even the most outspoken will not even write a note here, much less JOIN.
History’s Communist multiplier of ten was a gross and purposeful understatement.
So is Stormfront membership.
Just because I am wholeheartedly loyal to you does not mean I give you permission to abuse me like a two-bit traffic cop.
I guess you may have seen red over the word “drivel,” but it referred only to Dan Brown and the goofy sources he reworked. Brown and they are goofy because they get basic historical facts wrong in outlandishly humorous ways. But to be fair to Brown, he published the book as fiction.
By the way, it seems that the consensus is that (Dan) Brown actually did write the book, although basing it heavily on others as research. I don’t think you care about that, though.
I’ll explain below.
You said here:
To ME, and maybe not to him, Brown made a point I cogitate about.
I read the Da Vinci Code and realized that accepted history still obsesses on Constantine. In the Code, he was supposed to have unilaterally changed the whole Church and made it wholly male-dominated. That reflects the usual accepted history doctrine that there was a united Church that was perverted when Constantine saw those words, not a Cross, in the sky.
But one man didn’t do all that, whether in accepted history or in the Da Vinci Code. My thesis, which is open to correction, is that Constantine was practical politician of his own time.
I stressed the importance of realizing one’s POINT OF VIEW. Brutus is right that Brown was an engineer and a mathematician, so he looked at things from that standpoint. That is an important observation. My background is power politics, so naturally I look at things that way.
Here you say “Brown made a point” and immediately talk about the Da Vinci Code, authored by Brown, Dan Brown. Why would anything think you meant a different author in a different book?
You should know that I am on your side. This is why I wrote: “This is embarrassing to me.” Obviously if I weren’t on your side, it wouldn’t be embarrassing to me. This is also why I waited until your post was down the page before I pointed out the mistake. I thought you would appreciate the comment, but I didn’t want to call attention to a mistake (or proofreading error?) at the top.
You invited such comments with: “My thesis, which is open to correction,” although I don’t think I doubt that particular thesis.
So why the ad hominems? You said:
This does not make you look too bright.
This is a matter of where you are coming from. You are very upset with my version of history. Talk about what actually is bothering you. THAT might be productive.
This is not like you at all. Is it?
It’s a lot like me.
First of all, I read the Da Vinci Code and didn’t remember the author. I had that problemi n grad school. People would refer to a a thesis by the name ofhte author and I was lost, thought I remembered the thesis very well.
You told me stop this review of my version of history because it made me look like a fool, so I slammed back. Then you slamemd back at me. Nordics value truth over diplomacy.
Yes, I am complimented that you took my comments so seriously. It is frustrating to me when I give someone a compliment and they do not appreciate it because it doesn’t have the chocolate coating expected in non-Moot discourse. They spend all their timebeing pissed off about the hard things I say and never appreciate the good things I seem to say so grudingly.
I know Pain. He is a tough yung bird. He can take the nastiest abuse from an anti-white and move calmly on to the next point. That drives them CRAZY!
But if you are in the rare and hard-earned position of being someone he respects, you can get to him. I am glorying more in that than I am worrying about offending him. Outside this seminar, that would be more alien than the little green men.
I am getting something out of the SF thread I started by putting “Practical History: The Wheel” thjere. Maybe getting seminar thinking into SF is not impossible, just very, very hard.
Arnold pointed out that the Middle East DID use the wheel for military machines, but not for constructive building. I had said that the Mayans had wheels on their toys but didn’t use it in any practical way.
But the point is, like all Moots, this led to a rethinking of my thesis:
From Arnold’s input, my thesis is changing. The hhite achievement was the PRACTICAL US of the wheel.
This all interrelates. People are always talking about how early the Chinese, meaning A Chinaman, invented something. They had the mecahnical clock, but that one mechanical clock was moved around and finally destroyed and no more were built.
The Chinese invented printing and used it to make a few playing cards. In the West, it caused the Reformation.
The Chinese had black powder and made some rockets out of it. In the West, it was a major factor in destroying feudalism and eventually the technology expanded to take us to the moon.
The Bell Curve tells us there will be some very smart Chinese. But the seeds they plant do not grow. The one huge technological advance in China was the paddy culture, based on aquatic rice. Aquatic rice was developed in India.
IQ is not a hell of a lot of use if it’s the wrong RACE.
Like many people, I want to know the future. The real future. One of the things that stuck out at me when I first started reading at BUGS was BOB’s prediction that American politics would start becoming racialized. Well, if anyone watched the speech given by Obama yesterday, I think we can conclude that IT’S HERE!
Race has surpassed everything from the war in Iraq to even the economy as the centerpiece of the American political landscape. When a white women Democrat who ran for vice President in 84 starts pointing out things usually only heard on Stormfront, you know times are a changing.
And there is no going back. Now there’s no question that there will be times when the media will try to make it look like the country is near multicultural paradise, but just like the Soviet Mayday parade, this will all be superficial. And there will also be times when power structure will make it look as if white “extremists” are the reason the country is “failing to integrate” (Read: whites are not accepting their own genocide).
The fact is, and it doesn’t matter how much the elite wish it to be, multi-ethnic states do not work. The same way socialist economies don’t work. And all the Mayday parades in the world won’t make them work.
Its been very entertaining watching this Presidential race. And I can’t express how much I want Obama to win. An Obama victory will do more for the interests of the white race than a 10,000 man torchlight parade conducted every weekend. When people ask how this could be, I tell them this antidote:
IN 2004 the San Francisco Mayor started marrying Homosexuals in that city. This appeared to be a huge blow to Christians who worry about that issue. But the result of those actions caused the gay marriage referendum to go on the ballot on almost 20 states. It has been pointed out that this brought much more people to the polls than would have if not for it being on the ballot. Its very possible that the fear of gay marriage brought Bush enough voters to the polls which lead to his victory. So because of the actions of the Mayor of San Francisco, George Bush ended up winning a second term. Now to the Christians, they thought the world was collapsing when this started happening in SF. But in reality, those actions by the SF mayor did more to hurt the gay marriage issue than if he had done nothing at all.
Before learning at BUGS, I would have never learned to think this way. But as BOB has pointed out “you can be king, I just want to run the world.” All that money that people at Stormfront sent to Ron Paul, would have been better spent going to Obama.