Archive for December, 2009
Does anybody know why January 1 is New Year’s Day?
We know a lot more about Christmas, though we never think about it. It was the birthday of Mithras established by Constantine. No one ever THINKS about that, they just recite it, as they do all history Mommy Professor didn’t hammer in. They get classes dedicated to the birthday of Saint Martin Luther the King, but Mithras is mentioned in case they play Trivial Pursuits.
The beginning of the New Year was probably the first major piece of real knowledge the shamans actually possessed. Every year the Northern world got colder and colder and death surrounded them. Only when information passed from one generation to another did those who did that discover that the sun came back every year.
Then they discovered the DATE at which the sun began to come back. This was not as obvious as one may at first think.
After all, while the northern hemisphere does indeed reach its maximum distance from the sun at Winter Solstice, the weather keep getting colder right into February. So it was quite an intellectual achievement when, looking forward to an even deader January and February, our forefathers CELEBRATED December 21 or 22.
In fact, dates were something ancient Wise Men took very seriously, because it was about the only solid information they had. This makes it mysterious, at least to the two or three people on earth who actually THINK about, that the Magi would have changed the date to December 25.
In fact, there is probably an even simpler explanation as why January 1 was set as New Year’s Day. I just have no idea what it was.
Have you ever noticed how January 1 is ONLY traditional date that no one ever celebrated. Even the Jews dug around in their history and found the Festival of Lights at Christmas. Thanksgiving was celebrated in England regularly before the Pilgrims were the first settlement and invented it.
Jamestown had Thanksgiving, but Jamestown didn’t exist. THINKING about history can make one what the PCs and blacks call Ignunt. May Day was pagan and I am willing to bet every Semitic religion had its own version of Passover.
All dates have predecessors.
Except New Year’s.
In the late fifties I could see what was coming.
This leads to several observations. Back then the Mantra would have been laughed at. Back then race was considered a problem confined to the Southern States of the USA. For everybody else it was a chance to be self-righteous.
Back then everything they denied would happen is now justified. If you challenge what would have been a nightmare to people 50 years ago, you are ruined in America or imprisoned in Europe.
There was an old WWII type at our club who had repeated all the integration lines so long he reacted automatically. Once we were all talking about the mixed couples at Wal-Mart. I said I had predicted that would come with integration, and he repeated “Integration is not about intermarriage” before he realized where he was, WHEN he was, and what we had just been talking about.
I remember when we laughed at the idea of LOCKING one’s car when it was parked on Main Street: “if we were up North we’d LOCK it.”
I was watching a reality show where a big black beat a white guy in the middle of white crowd, knocking one of his eyes out of the socket. There were at least ten male whites, but they just cowered in the corner like a Distressed Heroine or member of the Obedient Generation.
We are living in several things that would have caused sophisticated laughter when I mentioned them in the early 60s. But I could clearly see where white weakness was leading. No one dares protect their borders. In fact, it is illegal in Europe to think of them as “our” borders.
The bitch about how they would defy America, but they are now all “nations of immigrants.”
Without race, borders are nonsense. What does a multiracial and multicultural “nation,” a real oxymoron, have a right to protect? One minute we are “a nation of immigrants” and the next we are supposed to worry about the living standard of so-called “American workers.”
Who are these so-called “Americans?” Any other time calling them “Americans” would be bigotry. An American is anyone who agrees that all men are not only equal but the SAME.
If a respectable conservative wants to lose his livelihood, the quickest way would be to put these propositions together. He must say there is no such things as an “American” but most conservatives keep their audience by demanding “we” close “our” borders. But none of them will make any anti-immigration type square this with the idea that everybody is an American.
They used to deny that integration was about intermarriage. Now a conservative will say immigration isn’t good because the Mexicans won’t marry his daughter, they refuse to “assimilate.”
The scandal over scientists falsifying data to push the Green agenda made 2009 worth while. Some years back an Emory professors lost his tenured job for simply making up a book’s “facts” to show early Americans didn’t have guns.
It is now established that Franz Boas, now a hero to National Review, made up his information about immigrant traits in the US.
It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get caught doing this! Who in academia would have the slightest incentive to look into any study which backs a conclusion that people giving out grants and promotions want to be true?
It’s like the idea of a scandal in the press. “What did they know and when did they know it? is strictly for those outside the press. When that black reporter was rising like a rocket at the New York Times while making up his stories out of whole cloth, there was a long series of memos inside the Times debating what to do about it as he continued to manufacture his stuff.
No one expected anything else. Those were the kind of notes that would get a president impeached.
Obviously this sort of thing is not unusual, but anyone who said it happens a lot would be lynched by respectable conservatives.
Every day anybody who wants it on Capitol Hill gets a list of NSF grants. Senator Proxmire used that easy information to denounce grants for projects which sounded extreme. Naturally many he randomly denounced were enormously important to achievements of benefit worth a thousand times their cost.
Grants for research are hard to get. Those who give out the money watch them a LOT closer than Proxmire did. If you come to a conclusion those giving the grants like and it shows up in a documentary or in the press, you will get more of them. If you don’t toe the line, you’ve had it.
In Climategate those pushing the Green agenda said that all their information came from journals which have Holy Peer Review. But they also revised the definition of journals that have peer review. The respectable journals happened to be the ones not questioning the Greens.
The journals that lost respectability should have hired a respectable conservative to show them how to stay inside the line.
I was VERY happy to hear that from Horus. You don’t necessarily have to say WHITE genocide if you get where you ought to.
If you are easily offended I am NOT the advisor you need. I was the 180 opposite of professors. I got paid for advice that WORKED, not advice that FITTED. If you had said Whitaker and yes man in the same breath, a large part of Capitol Hill would have laughed themselves breathless.
I didn’t spare the egos of those who paid me money so I won’t spare yours. If my implied criticism isn’t really relevant to you, ignore it in those cases the way my bosses did. What I am leading up to here is my repeated suspicion that however rationally it STARTS; making things easier on you is always something to be LOOKED at.
Let me hasten to repeat what one German philosopher said truly: “If we talked to others the way we talk to ourselves, we would be sadists.” He was talking about an instrument of torture called the Aryan conscience.
If what I say is not relevant, pretend you have more to do than worry about it. As I said, I tortured myself far too much. So BALANCE. If you are human, you will go after yourself too much sometimes and let yourself slip into bad habits by going too easy. And, as commenters point, there is that element of bullying.
You go after yourself when you are at your weakest, just like everybody else does. When you are depressed or tired and defensive, you go on the self-torture bit. When you are on a roll you let yourself go.
We are sadists and bullies to OURSELVES and THAT we could use a look at.
You can’t do much about other bullies, but you CAN stop yourself from being one, attacking you when you’re down. Like the Trappists, it is such a total violation of the Golden Rule that we don’t SEE it. We feel a little like we are making up for all that imagined guilt and failure that crowds in on us when we are DOWN.
And above all, that is when it is EASIEST to kick ourselves.
Being an Aryan is good for the world, but no way is it necessarily fun.
