Archive for October, 2009
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.
1) Blast ‘em
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is the difference between a cultural outlook and a prejudice?
There is none. Not only is there no difference, but only the most nauseatingly ignorant person thinks there is.
I made my living for decades operating among highly intelligent, ruthless people who wanted my blood. That is an experience that makes you instantaneously boil things down to basics. It doesn’t take long for you to stop noticing whether the person you are talking to uses big words or has an accent; all you learn to notice is whether he is buying what you say or not, whether what he is saying is drivel or not.
So almost everything that impresses other people completely disappears for you. In such a raw fight for power, you not only ignore people’s pretenses, at some level you don’t even notice them at all. Let me give you a shocking example of this.
Have you ever been standing in a line at a supermarket and seen a charming baby on in a crib? Us older folks do. But instead of grabbing at the child, a mature person looks it in the eyes and grins and maybe says some words. Very often this is delightful to the infant, and they grin and kick and blow bubbles.
Have you ever seen a respectable conservative when a liberal praises him for being “cultural” instead of “prejudiced.” It takes a very experienced, cold, professional eye to see how exactly a Buckley reacts the reaction of that baby being smiled at by an adult.
A Buckley, senior or the departed senior, does his own version of grinning and kicking and bubbling at the mouth. So does every respectable conservative. You see, the liberals who call the shots have the same frigid professional eye that I do. This reaction to liberal praise is the sine qua non of being given the absolutely essential credentials of being labeled a “respectable” conservative by media liberals.
So a Buckley will bubble and grin and kick in an entirely different way. Me will not be wearing a diaper, but an expensive suit as approved in New York and New England. He will raise his eyebrows in the way he would expect one of his gods, an Ivy League WASP or a Jewish Intellectual, would expect him to.
Where the baby goes “Goo!” the Buckley will use big words.
But to a really cold, professional eye, all this is superficial. In fact, you learn very quickly it is fatal to let these superficial differences impress you at all.
This very hard-learned ability to see right through the superficialities becomes automatic, and it is absolutely essential if you are to be hired and trusted at high levels. People with power and money don’t hire people who don’t have this Cold Eye.
But, in all honesty, this Cold Eye has certain drawbacks you don’t see until you have been through the mill and developed that Cold Eye.
Once again, I am not being cynical, but dead honest: One of the things that comes with this Cold Eye is nausea.
In my seemingly endless list of life experiences, I once worked in a retarded home. My stomach is churning right now as I try to write this down. No matter how hardened you are, that room full of grown men in diapers, the few extreme retards who make it to beard-growing age, makes your stomach turn. They are smiling, every one of them, delighted to see you. You CAN’T hate them.
But I will never forget that one of the most extreme bleeding-hearts I even knew saw them and said, Bob, I never thought it would be possible that I would ever agree with the Nazis about euthanasia in any case, but God help me, I would do it to these people.”
Now you get an idea why the Cold Eye carries with it a threat of nausea.
It is critical to understand that there is not a bit of cynicism in what I am saying. It is a REAL problem for me. With my combined experienced and the Cold Eye I could not help developing, watching a respectable conservative react to a liberal telling him he Cultural and not Prejudiced is literally nauseating. I can’t help it and I certainly don’t LIKE it.
You see, a Buckley or a Hannity or a respectable conservative Southerner looks at an establishment liberal exactly the same way that baby ion the supermarket looks at me. Hannity and Buckley and a Southern apologizer have EXACTLY the same attitude to Ivy Leaguers and Jewish Intellectuals that that baby has to me. To Buckley, who is not tainted in his own mind with a Southern family but is also Catholic and IRISH, of all things, the true Yankee or the true Jewish Intellectual is the True Adult, the True Final Judge.
This was true of Buckley, it is far more true of somebody down the line like Hannity. Buckley senior must have pointed out a thousand times that he was born in NEW YORK. He and his family never allowed anyone to call their background without answering, ANGLO-Irish.”
To someone with my Cold Eye, these inferiority complexes stand out like a black man at a Nuremburg Rally.
Too often, this reaction to respectable grin and bubbles at any liberal praise really reminds me of those smiling men in the diapers, and I anteing cynical and it IS a problem for me.
Walter Williams pointed out that “What people label a stereotype is usually just an unpleasant fact”
I black man can get away with that, just as Jesse Jackson was able to admit that he was relieved when the footsteps he hears behind him at night are made by WHITE man. That is stereotyping, that is blatant
It is also true.
