Archive for October, 2009

Explanation on Dave’s Advice

Mantra thinking involves constant attention to Dave’s advice below. For example, when someone tries to answer the Mantra with something about how the white race invaded non-white countries, I just say:

“You are JUSTIFYING genocide.”

And that’s A LOT.

Sometimes the period is the most important part of sentence.

We are trying to make ONE point. We are not arguing religion versus atheism, the South versus the North, the Right versus the Left, we are adamant on only one point: Genocide.

The good thing about BUGS is that our people take criticism from the rest of us on this point. Lord Nelson was doing a great job on Stormfront of hammering at the Mantra. Then I noticed a change. He began to say that he was arguing that the white race shouldn’t be overwhelmed in its own land.

I pointed out to him that this was a whole different subject. We are not talking about power here, we are talking about SURVIVAL. He got it INSTANTLY. Most other people would say, “Well, it means more or less the same thing…” or something.

No way Lord Nelson would do that, because we have our DISCIPLINE here. LN instantly saw that he had gone to the “overwhelmed” bit because it was easier.

He did not have to criticize intermarriage. Immigration is easy. It is intermarriage where the establishment pulls out its straight razors. So it is infinitely easier to talk about voting blocks, busing, affirmative action, immigration, national birth rates, ANYTHING besides the one thing everybody has in mind. It is so easy to do this that LN reacted to my alert the way a person in a hypnotic trance wakes up at the edge of a cliff: “Of COURSE!”

Dave says to make the statement and leave. This reminds me of World War II pilots who flew in Korea. They were fully trained for flying jets, but the old experience came back when they got into combat. They tried to stay on the enemy’s tail the way they did when they had propellers.

I don’t understand the technical side of it, but when a pilot tries to stay on a MIGs tail, he ends up spinning out, often into unconsciousness.

A commenter actually BUILDS small airplanes, so I am a little nervous about expanding on this. I do know that the difference between fighting jets and props was that in a prop the whole idea was to get on the enemy’s tail and STAY there. In a jet one had to get the enemy in his sights and fire, from any direction. You fired a blast an then went on by. Because of the GI Bill I knew a number of guys in college who had fought in the air in both wars, and they had automatically gone back to the old on-the-tail mode when the actual fight started in Korea.

What they described to me was often what would be called ten years later as “a psychedelic experience.” In the jet they were suddenly totally disoriented and spinning, the blood in their heads making them half unconscious and half wildly drunk.

But the point is, the MIG survived. And the ones who talked to me survived. I assume that if you were a dizzy combat pilot you did not survive to take your Korean GI benefits. I assume that a lot of pilots who were half unconscious and half drunk in the vicinity of a MIG didn’t make it.

Not to overdo the comparison, we get some chances to make our point, to fire a blast. Our natural tendency is to hang on, to throw in everything we believe in.

And very often, when we knock them back a bit with the Mantra, we may be tempted to make them good Christians, or good atheists, or to accept evolution or antievolution or, as in LN’s case, to talk about being numerically overwhelmed.

Dave says:

1) Blast ‘em

AND

2) Fly out of range and get ‘em in your sights again for another short blast of the same kind.

Otherwise you end up with a mind that is half unconscious and half drunk.

Like a respectable conservative.

7 Comments

The Right to be “Wrong”

The essential justification for freedom of speech has always been that, contrary to any respectable opinion, the establishment in power THIS TIME may be dead wrong. This has always been the argument AGAINST free speech. How could Holy Mother Church, which had ruled the West for over a thousand years, be wrong? Jesus had said it would always teach the truth.

History has shown that this idea was wrong. Vatican II would have been heretical to Vatican I or the Council of Trent.

By the time the Founding Fathers adopted the first amendment, this rule had been proven repeatedly. Puritan England could not abide the smell of the idea that it could be wrong. The Founding Fathers could look back on a whole history of establishments that could not and would abide the possibility that it could be fundamentally simply WRONG.

One of the mainstays of our established religion of Political Correctness is that “This is 1990” or “This is 2009.”

There is absolutely no difference between this and the statement that every other establishment made. It is Marxist, because Marx called his ideas “modern” and “scientific.” But the Puritans who called their ideas “Biblical” were not THE LEAST BIT different. Those who declared themselves as speaking for the Vicar Peter said EXACTLY the same thing.

Whether it is Scientific Socialism, Modern Thought, the Gospel of Matthew, or Genesis, you have to get beyond even the hint that there is something special about the establishment today to justify any free speech at all.

Please note: There is NO difference. The advocates of free speech in every age say that all the earlier establishments’ enforced doctrines were wrong, but not THIS one. In Islam, as its long decline set in , writers tried to insist that all the realities they spoke of were “beneath the Moon,” in other words, they did not contradict Celestial Reality of the imams.