It is probably because the Mantra is so personal to me. IT is HARD WORK to find a way to get that simple message across. I can imagine those who tried to get supply and demand across, and Newton with his gravity, faced the same problem. It is easier to hit and run.
I apply Occam’s Law to people; the simplest explanation you can find is the right one. Occam had a hard time, too. So after many many years of observation and experience with them and getting PAID for it in a very unforgiving environment, I always react the Occam way first. So when you began to talk about hitting and running, my reaction was, “What is wrong with this picture?”
In other words, I am worried about this hitting and running going so far you don’t TRY to get across the Mantra, which is easier. God, is it EVER easier not to try!
But if you do hit on the Mantra, you will often get a reaction you can USE. Off their home turf in Stormfront, anti-whites, and that’s anti-WHITES not “antis” — another piece of costly and convenient laziness– stay off the anti-white rhetoric. They need to get off the deadly point, so they talk about themselves, and how THEY are not anti-white.
But Brian will tell you that on their home turf, the professors, being cowards, will say out loud they are FOR genocide. That is worth the effort.
Way to go, Brian!
But usually they won’t go that far since in most cases you are not in the class subject to open bullying which those cowards go far. As a former professor I can tell you nothing is easier than bullying a class or anybody in it.
PC’s are bullies and cowards. But outside of class, be SURE to call them on it. As soon as they start criticizing whites as an answer to my genocide argument, I say, IMMEDIATELY, “so you are for this genocide and you are justifying it.”
DON’T LET THEM OFF THAT HOOK. “Well why would you justify genocide by saying whites are bad? YOU CAN’T DENY IT AND JUSTIFY IT AT THE SAME TIME. “
The fact is there is genocide going on, a policy aimed, quite openly, at the end of one race. The standard argument about the Evil White Man has no relevance at all. Denying genocide and justifying it are 180 degree opposites. All than rhetoric justifies the concentrate on our race. But it shows you are used to justifying it rather than denying it.
Stay on message.
It would be interesting to see how an Imam on Ramadan would react to everybody saying “Season’s Greetings.” “Season’s Greetings” would be an interesting thing for all Christians to say to Jews on High Holy Days.
Hell, we could even use it on Martin Luther King Day.
Calvinism outlawed Christmas. What really offended them about it was not its pagan origins. In fact the Mithraists were not pagan, which referred to the wild country side, but very much a religion of the cities and of civilization, and December 25 was chosen for Christmas by Constantine because it was the birthday of Mithras.
EVERY pagan religion had its equivalent of Yule on December 21 or 22, Winter Solstice. Constantine was a Mithraian before he became a Christian, so there is no other explanation for that particular date.
To me, things were not as simple as historians, Constantine’s apologists, made it. My field of expertise is not religion, but politics, and this sounds familiar to me. Just as the Church gave the pagans their statues, as backbaygrouch points out, since withdrawn, it gave things to the huge Mithraian constituent.
The real politics of adopting the NAME Christianity to the expanded Helenist Jewish population which had so little Israeli blood in it, used ONLY Greek, and numbered about a tenth of the entire Roman Empire at the time of Christ, is over three hundred years long. The entire Helenic Jewish population disappeared from the historical record, without the slightest note from historians, as Christianity grew.
“The Greeks” appear regularly in the New Testament.
Peter and Paul, both strict Jews, went at it as to whether to baptize “gentiles.” Who were these “gentiles?” Did they include the Helenized Jews who might have been regarded by the relatively few Hebrew Jews as gentiles? For some other reason, presumably, Jesus was condemned as being from “Nazareth of the Gentiles” and the Samaritans did not regard others as real Jews, and Jesus told the Samaritan at the well that she was wrong and salvations was with the Jews.
But any evidence relating to this has been burned out and suppressed for many, many centuries, so historians don’t bother with it. Had the Moslems not burned every shred of Persian literature, there would be whole schools of history dedicated to Persia’s obvious influence on all out institutions. But it was burned so it is ignored.
Like every other faith, Political Correctness says it reveres knowledge and condemns book-burning. But history never questions the decisions of the book-burners.
Historically there was a constantly renewed alliance between the Hebrew Jews and the zealots in Israel which went on for some five hundred years. The last such alliance exploded against the Roman Empire in the century before Islam conquered Persia. According to both Testaments, the Persians were the only other religion the Jews considered Godly. “Cyrus” the only non-Jew who ”did the work of God” in the Old and the Magi recognized Christ thirty years before the Jews crucified him.
In one book of the Old Testament, after the Resurrection, someone asked, “Has he gone to the Greeks?”
Along with the date of Mithras’s birth, these are VERY heavy hints.
The Roman Church allowed a smoother transition with the statues in the West and the joy we peasants were allowed on December 25. The Calvinists outlawed celebration on that day.
The constant attacks on this particular day are a result of the fact that Wordism of any kind HATES joy. Even CS Lewis explains in “Surprised by Joy” that Joy, in HIS sense, “is NOT a pleasant sensation.”
It is Screwtape who accuses God of liking human pleasure.
Wordism, be it Calvinism or any other, exists in institutions and the food of religious institutions is guilt and sacrifice. During life, you only GIVE. That is not what the religious leaders THINK of, Lewis certainly praised some pleasures, but it is what institutions LIVE off of.
Guilt, from global warming to racism to having sex, is what powerful institutions are BUILT on.
Our idea of Christmas, from the old Yule celebration, turns the stomach of our present established religion on a level they are not aware of.
It is interesting, though, that the New Testament put the birth of Christ in the winter, as the Zoroastrians did. And, with their discussion of the Magi, they certainly knew. For some reason it was important that the MAGI recognize Christ. Considering how the Persian Empire loomed over all powers outside Rome at that time, this is not surprising to someone who knows history.
But historians of our new established, no less than those of our previous established faiths, also ignore all this.
Yule is the day the sun begins to come back. At the Solstice the Northern Hemisphere is tipped at its maximum angle away from the sun. The Yule may have often been a time of despair. The dead of winter. When the sun threatens to go away completely and, in very northerly climates, it does.
Some time long ago it was realized that the sun would return. Men who had lived long knew this. But then the wise men, those who carried knowledge from generation to generation and kept records of such things, found the day when the sun was furthest away but began to come back to us. Untold thousands of years ago, this became a day of celebration.
Then came the Wordists.
When we rid ourselves of the Wordists, every day will indeed be Christmas.
I had an FBI dossier before I was 15. In 1956, kids at my high school would yell “Federal Troops” when they saw me in the hall. I had said that the Feds would HAVE to use Federal troops to enforce integration (to desegregate means to de-separate and nobody every “deseparated” anything).
As Brian told me, there is one truth to the old statement that people don’t think because they are coddled. Most people DO have it a lot easier than I did and they CHOOSE not to peck at the egg shell that protects them. In our day, there is an eggshell’s worth of difference between saying EXACTLY the right thing and breaking that cocoon completely.
One commenter made a really brilliant statement about the passive-aggressive nature of humor. I get a laugh out of people actually worrying themselves sick about how to use the Only True Term, African-American, to apply to a runner from Kenya.