I said below that Orientals have a stereotype of being relatively placid. As anybody who was in Nam will tell you, that is not a universal Oriental trait. But a couple of doctors, an Australian man and Chinese woman, did a study on this which involved a comparison of Oriental and “Caucasoid” newborns reaction to swaddling, and came to a statistically significant demonstration that, in fact, there is genetic truth to that stereotype.
Routinely, any such large statistically significant is repeated immediately to check it out. You have a guaranteed journal article if you do it quickly before everybody else does. This one was not repeated.
Nor was it disputed.
Gator, on the other hand, is a white alarmist. Teddy Roosevelt was an alarmist back when pollution outside factory gates was almost unknown. Oriental calm is not conducive to such alarmism.
Take a part-Oriental example. The Polynesians on Easter Island fished to provide their protein. Then there was apparently a competition to build those huge stone men. To win, the chiefs cut down every tree.
No more canoes. No more fish.
As the last trees were being cut down, maybe come alarmist said something. His chief, Moala-Maou, said, “Well, if he wants trees let Malana-Meii save them in HIS territory. Don’t be an alarmist, the important thing is to WIN.”
The trees were gone and the fish were gone, so the Easter Islanders ate up all the birds. ALL the birds. “Leave birds for breeding? You’re an alarmist. Screw that. I’m HUNGRY!”
Instead of whipping us over what we did to the environments, we might see it as amazing that there was a major program of environmentalism at the beginning of this century, when robber barons had a power they have not had before or since.
Westerners were astounded when they went to Asia and saw Buddhas, Shinto gods, and Confucian representations on family along with crucifixes. True, Classical society had something similar. But when the Persians invaded Greece they burnt the pagan temples for exactly the same reason Zoroaster’s inheritors, the Christians, did.
Judaism became monotheistic half a millennium after Zoroaster died.
This line of reasoning leads to a really strange conclusion. Westerners are alarmists and extremists. We insist on ONE truth.
And here is the strange conclusions: Isaac Newton, Galileo and the Church people who persecuted them came from the SAME source. Orientals can talk all day and not insist on any conclusion. But once Newton and Galileo got hold of the law of gravity or that Dutch invention the telescope, it had to apply to the whole universe.
But the Church could not allow these IMPLICATIONS in THEIR universe, any more than Westerners could understand Buddha up there with the crucifix. It was totally alien to them. It was totally alien to the Western Church. It was totally alien to Newton. It was totally alien to Galileo.
A good Oriental philosopher would tell me to calm down. He would tell environmentalists to calm down. The air in China is beginning to show they are very calm indeed over there.
Confucius will tell you all about table manners. But his kind would never push the law of gravity without restraint the way Newton did.
More than one good Oriental has told me to calm down about the fact that the best economic indicator we have is skin color, though a surprising number of them, as indicated in my last article, see it clearly.
There is something aggressive about a white society that makes jumps others cannot. If you look, you will see it disappears with mixing with browns.
I am a white alarmist. No matter what our established church threatens, I will keep on saying that the future of the world rests on saving whites.
Adam Smith wrote a whole long book on the simple observation of supply and demand.
Alfred Marshall had to write another book a century later covering that simple point even better.
Two or three thousand years, at least, before Smith and Marshall wrote merchants who survived took supply and demand as the basis for all their actions. In no age did anyone think it a smart idea to take coal to Newcastle.
There is only one law simpler and more universal than supply and demand. That is the law of gravity. It took the to work out the implications of THAT one. Every merchant took the laws of supply and demand for granted, but its IMPLICATIONS were not really laid out until 1776.
Every ancient man who carried home a dead animal felt the law of gravity, but no one studied its IMPLICATIONS until Newton.
Real advanced are made by looking at reality and thinking out its IMPLICATIONS. The Church fought Galileo and Newton because of the IMPLICATIONS their clear thinking brought out.
Asking “What are the IMPLICATIONS” the most common way of stopping independent thought. Today established faith, Political Correctness, is no different than earlier established faiths in this respect.
Gator sounds like what I used to hear in graduate economics: which set of WORDS will make us prosper? He wants ANYTHING but Race,
The Genome Project predictably told us that all humans are, variously, 99.999% (Bill Clinton), 99.8%, 97.5 % ore whatever you like, alike. That means that every moron, every congenital criminal, the strongest and the weakest, the healthiest and those who will die at age ten, are 99.99999999999% or whatever figure you care to throw out, alike.
In other words, it means nothing. Let me state the proposition I think needs thorough analysis. It is as obvious as gravity and as heretical as Newton.
The most accurate economic indicator of the wealth of nations is the color of the skin. All ancient civilizations that went down and STAYED are now brown-skinned. You can wake up in a country after a drunk, take a look at the skin color around you, and tell me what the country’s standard of living is.
