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

An Example of Missing the Point

Posted by Bob on July 25th, 2009 under Coaching Session, Mantra


In “Servitude and Slavery” below, I referred to my own specialty in graduate economics, Public Choice:

“If libertarianism and its theoretical expression, Public Choice, can’t even explain why people vote it certainly cannot explain the rest of life.

Under pure Public Choice Theory, as all the experts in that field agree, no votes would occur, no public choices would be made. They admit they can’t doesn’t explain why people vote, but they don’t worry about that.”

If you do a straight Public Choice libertarian calculation on whether you should vote, you wouldn’t. The cost is going to the polling place and standing in line. And, if we are just talking about the benefit to you PERSONALLY of casting your ballot, what do you get for it? What is the real probability that your particular vote will affect YOU personally?

Zilch.

No pure libertarian would bother to vote. The reason we DO vote goes to the very fundamental error of libertarianism. Voters want to influence how their SOCIETY goes, not just to benefit themselves.

Like Marx and Rand everyone else Public Choice is still in the age when animals did not fight wars. All we have learned about the nature of all social animals has been completely missed.

In other words, Public Choice and libertarianism declare that LOYALTY has nothing to do with humans. The whole Wordist superstructure of libertarianism founders on that one point, just as “anti-racism” founders on the Mantra.

I sent this logic to someone in Public Choice. Remember that I said that the job of respectable conservatism is to miss the point while appearing to address it. The same is true of Public Choice. Our whole training was that of a professional knife thrower, to always MISS just right.

This person is NOT an anti-white. But his TRAINING is to miss the point. He saw what I said. one would vote at all. His reply to me will sound familiar to anyone who has ever actually WORKED with the Mantra.

He said that Public Choicers do still mention the point that if self-interest were the only basis of voting no one would vote at all. But that was ALL he addressed. What I wrote about loyalty might as well have been blank space. I wrote him again to remind him of it and he said I should pay attention to what HE said.

You have to USE the Mantra to understand this reaction. We have here a form of HYPNOTISM. A proposition that will undermine a whole world-view runs into this.

It is vital that you recognize this form of hypnotism. You cannot just “mention the logic of the Mantra.” No one will SEE the Mantra even when you first ram it down their throats. All of us who have fought it out know well that you simply CANNOT get onto other topics and that you cannot just “mention the logic.”

You must HIT THE TARGET again and again and again. In a week, even someone you have forced to face it will have HYPNOTICALLY forgotten it.

Let us go back to Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. A friend of his died of a cut on his finger while he was doing a dissection for anatomy on an old corpse. Semmelweis looked at his friend’s symptoms and discovered that they were the same as those of “childbed fever” of which so many of the mothers and babies in his hospital died. Doctors in his hospital were doing dissections and then going straight to deliver babies without washing their hands.

It was obvious where the childbed fever was coming from.

Semmelweis explained it and explained it and explained it. The doctors replied that they were discussing childbed fever, just as my friend said they were DISCUSSING why people wouldn’t vote at all using Public Choice logic. They got him into discussions of Galen and Hippocrates. They talked about the Simplism of just washing your hands in carbolic acid. The moment he mentioned childbed fever they went off on their own tack.

Semmelweis’s deliveries were without the huge mortality rate theirs was. He was denounced as a monomaniac. In other words, they talked about everything but what he told them. They didn’t try his simplistic solution.. Hell, they didn’t even SEE it.

In the end Semmelweis won, but only after he died in a madhouse.

THAT is what we are facing. It is life and death, and “mentioning the Mantra” while you are going along with someone’s discussion won’t do the trick.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Simmons on 07/25/2009 - 2:07 pm

    I’m smarter than most people, just like you Bob, and at times it drives me crazy. That is not me being a smartass Bob, that is a lifetime of results of dealing with people.

    You can’t change minds till that mind you wish to change has been stressed to the right point. A blank slate mind goes to Mommy Prof learns factoids and talking points these then become the flash cards of their pathetic lives. Your PC libertarian has been trained by his mommy prof of choice but never stressed by any of the word games he plays with the “opposition” he faces.

    The Left has known about this stress bit since way back when, its from them I learned how they fill their cults full of scared kids and other morons. We place a counter stress upon them, we destroy the cult.

    That is why wordist cults circle their wagons, be it the kids at Daily Kos or the Chronicles’ dead saints worshippers, because stress hurts, severely. And then these groups parry such as they do and none of them get hurt.

  2. #2 by Dave on 07/25/2009 - 2:55 pm

    “In the end Semmelweis won”

    He had no control of the cadences of a debate that didn’t matter but nonetheless possessed the only control that did matter which was being right.