I remember when one of our unbiased networks in the 1960s did an impartial survey among blacks about what they wanted to be called. That was when liberals were trying to hang on to the term “Negro” so, lo and behold Moses, it turned out that blacks said that was what they wanted to be called. A long-forgotten conclusion was that “Some wanted to be called Afro-American, and the least popular was he schizophrenic term, ‘African-American.’”
So, as I pointed out, most people prefer to stay in the egg or, said Freud, in the womb. The ones who make it to adolescence and stay there think they have really matured.
But if you are out there as I was, and I don’t think it was a choice, your egg cracks early and you grow a new shell, very SLOWLY.
This turtle would have had a MUCH easier life if he stayed in his egg.
It is pathetic.
It is pathetic when a grown man stays a child. He is raised at home and then goes to college and Mommy Professor turns him into a standard and packaged PC at age eighteen.
And he stays that way the rest of his LIFE.
And no one is dumber than a dumb man who is convinced that he’s SMART. I think that is why Mommy Professor encompassed what I was saying with it. These people go straight from Mommy to Mommy Professor and they are stuck there for life.
The big difference is that their real Mommy told them what she said was RIGHT, not that it was SMART.
Back when not everybody went to college, we had a saying, “All freshmen are socialists and atheist.” It was as routine our lives that each year a new group of freshmen would be overwhelmed by their professors and begin to parrot them. But upper classmen were SUPPOSED to outgrow that.
Today, they don’t even realize it is a STAGE. You can’t be a baby bear all your life.
But you also aren’t supposed to be a cub all your life, either.
Sure a first year kid is impressed by a professor’s claims to fame, but most people back then knew that professors had ZERO life experience. So you got over Mommy Professor. It was part of the trip to adulthood.
But for most people now, that step, the bear cub, is the end. They end up like hippies and environmentalists, forever adolescent.
A commenter had my problem with Mommy Professor, referring to him as “she.” But a documentary solved that for me. It was about people harassing “meter maids” in Britain. Every single meter maid was a man. A Mommy Professor can certainly be male.
Like Edison’s utter crap about genius=perspiration, another piece of Common Wisdom needs to be despised: “The Sixties generation was just spoiled. They hadn’t been through the War and the DEPRESSION like we were.”
Bullshit. When you wonder about what the new generation is coming to, you look first to where it is coming FROM. But the WWII Generation, which talked about how one has to take responsibility for his own actions like they did in WORLD WAR II and the Depression, completely disowned any responsibility for their own children.
The Sixties Generation was the last to live on a higher level than its predecessors. So you could say that EVERY generation of Americans was “spoiled.” While the Greatest Generation says the Depression, “taught them something,” then, at the height of the Depression they were spoiled rotten compared to EVERY generation of Asians. Asians would have given anything back then if there were a soup kitchen or if they could ask, “Brother can you spare a dime.” That was a 1932 dime, a dollar or two now, and just for asking!
In Asia you were lucky if anybody dragged your starved corpse away because the ravenous dogs or pigs got it.
The people responsible for the next generation is the last generation. But the Greatest Generation disowned the least responsibility for the children who despised them by the old standby that got them coddled for decades: “We SUFFERED!”
The people who know you best in terms of what they can do are your own children. Children and prisoners have nothing to do except observe their keepers. A guard will spend his time worrying about his family or his politics, but prisoners do nothing all day but try to beat the system. They know all about every guard.
Respectable conservatives absolutely worship the Greatest Generation and absolutely despise its children. And nobody talks more endlessly about how you are RESPONSIBLE for your actions than Respectable conservatives. No one will ever ask them why their Heroes were not responsible for their own children.
In fact, you can only understand why America’s population bust and runaway drug use began in the sixties by looking at the generation that caused. No, the Sixties Generation was no more “spoiled” than any other generation. You have to look at the group that produced them.
No one dares do that.
The Sixties Generation, which I knew well, knew, first of all, that their parents were WIMPS. For the first time in American history, children knew their parents would not defend them. On the Bell Curve, when people will not stand for things, there will be some lynching. The WWII Generation never had one lynching, they also did not have a lot of other things that are a lot farther in on the American Bell Curve.
In any generation before the Greatest, a drug dealer in a high school would have been shot by a parent, and the prosecutor who brought a case against that parent would never be elected to public office again. Until the Obedience Trained Puppies of WWII no jury would even have considered a case against a parent who shot somebody who was trying to push drugs on his children.
No previous generation of Americans would have allowed their children to be used in sociological experiments like integration, much less busing his kids into a ghetto. Not the Greatest. I remember my nausea in the 1960s as the parents of one murdered child after another got on TV to proclaim how they
Did not blame the murderer and would appeal for mercy for them.
That happened all the time, gang.
Earlier Americans always said, “If he breaks into my house, he’s PAID for.” It never occurred to them to argue about the right of a man to protect his family. But the revolutionary change was when the WWII Generation actually sat on juries that send people to prison for life when the prosecutor appealed to their Obedience.
The Sixties Generation was rotten because, quite rightly, it despised the Obedient Generation. As children will, they allowed their dedication to Rebellion to be harnessed and used by the real establishment. The last people who would oppose this would be Obedient Generation.
When I got into international aviation negotiations I wrote Carleton Putnam about it. We had corresponded ten years earlier and he knew who I was. Putnam was founder of Delta Airlines. He never once mentioned that he could help me in the industry.
This is what one expects of our side. They won’t even force their HEIRS to take out side. I have talked about the fact that Communist Party members would routinely rob banks and marry heiresses to get the Party money.
If whites do it it’s called discrimination. When Politically Correct people do it it’s called networking. We used to say that the fashion industry was “run by queers.” Mommy Professor denied this vehemently and it was denounced as Hitlerism.
Until AIDS hit. Then the media mourned the death of practically the entire personnel of the fashion industry.
Then Barbara Walters had a gushy piece wondering why gay men were such great designers. Try to imagine if she had has a program about why white male were naturally such great executives. After all, it hasn’t been long since almost all big executives were white males.
Mommy Professor would immediately point out that whites only got big jobs because they were white and male. But gays have some preternatural genetic gift for designing clothes. Well, maybe it is true that a few more gays are hired because gays are hiring them, but that’s just networking.
The one vocation that depends most on the luck of the draw is acting. Every successful actor is the result of a series of lucky breaks. Even DeNiro, who seems to appear in every movie, will not claim uniqueness in his talent.
And actors just happen to have the political diversity of the Harvard faculty.
So far, I have sounded a lot like a respectable conservative, and my stomach is getting queasy. So let me quote a guy on Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” when Ventura asked, how we let then get away with all this. The man replied:
“They’re smarter than we are.”
Jesse did NOT pursue that naked truth.
No one would expect Putnam to help me by networking. He would do it for his son’s Jewish buddy, I’m sure, but not for politics. It is critical to Political Correctness to keep this mentality, actually this lack of mentality, among respectable conservatives. It is a critical weapon in keeping celebrities far left.
Since it works and is smart, it is principle among the kept opposition to declare NOT doing it for their side a matter of Freedom, personal independence, objectivity, and, of course, Christianity.