Whatever the magic words may be, no brown skinned country ever seems to invoke them. As I said, California is turning brown and its economy has begun its steady slide beyond stagnation down to the level of a brown-skinned country.
The environment will be saved ONLY if we colonize space or make other technological breakthroughs. Environmentalists are already screaming about what Brazil is doing to the rain forests. yet they insist that the future ideal is a “new race” like Brazil.
If you think nature has been crushed so far, just wait until a world-wide Mexico, or even a Japan, which is still killing whales, gets hold of it. Have you looked lately at what China and Southeast Asia are doing to the air?
If they are 99.99999% like us, that .000001% must be a humdinger.
I don’t have to prove cause and effect here. This is an OBSERVATION that is as universal as gravity or supply and demand. Once again the only argument against it is its IMPLICATIONS.
In the post-petroleum age, we need INNOVATION. There was a time when Japan was expected to outrun the West. All it did was what any observation of the Orient would have predicted: Japan caught up and stopped.
Sort of like the people who refused to see supply and demand, or, for God’s sake, GRAVITY, sat around making up gigantic theories conjuring with Aristotle and Company which are laughable today.
So now we are talking about the end of oil while we are dedicated to getting rid of the only race which forms FUNDAMENTALLY CREATIVE societies. We can get rid of the race and conjure some words to take care of it all.
In fact, two Japanese heads of state got into trouble attacking the flow of Mexicans into the US. They both complained this inflow was lowering the average IQ here. That is simple arithmetic, but both were condemned as only an established church can condemn simple reality.
Most people could not understand this Nipponese concern. But it was important to Japan that the flow of technological advance they could see continue. A brown America was a threat to THEIR future.
Orientals tend to look at out obsession with their IQ scores as humorous. To them an IQ test if a puzzle. They are good at puzzles and they go to school twelve hours a day from Kindergarten to learn things by rote and to learn to solve puzzles.
This won’t do much good in a post-petroleum world. That requires societies that can CREATE, not just ADAPT.
Naturally, in just such a time, our established religion is dedicated to doing exactly the wrong thing:
AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
“It is said that there is this RACE problem. They say this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY Black Country and ONLY into black countries?”
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem? I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am ANAZIWHOWANTSTOKILLSIXMILLIONJEWS.”
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
“ANTI-RACIST IS A CODE WORD FOR ANTI-WHITE.”
When Jenner proved the effectiveness of vaccination every Anglican pulpit in London rang with denunciations of his heretical procedure. When will Established Churches STOP being so predictable?
The TV ad showed a modern American tragedy. A man was writing a letter to a friend talking about “you remember when we used to say WHEN we retire?” Not too long ago another ad showed a man trapped in a huge office building while another was shown happily walking around in the country in his retirement.
Today I was reading a feature on California as a failed state. For the first time in history, it has lost half a million in population after two centuries of steady rise. Economically it is in a state of collapse.
These are problems I predicted long ago. One comes from the Soylent Green Syndrome, back when everybody who got paid for social commentary predicted a population that was standing on each others’ toes. As always, this evil was blamed on WHITE people having children.
At the time of Soylent Green, Europe was undergoing a population bust unmatched since the Great Plague, but Europe is the most social fad-oriented people on earth, so commenters condemned child-bearing in Europe while the population explosion was in the third world. America went along, of course.
So now the generation that went along with the Soylent Green fad can’t retire.
But there was another fad that was supposed to take care of the Soylent Green one. Instead of having white children, we would take care of TWO guilt complexes by not having any white children and importing colored ones to pay off our retirement.
That would idealistically get rid of whites and at the same time make sue it wouldn’t cost US anything.
The Libertarians were ecstatic with that idea, open borders!
I pointed out the problem with the latter solution in a paper to an economists’ society which included Nobel Winners and then a chapter in my The New Right Papers, the latter in 1982 when this fad was becoming policy. The disaster I predicted is now shown in California.
You see, what the libertarians cannot see is that labor VOTES. California now has a Politically Correct voting majority which led to socialist mentality which led to the economic collapse described today.
So the end of retirement is simply the result of fads of the past.
By the way, there is no economic collapse in California. All that is happening is that a third world population is returning to a third world existence. It LOOKS like a collapse when a first world economy and government turns into a third world one, but it is not a collapse.
All that is happening is a demonstration of an obvious reality: when you move a third world population across an imaginary border, the country across the border becomes third world.
As I told them in 1982, it is the rankest kind of superstition to actually BELIEVE that a brown-skinned people will prosper because they have crossed a line where Magic Talisman called The Constitution or libertarian books exist.
You accept the fad, the pay the price.