It never WORKS. It can’t work. If you admit that, unlike all the establishments in history, THIS one is infallible, then there is no reason for free speech. In that case free speech is, as its enemies in every age have stated, an enemy of the Truth and altogether evil.

So respectable conservatives insist that they ask their masters only to let them lead the lynch mob against those who speak heresy on race, but they also insist that those who disagree with the establishment on the right should be allowed some room to disagree.

This NEVER works. This CAN’T work.

I was reading an article in the Wilson Quarterly which illustrates my point perfectly. The writer was saying that if Hate Laws only served to crush out the last embers of “racist” dissent, it would be just fine. He was as openly agreeing with today’s Inquisitors as the Islamic writers who watched their “Beneath the moon” crap die out and the centuries of dead minds in the Middle East begin.

It became brown., and there were no longer any Nordic types, with their suicidal honesty and bluntness, to break the hold of orthodoxy when it got hold for this last time. The Orient has the same problem. It can learn a lot, but once a racially Mongoloid society goes down, there is no one like us there to slowly eat away at the power of orthodoxy.

Once again, this is not a matter of complications. Western society is based on one simple point: established belief can be WRONG, no matter how many priests declare it. We are not Great Intellectuals. We are what makes real intellectualism possible, we are down-to-earth, no crap Aryans: Everybody is wrong about SOMETHING, and the more robes the wear, the more likely they are talking crap.

As with the Mantra, we must get by ALL the Shrewd Talk and Authorities and go straight to the reality. The reality is genocide, not racial fairness throughout the world. The present establishment’s most cherished truth, like every establishment’s most cherished truth before it, is fundamentally wrong.

This is the ONLY reason free speech WORKS. And if our present age teaches us nothing else, it demonstrates that free speech only works in an Aryan society where people will USE it. That is the reason our present establishment is so desperately trying to rid the earth of Aryans.

4 Comments

A Piece of Serious Wisdom From Dave

You have to remember the principle (that I am guilty of violating all too often) is that the less said the better. A simple declarative sentence is very powerful. Tomes are a dime a dozen.

3 Comments

“LOVE” and Genocide

A Levis ad has a mass of words and pictures and at the end it has “LOVE” with a final picture of a very white girl sloppily kissing a very black male.

For any normal white male, that is a threatening picture. All races have an unlimited supply of male sperm, but the risk and use of the female uterus for nine months and the rearing of a child is a limited commodity.

This difference between men and women existed along time before Women’s Lib invented the myth that it was just Male Prejudice that made society look frowningly on white men who had sex with black females but lynch black males who had sex with white women.

It is the black men with white women which is the whole program of Politically Correct genocide.

7 Comments

But It Doesn’t DO Anything!

Back when I was big stuff National Review did a cover story attacking me. Their biggest criticism was to compare me to Babbitt, of the 1920s book by the same name, saying “Produce, produce!” They were upset at my attacking academics as worthless. People like Buckley, who considered untranslated Latin or French as the height of sophistication, didn’t appreciate the putdown.

They looked upon me as unlike them and more like Babbitt, the unapologetic middle-class businessman whom the largely Marxist Intellectuals lampooned. Well, they got that right.

I got a bit of that here when I said that the Germans have no long words. Their long words are a combination of short words to describe something. Temperaturwechselfbestandigkeit looks like a long word. Actually it is literally temperature change withstanding. It is what we call a refractory, which is a material which withstands large temperature changes.

There used to be a feature on an old magazine making fun of this. It was supposed to be an German grandfather saying short words to describe things this way. The only comments I got on that piece were come repetitions of this kind of humor.

This is what I call Shrewd. People make fun of this German stringing together of simple words. The really Shrewd thing to do, they say, is to do exactly the same thing, but to translate it into GREEK. So if someone said “terrible lizard,” it would be a German grandfather joke.

But if you say dinosaur, it becomes Highly Sophisticated. You can’t say King Tyrant, but Tyrannaurus Rex is Smart!

That was the sort of Babbitry National Review saw in my writings.

I have an ingrained Anglo-Saxon distrust of anyone who makes a living by inventing big words. In my day a sociology course consisted entirely of learning a battery of enormous words. Political Correctness may dislike words like “crippled” because they degrade the disabled, who usually refer to themselves as the disabled. But you can also make a fat living by inventing terms like “differently abled,” debating them in journals, and imposing them on the public.

What would a lawyer do for a living if he didn’t spend his life looking up Opinions for which there is no more justifications than any other Opinions? What would a preacher do for sermons if he only had the directives Jesus gave, the Golden Rule and loving God?