As with Edison, we must take apart an old Wise Saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
The enemy of your enemy CAN be your ALLY. Temporarily. On a case by case basis. We like to see supporters of Israel, the people who have dedicated themselves to ridding the earth of our race, taking a hit. The only country on earth which goes on record as calling the Holocaust a hoax is Islamic. We cheer them on.
In college the most active supporters of my seat in the Student Senate were Arabs. I buddied around with them They were my friends on a PERSONAL basis. It is no surprise to you that I have had friends that give a new meaning to the word “diversity.”
The people around us think they can only have friends if they profess a drooling love for the whole unique and “amazingly sophisticated” virtues of each person’s special race and religion, while at the same time stating that all races and cultures are exactly the same. They note a little distance from minorities, but set that down to their innate Evil and Prejudice, thought all races are innately the same.
If such a drooling, fawning schizophrenic was pawing at you, you would be a little distant, too. Blacks and Jews certainly ENCOURAGE this kind of person, because he is a major ally in their goal of getting rid of whites. He is the enemy of their enemy.
But is this groveling mass of self-hatred a FRIEND?
I have worked with and been trusted by a vast array of people, but, unless on some spy mission, I never distorted my personal loyalties and biases to them. My relationship was easy. I don’t know what they REALLY thought. I have had many white “friends” who pretended to like me but hated my guts.
But my alliances and trusts tended to WORK. Whether it turned out they liked me or not was something people insisted on telling me. Codependence is to something someone in my position could afford.
Not only is the enemy of your enemy not automatically your friend, friend is an entirely DIFFERENT relationship.
Moslems can be on your side. I certainly did them a lot of good when the Soviets were in Afghanistan. But that was because the Soviets were my enemies, not because the Mujadin were my friends.
If you want a perfect example of what happens when you mistake people you see as enemies of your enemies as friends, look at the drooling, rolling-on-the-floor-peeing-on-themselves respectable conservatives. Leftist fought Hitler, so they were friends. Leftists got mad about 9/11 when it was fashionable, so they are friends.
Respectable conservatives are always bragging about how some of their best friends are liberals. That is their excuse for never pounding on a point that makes leftists uncomfortable. As soon as a leftist says something is off limits, respectable conservatives get off of it.
But we easily drift off into the error of thinking that the Hannitys and Buckleys are our friends, since they are the official opposition and say things that make sense when it fits their agenda. They are indispensable to our established religion.
Each time you think some Wordist is your ally, think about respectable conservatives. You may lose your lunch, but you won’t lose your principles.
Posted by Bob on April 4, 2006 at 2:53 pm
One of the basic premises of international relations is what I refer to as “The A-C Rule.”
Country A, let’s say France, has a country that borders on it, say Germany. France is A, Germany is B.
So since they share a border, it is for sure that A and B, Germany and France, will be most likely to go to war with each other and to be in competition with each other.
Then there is a Country C. Country C is on the OTHER side of Country B. In 1939, it was Poland that bordered on Germany on the opposite side from France. France is A, Germany on its border is B and the country on Germany’s OTHER border is C.
The enemy of my enemy is my natural ally. So France and Poland were likely to beunited bymutual hostility to Germany, Country B.
Graduate professors in International Relations love to point out that the oldest treaty of alliance in existence was ona clay tablet in cunieform script.
That clay tablet recorded an alliance of Countries A and C against the country which bordered on them both, Country C.
Which explains why his British cousins left Czar Nicholas to die at the hands of the Bolshevike. They were LITERALLY his cousins.
But by the time the Czar fell in 1917 Britain and France had made the war into a crusade “to make the world safe for democracy.”
The reason France and Britain made common cause with Russia was because, in 1914 when the war began, France was on one side of Germany and Russia, which held the half of Poland Germany did not hold, was GEOGRAPHICALLY in position C, bordering Germany on the other side from France.
Britain, due to power of the British Fleet and English Channel in 1914, did not feel that it bordered on anybody.
But Russia was also on the other side from Britain and France POLITICALLY. It was an unapologetic Czarist despotism.
POLITICALLY as well as geographically, Germany was between the Western Allies and Russia. It had a despotism, but nowhere near the despotism Russia had.
This often happens. Country C is often further away from Country A politically than each is from Country B.
The Allies, in their “War to save democracy” with their new American ally, could not afford to accept the Czar as a refugee from the Bolshevik Revolution which threatened his life in Novermber of 1917.
So the A-C Rule is very, very, VERY practical. More often than not, it is a matter of life and death.
This doesn’t mean that no one else thought of the same thing. It just means that since I never heard it from others means they’re probably new to you.
I seldom read links that are sent to me via email unless they have an explanation first. Being a writer, most of my emails consist almost entirely of stuff I wrote myself , so I am probably more touchy than others about someone who wants me to spend my time reading something values his own time more. I can’t STAND a clown who sends out a link with no explanation to a group of people.
Having demonstrated once again that I’m a grumpy old bastard, I will now try to show that I am a grumpy old bastard with a sense of humor.
Having spent my life around fanatics, workaholics, drunks — and me — I am used to depression. So I made a joke about History’s Greatest Depressive. Old HGD was a fine, but he saw the worst in EVERYTHING and was always miserable. The angels couldn’t wait for him to die and go to Heaven where he could get rid of all that misery.
Finally the Day came. The depressive came into Paradise and the angels sang in chorus, “Welcome to the Joyous Place where you will spend the rest of eternity.”
In reply, the depressive wailed, “The REST of eternity? You mean I MISSED the first half?”
Another one that probably shows my state of mental unhealth:
Do you know how to tell someone is paranoid schizophrenic?
“They’re out to get us.”
This one I did not make up, but it relates to an earlier article. I recognized Lord Monckton who was in Ventura’s show about global warming because Brian quoted him to me. I have written about how all the Communists became Environmentalists the day the Soviet Empire fell.
Lord Monckton says “Greens” have “stoplight politics.”
This means that they say they’re Green because they are too yellow to admit they’re Reds.
In my Southern Partisan Partisan Dictionary a quarter of century I defined Catholics as, “People who say some of their best friends are priests but don’t want their daughter to marry one.”
I got a long aggrieved letter from a Catholic guy who decided I was persecuting him with that definition. My editor, a South Carolina Irish Catholic, told me to ignore it.
Actually he said, “F… him,” but it meant the same thing.
The Partisan Dictionary was an obvious rip-off of Bierce’s nineteenth century work, but since Ambrose Bierce was a Texan I felt free to steal his Devil’s Dictionary concept as a part of the Southern Heritage The Partisan at that time reflected.
After all, Bierce defined “Mulatto” as “A child of two races, ashamed of both.”
I made these up and I repeat them. I say to you as I have said to others: “If you’ve heard this one before, try and stop me.”
I was in alcohol and drug recovery, so naturally I made up some jokes about Twelve Step Programs:
“Have you head about ‘Workaholics Anonymous?’ They have to attend fourteen meetings a day.”