But gee, Bob, it felt so GOOD at the time!
One reason I see things clearly is because I see them from what Aleksander Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago called “an individual point of view.” Few readers and no intellectuals understood what he meant by this.
Up until his time in the Gulag, Solzhenitsyn adhered to the established religion of his country, Marxism-Leninism. He thought Stalin was a thug and said so, which is what got him into the Gulag. But he considered Lenin the greatest man in history and it was his life’s work to write the definitive biography of that Saint.
What Solzhenitsyn meant by an “individual point of view” was what he later became: a Russian, not a Marxist. He saw himself as an individual with a, repeat A, meaning ONE, personal point of view: “an individual point of view.” Only then was he able to observe THE REST of the world accurately.
If you are part of the established religion, regardless of what that institution may be, you are not a part of the world or the people you are analyzing. You look down on others in the light of your own Final Truth.
Everybody is a provincial, but you cannot understand anything about real people unless you face the fact that you are a hick, too. The people who cannot understand reality at all are those who THINK the INSTITUTION they are part of does not have a “point of view.”
Those who have an institutional view analyze everything as a step up or down toward their Final Truth. They are the most extreme form of provincial. They possess a hickdom no real hick could even imagine.
And, unlike a normal hick, the institutional hick cannot imagine that he IS a provincial.
As children we used to sit around the sandbox creating castles, war-zones for army men, and sand bridges after a heavy rain. We played make believe and entertained ourselves for hours on end. Most don’t remember the boredom suffered as a child and the extent we went though to entertain ourselves, but this leads me to my point. Humans are intrinsically creative creatures and in the absence of expressed creativity, we are inspired to create.
When a mind is deprived of all outside influence it will create art, music, dance, literature, and countless other expressions and we can say these expressions of creativity are extensions of ourselves.
A large body of individual creativity can form a culture, and a culture is nothing more than an accepted collective expression of creativity.
The culture that is established by the people is always secondary to the people, as another race can have that culture. If the culture is destroyed, the culture will reestablish itself as long as the people who created the original culture exist.
Respectable conservatives like to say that it is all about culture and that they would gladly open the gates to let the barbarians though as long as they claim to profess the right words and ways. Respectable conservatives condemn to death the very thing they claim to protect.
A child at least defends his sand castle from those who seek to destroy it.
Once again, let me explain why I wrote something.
Several times here I have discussed the fact that Mussolini almost missed The March on Rome that put him into power. He made a speech, probably not for the first time, that the Italian people should march on Rome and force a government that would GOVERN.
As I say, he had probably said that a hundred times. But this time it hit a note, and while Mussolini went about his routine, the March was building up and being organized. He found out about it at the last minute and rushed to lead it.
I am reminded of 1992 when Larry King asked Ross Perot if he would be willing to run for the presidency and Perot said yes. Within days Perot had a spontaneous national campaign organization and with in a couple of weeks he was way ahead in a three-way poll.
These are extreme examples, but a thinking person should see the importance of them. If the actual leaders have no idea what the unrest is like, if they come within view of taking power without even feeling the waves, how about the rest of us, especially the “experts?”
I have discussed the fact that as the USSR was going down cartoons depicted Estonians and Ukrainians demanding independence as drunks in Confederate uniforms. Within DAYS of that barrage of cartoons they began to pull out in mass.
These are giant examples. They have all been carefully forgotten. But there are endless smaller examples.
I have agreed with liberals that if Obama had been white it would have been a landslide. Bush left us both a financial crisis as big as any since 1929 AND an unsinkable, endless war with no exit strategy. EACH of those things took out a historical president who went from a landslide win to a landslide loss, Hoover and Johnson.
BOTH of them combined got Obama a respectable victory.
There has been talk about he tea parties, but you have no idea what is going on unless you see the world as I, and I hope WE, do. Once again, let me repeat what I have said many times: respectable conservatives have always been conservative respectable.
In respectable conservatives you are saying these are conservatives who are respectable. You’ve got their priorities backward. Their first and only real loyalty has been to respectability. National Review has always made it clear that they are part of the establishment first, that they will ditch anybody who really offends liberals. They are first and foremost respectable and any disagreement with Political Correctness is way down on the list.
What shocked the bejesus out of liberals was that a huge groundswell of those lamb like respectables suddenly became blatantly unrespectable, shouting, threatening, violently cowing their opponents the way only leftists have ever been allowed to do.
Every issue of National Review contains at least one apology for it.
No one can analyze this unless he looks at the examples of the March on Rome, Perot’s lead for the presidency which only a psycho could have screwed up, and the world press’s laughter at the idea that the Soviet Republics would secede.