And National Review could hardly dazzle anybody with its recitation of Great Society platitudes. Its pretense to the Uppah Clahss is all it’s got.

To the average Shrewd person, the moron who thinks he’s smart, a lawyer who can quote the cases is on the same par as an engineer who fills the blackboard with equations. The only difference is that all that lawyer’s time is absolutely worthless, worse than worthless, while the engineer can build something enormously valuable.

No one seems to notice this tiny difference. The Commentariat talks to itself in big words instead.

5 Comments

All Power to the Intellectuals!

In 1992 I decided to try grad school again. One semester almost drove me nuts but I learned that what I had said about academe in A Plague on Both Your Houses in 1976 was, at the very least, true. In 1976 it had been many years since I had left academe and my description of it struck even me as a bit overblown.

I found out in 1992 that it wasn’t. But I had no illusions going in. One person, hearing I was in Political Science, said, “It must be fascinating to them to ask you about all your campaigns and making laws and working for the President.”

I was actually stunned by this statement. Obviously it had been a LONG time since this person had been in school, or maybe, like most people, she just didn’t notice while she was there. I sort of mumbled, “No, they’re too busy to be interested in that stuff.”

In school, your sole interest is in listening and regurgitating on tests and trying not to worry yourself into a breakdown. The person who asked me that had a college degree, but probably had not been to grad school. She probably thought that GRAD students would be interested in the subject they were dedicating their lives to. I understand that was once true.

My father used to advise us to talk to a professor about HIS subject, because to HIM that was the most fascinating thing in the world. Back in HIS day it was probably true. After all, back then the few people who had doctorates could make good money anywhere. But by my time academe or government were the only places a man could be assured of a job for life.

Graduate students and professors have less interest in their subjects than a plumber does in pipes.

One thing I noticed was the difference, even from my generation, in the reaction of professors and grad students to the words, “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you RICH?”

In my day, professors or grads would just chuckle at it. Today they start to explain how just anybody can get rich if they’re MEAN or GREEDY enough or how it’s all a matter of chance and so forth.

They protested too much and they protested WAY too quickly.

There are endless books about how industrialists shape their mentality around the industry on which their money and power depends. But I am the ONLY person who has written a book of that sort about academe.

Academe is an industry so gargantuan that it could stuff US Steel in its vest pocket without a bulge. On every issue its attitude is that if things were turned over to the Intellectuals, things would be fine. All money would be OK if the Intellectuals took it and gave it out.

This giving all money to the dictatorship of the proletariat, made up of Intellectuals, used to be called Communism or Socialism. On the day the Soviet Empire collapsed, every Communist or Socialist became, in a single day, Environmentalists. No one else noticed that, of course. If they had noticed it they would have been surprised.

I wasn’t. The program of Environmentalism today is a Kyoto Treaty where all production becomes subject to the dictates of the Intellectuals.

6 Comments

PC: Give US the Money!

It is not entirely accurate to call Politically Correct economic theory socialist. Socialism is a theory of production. PC has no theory of production whatsoever. Politically Correct economics is one hundred percent distribution. All that PC has to say on the subject is, “The intellectuals will collect and all the money and distribute it.”

Don’t confuse this with an economic theory. Political Correctness says that “the Intellectuals should run everything.” Economics is just a part of everything.

PC believes that money comes from magic. In this they are exactly like libertarians and liberal churchmen. The official Catholic statement on economic begins on exactly the same basis that other church statements on the subject do, “THE LAND PRODUCES great wealth. I short every church begins its statements on income distribution with what Screwtape called, “a good, sound, resounding lie.”

The land produces little or nothing. Hunters and gatherers had “the land” all to themselves, and about twenty thousand of them scratched an existence out of the entire British Isles. More to the point, if “the land” produced all that the same churches would not be demanding that first world countries send enough to survive on to third world countries, which contain a lot more of “the land.”

Every church today, in this as in other areas, is not only a liar, but a psychopathic liar. But even a psychopath has a reason for lying. Ion this case they are following the Politically Correct line: There is no production, only distribution. No church EVER discusses why one system is more productive than another. No church would EVER imagine criticizing a Great Oriental Philosopher for talking about table manners while children collapsed from starvation within a mile of him.

All anyone discusses is distribution. You can hear a fat preacher bemoaning starvation, but you will never hear one mention that this is the first time in history when starvation is an unusual way to die.

Once again, what I am saying here is too obvious to be noticed. This is the only place you will see this point even MENTIONED.

4 Comments

European Nationalist’s Interview Bob

http://www.whitakeronline.org/audio/european_nationalist_interview.mp3

6 Comments