“Have you heard about Depressives Anonymous? They had one meeting, decided it was hopeless, and went home.”
“I don’t know about Paranoids Anonymous. They don’t have any open meetings.”
A joke on a dead thug:
My club has been in business since January 1947 and is called ACOA, a corporation of alcoholics, initials which Adult Children of Alcoholics later took up. I have belonged to other clubs, but, as I have pointed out, this one has the highest entry fee on earth.
A black guy walked in with a gun to rob the club. One of the members had a gun permit. He told the guy he had to get his wallet, and shot the guy dead on the spot. It is not easy to shoot someone dead with a pistol. I know one woman who was in the club who shot her husband five times while he was on the floor with a .38 and he survived.
It is not bright to walk into a room in South Carolina and assume everyone is unarmed. It is also a bad move to walk into a room and try to panic a room full of alkies and addicts. Everyone in the room was used to emergencies.
That is why I hate Clint Eastwood’s “The Unforgiving” so much. I have seen regular people in emergencies, and the New York Jewish Theory that all white goyim are inept cowards when it comes to extreme situations is an insult only those raised by the Greatest Generation could accept like retarded sheep.
A lot has happened in the ACOA Club. It is in Five Points, the preppie section of Columbia with its expensive specialty shops. All that money in the area and who do thieves choose to pick on?
The Drunk Club, for God’s sake! We get broken into regularly, and there’s not a dime in the place. A lot of these thieves, like the late guy mentioned above, don’t know anything about it and think that a private club in Five Points must be money central Most of them are just stupid.
One particular idiot thought he was a pro. He cased the joint attending AA Meetings. He decided the Stash must be in the office. The office has criss-crossing steel rods with about six niches between them on the window. This Shrewd thief was skinny, so he stripped completely and rubbed WD-40 all over his body so he could slide in at 2 AM.
Naturally, he got stuck. He was trying to get through the bars after breaking the window so he cut himself as he wiggled to get free He finally decided to call the police on the office phone, for which he had to stretch and really cut himself to do. The cops called our Head Drunk, as we call the guy who runs the office at the time, and he came out to find the guy still stuck in the grate.
Used to emergencies, he brought a flash camera. He had plenty of time for photos.
The problem was that for over an hour the police would try to get this criminal genius out, but he was buck naked and greased and trying to get him out would cut him and make him scream curses, at which the cops would laugh so bard they had to back away so as not to slice him while they laughed. This happened over and over and over and over.
We had a picture on our bulletin board for months of this guy’s naked butt hanging out the window with blood and oil coming down.
I don’t believe anybody was ever happier to get to jail.
Jesse Ventura is from Minnesota, and I’d never heard him praise anyone but liberal Republicans like Lowell Weicker and Democrats. He won as an Independent, but the congressman from Vermont is listed as an Independent though he makes it very clear he is a Socialist, big and little s.
So I expected his Conspiracy series to be a short-term deal that “exposed” all the racist and right-wing plots we have seen “exposed” nightly for decades. Even I, a documental, turn off those shows that repeat what the hippies have been saying over and over for forty years. So when I started watching Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” I kept my hand on the remote.
I have seen two of them. I was surprised by the first and stunned by the second. The last one was an attack on what, next to getting rid of the white race, is Holy Grail No. 2 for Old Hippiedom.
Ventura QUESTIONED environmentalism. What is critical here is that he said something I said a third of a century ago: Money and power drives the left as well as it does rightism. Prior to my “A Plague on Both Your Houses,” 1976, no liberal and therefore no respectable conservative ever even imagined that the hundreds of billions spent on the War on Poverty or public education could cause LIBERALS to get greedy or power hungry. No one MENTIONED money on the left.
Our societal assumption is that Jews cannot hate. Anti-Semites’ only motivation is Hate, but Jews can only have Righteous Indignation. Likewise, rightists are driven by Greed and a Hunger for Power while leftists are sometimes misguided or overenthusiastic Idealists. If the Nazis had had a Berlin Wall at their borders to keep people in, there would be an illustration of it in every history book from the fourth grade on.
But one of the many requirements for being a respectable type conservative is that one share this assumption with liberals to the point where it is never even mentioned. This is a Law of Survival for professional conservatives.
Until you REALIZE this, really REALIZE it, Ventura’s second program will not jump out at you. It was the first time I have EVER seen a program on national television say that a popular LEFTIST cause could be used for evil purposes.
Think about it, have you EVER HEARD of such a thing?
When one walks on forbidden ground, one makes good points. I can’t HELP but make good points here, because I am treading ground absolutely forbidden to all professional commentators. Conspiracy shows don’t sell because we all know what they will say, and they will say it for the hundredth time. They have to use public funds or leftist money to produce yet another exposition of the fact that a Communist whom Kennedy had let back into the United States from the USSR shot Kennedy.
Ventura’s program on 9/11 pointed out that NEVER BEFORE had the black box from a land crash been lost. FOUR of them, ALL of them were “lost” on 9/11. Ventura not only pointed this out, he HAMMERED on it.
Once again, this NEVER happens in the professional media. If I get a point like this, it is because I am listening very carefully. But Ventura, REPEATED that point over and over, the way a leftist does his points. Some professional conservatives who have some shreds of a conscience and a mind left will slip them in. Ventura slammed this one home.
This CAN’T last.
Jesus said that salvation was “free and without price.” If he had said that in Spain five hundred years later he would have been ripped off of his nice comfy cross and stopped in to fire.
I was listening to a homily from a priest who was describing Jesus’ talk to the rich young man. He said, “The reason the young man was Lost was …” This was a new one to me. Lost? He asked Jesus what he must do to be saved. Jesus asked if he followed the Commandments, and he said he did. Jesus then said, “IF YOU WOULD BY PERFECT, sell all you have and give it to the poor and follow me.”
Christians would be in deep trouble if one had to be PERFECT to avoid being Lost, Damned. But this is understandable if you understandable if you understand institutions. Institutions talk a lot about money and power, because they ARE money and power. No matter what book an institution is based on, they think in money and power terms.
All institutions want sacrifice to be uppermost in their adherents’’ minds. The homily was just another example of how a person who has devoted his life to an institution is going to find the money side the most important.
ALL institutions. A Japanese Buddhist priest charges a fee for his service to be dedicated to a particular person, just as a Catholic Church does for a Mass. Both do it free in some cases, but they regard it as charity.
It would be a little hard to track the behavior of a Buddhist priest in Osaka to that of a Catholic priest in Dublin by their common roots. But both are institutional people. This is called parallel evolution. Saber toothed tigers evolved separately all over the world. They had the same survival challenge and developed the same way. Institutions in different places are so much alike we don’t even notice it.
The young Stalin was a bank robber. But he gave what he robbed to the Communist Party. Some young Communists would marry heiresses specifically to obtain money to support the Party. Like monks, they swore they were against wealth but they spent much or most of their time getting it for the Party, just as monasteries kept starting poor and getting rich from wealthy people’s wills.
One writer referred to Communists as “secular Calvinists.” Calvinist churches became rich by telling their members that salvation was purely a matter of being Chosen before birth. But their members had to show they were part of the Elect of God, and a person who was Elect gave money to his church.