    I loved the way Sgt. Crowley put this very same issue: “There are very few certainties in life, but I am going to give you a certainty: I will NOT apologize.”

    There we have it. The very guidance BW is talking about.

    All our opponents care about is obtaining a concession. Let us not inquire into their motives.

    Let us instead be certain they shall never get one.

  3. #3 by Dave on 07/26/2009 - 3:46 am

    Simmons,

    Horus has done excellent work on practical politics, but these posts on “An Example of Missing the Point” and “Near Misses” are the real lesson of practical politics.

    We are NOT faced with any task that requires us to be intelligent. Nor do we need to be equipped with any deep insights. We don’t even need to apprehend the situational logic we find ourselves in. And we don’t need to concern ourselves with our opponents’ motives.

    That’s because believing we have to be smart gives an opening to our opponents, unintentional concessions that allow us to slip into the “near misses” Bob is talking about. These “near misses” are unintentional concessions that say, “I have to be full of true information and deep insights to oppose you”. The mistake is in believing there is something to be argued when the truth is far simpler. The mistake is giving an opening to our opponents they don’t deserve.

    Semmelweis had nothing to argue. Actually, he didn’t have to know anything. The results of his method (washing his hands) spoke for itself.

    Understanding how the example of Semmelweis relates to the Mantra allows us to shed a lot of baggage.

    It is great guidance on how not to stray, on how to avoid getting mired in argument, and on how to avoid making concessions, however unintentional they may be.

  4. #4 by shari on 07/26/2009 - 9:32 am

    In a way,the mantra fits right in with the politically correct zeitgeist. That’s why it has to be repeated and repeated. It doesn’t talk about non-whites, or jews, or anything, except to point out the ongoing program of GENOCIDE.

  5. #5 by 1Reader on 08/03/2009 - 12:52 am

    The reality is that we do not live alone in this world. There are common things to take into consideration. Ignoring reality is ridiculous.

    By the same token as some libertarians denote White Nationalists as “collectivists”. The very same reasoning might just as well be used to claim that democracy is bad.

    It is not, there are common interests, relevant also on the individual level in every way. White Nationalism is a democratic concept.

    Naturally personal rights are needed for democracy to work, and the key word is need, free speech is needed. But the possibility to do whatever you darn please against other peoples will is not needed for democracy to work.

    P.S. I do not think that there is any implementation of democracy that is not without its flaws today. Both public and private power misuse is a danger, often go hand in hand, and there are many examples of both. I am a strong proponent of, optimally, everything being boiled down to a dependance on direct democracy. Again democracy needs always be based on not breaking others rights, but the funny thing is that such ideas of rights always need to be democratically established to begin with. Thus the libertarian idea of liberties rather than collectivism is somewhat of an oxymoron, since they need to be >>collectively<< accepted to the extent that they are to apply. If not, it is a case of anarchy.

  6. #6 by 1Reader on 08/03/2009 - 1:09 am

    “Naturally personal rights are needed for democracy to work, and the key word is need, free speech is needed. But the possibility to do whatever you darn please against other peoples will is not needed for democracy to work.”

    Frankly this is a core reason why democracy exists. To avoid precisely that. In that sense democracy is about basing society on things which are considered good. Democracy is to no small degree a concept of cultivating a good society.

    Solemn concepts are easy to motivate because they are precisely that, good; a free market (which should not be confused with an anarchic one), natural parks and so forth. These things exist not for their own sake and their existence is not something one needs to take for granted, they exist to fill a need.

    But it is pretty hard to motivate what is good for anyone anywhere with actively replacing Whites in our own nations. That is why in many nations the people doing this have to shut us down. By shutting us down they can avoid democracy. And replacing whites is anti-democratic.

  7. #7 by 1Reader on 08/03/2009 - 1:24 am

    Dave:

    Excellent comment. Not least that of not putting yourself in a position where one needs to argue things that are not important to the issue at hand.

    You are correct, we do not need to go into some great depths to justify our right to survive.

    It often goes into quite abstract discussion with little practical importance to the issue.

  8. #8 by 1Reader on 08/03/2009 - 1:24 am

    We do not live alone in this world. There are common things to take into consideration. Ignoring reality is ridiculous.

    By the same token as some libertarians denote White Nationalists as “collectivists”. The very same reasoning might just as well be used to claim that democracy is bad.

    It is not, there are common interests, relevant also on the individual level in every way. White Nationalism is a democratic concept.

    Naturally personal rights are needed for democracy to work, and the key word is need, free speech is needed. But the possibility to do whatever you darn please against other peoples will is not needed for democracy to work.

You must be logged in to post a comment.