Communists and Calvinist doctrines are alike in that both say that the Triumph of their Truth is inevitable. Oddly enough, Calvinists discovered that this brought in the cash. Communist or Calvinists, being On the Side of a Truth that is Inevitable has the opposite effect one would logically think it would.
You would think that if one were a Communist he would take it easy. Truth will out anyway, so why bother? But that is exactly what people said about Calvinists. But Calvinists churches sprang up like mushrooms, and they got money that often put the Roman Church to shame.
If something owns Inevitability it is the Only True Faith. And people will support the physical institution, the wealth and power, of an institution that promises no reward except Being On the Winning Side, and it does not matter if your side wins long after you are dead.
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots?
New Living Translation (©2007)
Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots?
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots?
New International Version (©1984)
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.
New Living Translation (©2007)
Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Can Ethiopians change the color of their skin or leopards change their spots? Can you do good when you’re taught to do wrong?
King James Bible
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
Now why would anyone five hundred years or more BC talk about an Ethiopian wanting to change his color?
In every movie I see the Children of Israel are integrated by quota. Lately, they are largely mulattoes. My problem is that as a Bible Belter I didn’t just see the
movie, I read the book.
There is at least one specifically anti-black race riot in the Old Testament.
Any movie of the BC days shows the people heavily Negroid.
I can’t find any classical statues that look the least like mulattoes.
On the documentaries now Hannibal is black. Pharaohs and everybody around them is black.
One real curse about knowing as much history as I do is that I get teed off watching documentaries. But that is also why I tend to be such a doc-watcher.
It is hard to find a subject I’m not interested in. Documentaries not only drop in some new information, they tell where Mommy Professor is right now.
It is also interesting to watch the balance between what is new and what they CAN say.
Back when there were four networks, I watched TV regularly. It was very lower-clahss, but I would ask people, “How can you NOT watch television and
know where mass thought is?” I didn’t get paid to look artistic, I got paid to keep up with politics.
Anyone who had called Hannibal a black to his face would have had less than a second to live. Anyone who had portrayed the 300 Spartans as dark as the movie
did would have lived as long as he could stay out of their reach. Part of the REAL Olympic Oath was “I swear that I am of pure Hellenic blood.” They made it more than abundantly clear what they thought of as pure Hellenic blood as an ideal in their notably non-Negroid statues.
I would love to see the Spartans’ reaction to their being portrayed, every one of them, as brown eyed and black as if there were not a drop of Aryan blood in any of them.
Never having gone to college all I can say to Dave is that by not doing so has done me immeasurable good. College produces a script for the average or slightly above average white or Asian, and for the most part little else aside from a little technical training on the side. Once these kids receive these scripts they lose nearly all their curiosity. Because why would they need to ask questions, mommy prof supplied all the answers.
From the word go the BUGS entry has been: “You have to have outgrown a college education, whether you had one or not.” I think I might use that as a leadin to asking people to read BUGS.
On a more general point, in a healthy free society people routinely feel that they have outgrown institutions. Why am I the only former professor who saw the whole thing as the pure fraud it is? National Review went to pieces at my 1976 demand that we stop wasting money on an “education” myth.
But they are still desperate to stay in good with the priesthood of our established religion.
Lately, a third of a century later, NR had a cover article about young people realizing they’ve been cheated. But they keep talking about “reform.” They are “disenchanted” with “education” as provided today. Every other institution has a number of ex-members who say it is all a fraud and a waste and worse. But when it comes to the academic bureaucracy, I seem to be the only person who came out of it and OUTGREW it.
What I said in 1976 is truer today. The last thing we need is some monopoly giving “accreditation” to specific institutions to provide what t hey call “education.” ALL institutions that get that sort of monopoly go berserk, but no one else seems to even notice it IS a monopoly.
On a Monty Python episode they showed some English gangsters threatening a military base. They talked to the base commander and said, “You have some nice Tanks, etc. here, be shame if anything happened to them…” and so forth.
I was really interested in how the British military COULD handle such a problem, but the skit was interrupted because it was “too silly.”
We just had a case at Fort Hood where twelve soldiers were killed and over thirty injured because there was a single shooter and the military had no weapons. They let themselves be shot down like school kids.
I remember numerous occasions when US Navy ships let Russian ships shove them out of the way, when one Soviet sailor jumped on the American ship and claimed asylum, they gave him back for prison.
The US military cannot protect American borders.
So what WOULD a British commander do if his base were threatened?
Call the unarmed Local Constabulary. We all know from Gitmo and illegal aliens that everybody is entitled to constitutional protection. When someone comes in with a REAL gun no one wonders why soldiers are as helpless as high school students. We all take it for granted.
What if the gangsters don’t WANT to go with the Local Constabulary?
In short, how would the skit have gone if they had tried to finish it?
With friends like Tiger Woods, PC doesn’t need people like me.
“The Babe Ruth of Golf” was shown with his blond Scandinavian wife as often as possible. He was even as tall as she was. Here was a True Love Match “which happened to be interracial” or, as Hannity puts it, “two Children of God.”
Then the black guy got too horny and decided he had to have a blond mistress, too.
But I REALLY couldn’t believe it when a female commentator on CNN said that this was the “usual problem with successful black athletes, they have to get themselves a blond, trophy wife.” I could not believe that the moderator didn’t explode into blood and guts right there.
The guy’s commentarial was a really novel thought. He said, “It has nothing to do with race!” Gosh, THERE’S a novel line! But this time it notably lacked the Required Rage.
When he had the wreck out with his blond mistress, Tiger instantly offered his wife what all black guys offer their white women: Money and lots of it. He offered her millions above their pre-nup, which already made her a millionairess, not to divorce him. There hasn’t been a less True Love couple “who happened to be of different races” since OJ.
Tiger’s father determined to have nothing to do with black women but in his time all he could get was an Oriental woman. Black men on television will say that they don’t date black women. This is a brag.
It pisses some black women off, but I have yet to see those “precious feelings” be of the slightest concern to Women’s Lib or any other part of PC. So the black guy sits there and talks black to black women about black women in a way that no white would be allowed to talk for one minute.
But I don’t think the Thought Police reacted properly this time. The white woman who said this was a habit of successful black athletes should have been instantly called down and suppressed if the priests of the PC faith were going at full throttle.
The problem is that the media don’t know how to react when someone is as honest as Tiger Woods. His father made it clear that they were trying to breed the n****** out of them. Tiger was no less honest about it: he bought himself as unNegroid a wife as he could find on the market.
The script calls for the WHITE WOMAN to say it’s all True Love. Black male are often OPENLY proud they got a white woman. PC is in the position Doublethink often puts one in: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” so they assume that a black male who marries a white woman, this doing the one thing most important to PC. That that black male is their friend.
But PC and the black male have absolutely different reasons for their actions. The PC priesthood wants to show it is EASY for a black man to get a white woman, that it is no different from any other match.
This is a great deal like telling blacks in new white Mercedes that it is EASY to get a Mercedes. From the propaganda natural to the PC priesthood, Tiger’s ability to buy himself a brand-new Scandinavian beauty queen wife was only True Love. They were ASTONISHED, astonished to the point of letting the Thought Police miss some open heresy, when his first act was put the lie to that.
How could Tiger have betrayed PC by making, as his first move, an offer of MILLIONS of Dollars to his trophy wife? Because Tiger does not think like they do. It never OCCURRED to him to push the idea that ANY black man could buy something like that.
Tiger can do this because he is a huge success. He can have a white wife, he can buy a Mercedes.
If his Mercedes gets destroyed, Tiger will get it fixed because he has the money. If the Trophy Wife he bought might leave him, he puts up money. Black males simply do not think in terms of PC orthodoxy.
Like the Bourbons, the PC priesthood forgets nothing and learns nothing. Which is the reason that today most people don’t know who “the Bourbons.” were.
In relation to Anglo-Saxon Law I mentioned recently how different a person is who was raised in a community. In a community a person who testified to anything was taking a life-time risk, and the higher his rank in society the greater the risk he was taking. Everything depended on your WORD in those times.
I was just watching a program on the History Channel that said that more and more scientists are agreeing that global warning is man’s fault and the Intellectuals need to take over the world to save us. In a traditional community, “more and more scientists are agreeing” would be instant death to any documentary.
When our established religion no longer allows any questioning of a very shaky thesis, they ALWAYS jump to the “growing consensus among scientists’” bit which is the same as the Modern Thought bit, which is the same as the cocktail party “They found out that…”
In a community someone made a general declaration that a whole field of neutral experts had taken a particular point of view, it was a major undertaking. A trusted figure in the community who misused his trust once would be remembered for it. The second time he did it he would be totally discredited. If SANE people trusted to you to blatantly misspeak in such a way ONCE, your credibility would be gone forever. The second time you would not be believed. You would be laughed at the third time you tried it.
All my life “Modern Thought,” “a growing consensus of scientists,” and “They found out that …” has almost always been WRONG. Respectable conservatives protect commentators from any discussion of past errors and treat the latest nonsense with greater respect than they the last load of manure they delivered.
Contrast this Advanced and Scientific approach to the old Saxon Law. A psychiatrist who is known to have seen all crime as society’s fault and has helped free murderers before states, for the hundredth time, that this particular psychopath is really good and was molested as a child and if you pay enough money to psychiatrists he can be cured.
His earlier testimony — if you have a good attorney — is only used to demonstrate that “He has expertise and experience in this kind of case.”
Actually the defendant has such experience, too, but to my knowledge no attorney has called the defendant as an expert witness
But the only reason you would NOT call the defendant as an expert witness in his own case is that juries have a modicum of sense left. They still pay SOME attention to the old Anglo-Saxon “Who sez?”
But not much.
To answer Simmons’ question at the end, it happens to be what the blog at its best is all about.
Simmons replies to my last article on him and Horus:
I thought I was clear of what audience I foisted my Mantra heresy upon. Horus calls them people of the consensus trance, Caste Football calls them the “drunk white fans”, and Bob calls them Mommy Prof’s puppets, but one thing they have in common is that they do not think, they are conditioned and trained to hold and speak certain yiews. Debating them is like debating your TV and I mean that literally because the TV tells them what to say and how to act and what to buy and basically how to live their lives.
Your point is well taken it is about Genocide, but first I do the yeoman’s work of the thin edge of the wedge that breaks down the crazy Aunt Sally level of Political Correctness which is that thin shell which protects the yolk, basically by projecting an image of out of control hysteria. (or the Blazing Saddles version, “stop or I shoot the nigger”)
Break down the fear of the crazy Aunt Sallies then the Mommy Profs are ours, they are like bald baby mice, and the cat has found their nest. First, “Anti-white” then “Genocide”, first we create people who can stand up to the CASs then we feed them the line of genocide then the profs feel the fangs.
Abstract polemical thought is all good and well, but remember the Simmons theorem, “Its all personal.” Abstract hypothesis is just that, abstract.
If needed I will cite personal examples of how this works from my own experiences and from others on our board, but for now modesty bids me to quit.
I have pointed out that Marxism IS NOT “a belief in THE class struggle” any more than Christians are the only people who believe in evangelism.
Marxism believes that the value of any item is “the amount of objective labor time in it.” Marx said that a diamond, for example, is worth more than water when you are thirsting in the desert because of the objective labor time spent to get a diamond. This is a basic of Marxism, and this is an example of the way you can embarrass the crap out of those irritating people who think they are sophisticated just by telling them how silly what t hey think is so sophisticated really IS.
Respectable conservatives get paid specifically for not knowing or mentioning these basics.
This objective labor caused a serious problem for Soviet planners. You see, if it doesn’t matter whether a good is in one place or another it means transportation has no objective value whatsoever.
And in RUSSIA transportation is a big deal.
What about skill? Marxism scientifically determines the value of each unit of labor by adding the fraction of time. Holy Objective Labor Time, to a particular piece of work. So if you train for three years and work for thirty years, you add ten percent to each piece of work you did during the thirty years.
Soviet history described Marx as “the scientist who discovered surplus value.” Today, a major scientific organization in Britain, I forget which, lists Marx as a scientist.
This “surplus value” is the difference between what a laborer needs to live on, subsistence, and the cost of the good. Since only the worker produces anything, and that only when he is actually producing something, all other costs, including transportation, constitute “exploitation” according to this “labor theory of value.”
If you actually know any economics, the word “subsistence means nothing. Do you mean “subsistence as the amount of calories one can survive on? Do you mean the cost of a diet that will allow one to work his best?
To Marx, the latter question had no meaning, because there is no “best” in the Labor Theory of Value. It is the amount of Objective Labor TIME that makes something valuable.
Value is important in the socialist phase of Marxist history. You can always tell a person is a Marxist when he refers to Communist states as “socialist.” A documentary on Jim Jones of Kool-Aid Fame said he studied “progressive socialists” like Marx and Lenin, both of whom would be surprised to find they were no Communists.
To Marx, communism is the inevitable but EVENTUAL result of his evolution of society. For a Marxist to describe anything on this earth as “communist” would be exactly like a Christian describing someplace as LITERALLY, Heaven.
The Marxist world contains socialist states, no Communist ones.
The socialist state must be planned, and Marxist Labor Theory of Value is the Scientific Basis on which this planning is to take place. OK now to the point of real Marxist theory no respectable conservative will not mention most of all:
Marxism says the communist society will arrive because it is based on the Rousseau Assumption that animals and savages are peaceful, even the ones who have to kill for food. Animals have no class system. Animals have no borders or wars.
One cannot be a respectable conservative unless he follows a form of Wordism that makes these exact same assumptions so completely that no one on either side even mentions them.
Like every other “sophisticated” group, Marxists can best be embarrassed by an uncompromising reminder of what they are REALLY advocating.
When you remind them of it, complete with quotes, all they can do is sputter what Mommy Professor tldaught them to:
Simmons says he may have committed BUGS heresy by just saying something is anti-white garbage and then stomping out. I don’t know anything about heresy, my specialty is human proclivities. Nothing is more human than intellectual laziness.
It was a major step forward when commentators stopped telling each other what the latest news gambit was and started talking about HOW TO MAKE OUR POINT. Just SAYING “anti-white” is step forward, but like all points it can get out of hand. Pretty soon you can end up are just saying something cute and walking out.
Which is how respectable conservatives make their living. And nobody gives Simmons more of a shiver than an rcon.
In the discussion Simmons talks about the only person there who knows WHY statements are anti-white is Simmons. Making the point of the Mantra is very, very hard, and any normal human being would prefer to say something and walk away.
I don’t think Horus is just giving an excuse for the least effort. But I know PEOPLE, and what he says can END UP being used that way.
We are in a unique position because we have to THINK about what we say. That is why so many BUGS comments are off track. No Jehovah’s Witness has to THINK about how to present his statement, neither does any disciple of Political Correctness. What we must do has already been done for them. So our task is VERY hard to understand. But ours is the most important part of ANY movement.
I have been in thousands or tens of thousands of face-to-face confrontations. I learned to ask myself: “What did I DO?” Bill Rusher wrote a book called “How to Win an Argument.” As you well know, that is precisely what I do NOT have in mind. A victory for me is usually when I leave the discussion and the subject of that particular debate is forgotten by everybody but my point is not.
If Simmons just leaves the concept that one can be anti-white, he has done SOMETHING. But if he stops there in most cases, it is useless. Our point today is that we have only two options: pro-white and anti-white. Anti-white is called anti-racist, but it leads to the disappearance of one race and only one race. It is genocide.
You don’t have to tell ME how hard this point is to get across. But it is seldom that the first shot sinks a ship. Very often a shot across the bow won the ARGUMENT.
But that, gentlemen, is not war.
Like Jews, the World War II Generation talked almost exclusively about how they “SUFFERED.” I used to hear endless tales about how they were REAL MEN because they peeled potatoes and, God knows how often I heard this exciting fact, “The Sarge made me make my bed so tight he could bounce a quarter off of it.”
I was told about the shots they had to take. The few who had actually heard an enemy shot fired told me only they knew what life was like.
They told me that REAL MEN like them could do anything they wanted to do.
It took me a long to realize an amazing correlation. The ones who talked the most about World War II were the ones who had done the least since. I found out after he died that Professor Carlton Coon parachuted behind enemy lines as a spy.
Yes, there is a point to all this bitching. You may not notice the distortions in our thinking that came from this “suffering” crap, but I had my nose shoved into it like a puppy in house training, so before I pass away, I need to tell you what it taught me.
And the one big lesson it took me decades to realize was that output does NOT equal input. Above all, it is NOT true that “Talk is cheap.” The words “Talk is cheap” were precious to those who had accomplished nothing since 1945.
Most of the observations I make are terribly obvious once you think of them. For example, a guy who talks endlessly fifty years later about what he did as a teenager before 1945 is almost always someone who did not make it in the communications-based world he came back to after 1945.
They endlessly quote the fact that Benjamin Franklin would be taking his wheelbarrow to his printing house at dawn every morning. Franklin stated flatly in his autobiography that that was a publicity stunt. “It is important,” he said, “that one be SEEN working hard.”
His point was exactly the opposite of what the Greatest Generation made of it. But they hadn’t read the book because it was “just talk.”
I was raised on the idea that production equaled Hard Work. And now that I have the time to think things out, I realize that this led me to the disastrous idea that what I SAID was incidental, because it wasn’t HARD.
It is painful to realize what I could have done had I realized some basics. The world is not changed by what YOU feel. Effort does not equal results. Lord this seems so obvious now that I say it I wonder whether I should say it.
It is true that if you can’t do anything else, you can get paid for doing what others don’t want to do. There are jobs programming and lifting things and getting dirty, though they are becoming fewer all the time. Those are the jobs that guys who feel the height of their life experience was making tight beds could get.
I want to try to make this sound more profound, and not just reveal how obviously naïve I was most of my life.
But sometimes the best thing an old man who is trying to wow you with his wisdom can do is tell you plainly about the times that he was just plain stupid.
The man who did my last interview is a former California professor of Political Science who was born and raised in Croatia, then Yugoslavia. It was a Communist state. But he thought Political Correctness was an American product. I pointed out to him that it is a Marxist term.
My interviewer had the honesty to admit he had not realized that. Nobody seems to realize it but me. He then translated the term he was raised with from the Reds from the Croatian and it was “political rectitude” which is a synonym for political correctness.
That sort of basic observation seems to be my particular gift.
Or curse. Gang, it is actually SCARY when you see so many things that are so obvious and no one else notices them. You get the feeling that you are surrounded by Pod People.
No one talks about real Marxism these days, so no one realizes the wildly obvious fact that regular correspondence between them throughout their history has included the term “political correctness.” This is another case where the REAL theory is so silly that the left does not discuss it and the respectable right obediently doesn’t.
Nowadays when someone says he is a Marxist, he ignores the REAL meaning of the word. He says that means he believes in “the class struggle.” Not only is that not true, it has nothing to do with Marxism. The class struggle to Marxism is exactly like evangelism to Christianity. A Christian is not “one who believes in evangelism.” Christianity claims to believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection, supernatural things.
Evangelism is part of the practice of Christianity, but it has nothing to do with what Christianity IS. Marxism is one of an endless historical progression of Wordist ideas that advocate a class struggle that popped u in every literate society for thousands of years, but that does not define Marxism.
Marxism is about the thousandth recorded system that believes in a class struggle. No society has ever been without some form of THAT as preached by radical. To say Marxism is belief ion “the class struggle” is like defining Pentecostals as “people with feet.”
Marxism is based on Rousseau’s idea that animals and savages have no sense of property, no borders, no pecking order whatsoever. Like every other theory of its time. Marxism says man’s genes demand that we return to the natural order of a classless, borderless society like that of the animals and savages. This is not mentioned today because it is so laughable.
This leaving the Rousseau Assumption alone is not confined to the Marxists or even to the political left. Everybody knows that all of the assumptions on which every theory today is based, the Rousseau Assumption, has been blasted to pieces by discoveries about animal behavior in the last half of the last century, But everybody ignores it and hides in their Book.
What everybody does NOT notice is that social sciences have not changed one iota because of this revolution in knowledge. O’Reilly is as fanatical as any Marxist in denouncing “the idea that one person is just naturally smarter than another.” Hannity, Baby Jesus, insists that if we knew The Book we too would be like the beasts of the field, though he has no idea what the beasts of the field are like.
Everybody still goes on the assumptions from before the finding of facts like chimpanzees hunting and eating monkeys and patrolling their borders with a ruthlessness that would solve the Mexican Border Problem instantly. The class system is so strong in all herd animals that it would startle a Victorian Brit.
But no social theory today, left or right, takes the slightest notice of this. Their Book was written before it came up, so they will nod when it is mentioned, but then go on to what they always said.