Archive for June, 2010
Down to the basic basics, gang:
Can you think of anything less suited to a market economy than a Corporate Culture? Lots and lots of people discovered that term, but nobody decided they had discovered something WRONG.
You see, the first thing they should have noticed was that they had found that corporate promotions were not a response to the one thing a corporation is supposed to respond to: the MARKET.
And corporations are run by conformist dunderheads.
I remember many a neophyte clown appointed by Reagan showing how Old School he was. I always wore short-sleeve shirts with my coat and tie. This guy had a professional conservative’s dream view of real business.
So he asked, “How would you answer an Old Fashioned Manager who asked you, ‘How far up your coat sleeve would I have to look to find your sleeve?’”
It’s a nut question, but remember this was a professional conservative asking it.
I replied, “I’d file a complaint of sexual harassment.”
He was totally stunned. But that is exactly what I would do it some nut was denying me a job based on pulling off my clothes.
If the boss insists I wear long sleeved shirts, I will wear them if I want his job. My doctor brother wears long sleeves when he wears a suit, because doctors do that. But no sane doctor is going to ask about looking up his coat sleeve.
Dressing down is used in California because it WORKS. We live in a world of heated offices, and people do not work as well if they have on wool pants and coats and vests and long-sleeved shirts.
It would be all right if this nonsense were confined to respectable conservatives, but I have seen it in private business and in the Intelligence Community. How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying was one of many, many books about corporate Culture.
But such works would not have been funny if they were not so near to the truth.
Not one thing the hero of How to Succeed concentrated on had the slightest concern with the market.
So we have an economy that has selected its executives within the Corporate Culture and the corporations have collapsed like flies.
In Japan, the economy was supposed to take over the world, but about the time it reached the US level of production it stagnated, as all Oriental societies do when they have used up what they get from the whites.
Then the Japanese economy collapsed. It collapsed because it was built on a business clique. It was inevitable, because it was the ultimate networking. They had their “own” and made arrangements among Themselves. The arrangements within their Corporate Culture became the only thing.
Japanese business had grown by being fixated with the Market. They produced things and when “Made in Japan” became synonymous with shoddy they heard and changed it. Then the Corporate Culture grew up. They promoted people with how they fit, not into the market, but into their own conformism.
People who know when to wear long-sleeved shirts are not necessarily the same ones customers want to buy from, or people who know financial structuring or even common sense.
Corporate Culture is the natural product of a Politically Correct society. Certainly no one was promoted in the Soviet Union for appealing to consumers.
You learn to act right and talk right to get promoted.
Which is fine until the whole damned system comes down around your ears.
You get frustrated with people seeing how well the Mantra works and then giving you the cow look, going Moo! And going back to chomping the old grass the same way. Welcome to dealing with Pod People.
I thought I might give you a couple of examples from my history in dealing with this, so you will not get the impression that it’s YOU who is nuts.
When I was on Capitol Hill, I was in a discussion with some other senior staffers, and someone said, “Let Bob deal with the secretaries. They’ll do ANYTHING for him!”
This was news to me.
I finally figured it out.
You see, there is a big pecking order on Capitol Hill. Senior staffers treated “secretaries” like peons.
That was dumb in itself, but they treated OFFICE MANAGERS the same way. In fact, they didn’t know the difference.
Courtesy is a routine Southern disease, but there are times when not being courteous is just stupid.
The office manager sits in front of a typewriter like a “secretary.” But she runs the office.
What is the most valuable thing on Capitol Hill?
It is access to the congressman.
The Administrative Assistant is the head of a congressman’s staff. But he has nothing LIKE the personal contact with the Boss that the Office Manager has. She might see him, literally a dozen times a day.
I was very aware of that, and I had assumed others were, too.
It turned out that, when I needed a quick message gotten to the Boss, the Office Manager just tossed it in the next time, usually within the hour, the next time she saw him. Try getting an AA or a LA to remember yours among the fifty messages people, including other congressman, want delivered to the Boss.
I would explain this to my fellow senior staffers. They nodded. They even smiled at my genius.
But they never DID it.
I told you how my unfunded grassroots organization became national news. They always asked me for the secret. I told them I just listened to what these groups wanted said and wrote THAT in press releases. Press conferences had THEM, not me, up front.
“I ask them what they want and do it.”
No else ever did, before or since.
Our family brick plant was a hobby of my father, who spent his time as the best-known brick-making consultant in the world. So when my brother took it over after his death it was out-of date and tiny. He made it a multimillion dollar business and sold it.
What is your secret, they would ask him.
My brother heard about profit sharing, so he put himself and everybody else at the plant on minimum wage plus a percentage. He explained to the workers what that meant.
South Carolina was even less well known for high wages than it is now. But the plant for several years was the highest wage brick plant in AMERICA. It grew fast.
The only real problem with someone sitting down on the job was to prevent his fellow workers from lynching him.
No one has used that method since.
These are three examples of at least dozens.
I don’t understand why people don’t use what WORKS. I do know that if a GROUP does it, they will roll over the big guys.
As they ask you your Secret, and you tell them about the Mantra AGAIN. They will nod and go back to whatever crap they’ve been using.
But we are not dealing with just me or my brother, a single staffer or a single brick plant. BUGS can use the Secret and the sky’s the limit.
Sic ‘em, gang!
I have talked a lot about fusion energy. The environmentalists are trying to prevent it. They want everything planned by Mommy Professor. They do NOT want any technological solutions to any shortage.
The opponents are described as environmentalist anti-nuclear. But they are in fact the group I discussed at the end of my 1976 book. They are the education-welfare establishment which wants the Kyoto world Mommy Professor dreams of, where there is a shortage of everything and bureaucrats make the choices.
Fusion is nuclear, but that is all it has in common with atomic power plants. Fission puts out radioactivity, fusion does not. We have no idea what any of the problems will be with fusion generation because there is none yet.
None of this has anything to do with the opposition to it. Every single socialist I know of became an environmentalist the day the USSR closed down. The USSR was, after all, just what I said, “A place where there was a shortage of everything and bureaucrats made the choices.”
It is interesting that Chernobyl occurred in Mommy Professor’s Heaven.
Nobody else would put it that way. And that is the problem.
Just as the real aims of anti-whites are never discussed, the real motives of Mommy Professor are ignored.
It is interesting to me that the big push on fusion energy is happening in Europe. Europe is the place where they usually are the first to pee on themselves when Mommy Professor says something is politically incorrect. Yet France uses nuclear power to an extent that, if copied in the US, would about get rid of our oil shortage.
But this is a crisis coming to a head that only we understand. So far this fusion project has hit $20 billion.
We now have a twenty billion dollar investment facing the environmental industry which represents trillions they hope to control from the shortage industry.
And shortage IS an industry. It is called environmentalism, but it represents millions of people who want to control things and distribute things the way they once wanted to do under socialism. The power companies backed down on nuclear power because theirs was a tiny power compared to the shortage industry.
The shortage industry is no more interested in the environment than it was in working people when it called itself socialism. Millions of people are already employed in it and it wants hundreds of millions.
All of the big companies the shortage industry gets its money from and claims to oppose are, combined, small compared to the education-welfare, environmentalist establishment. But we still debate with them as if they were Idealists against Big Money.
My first book discussed this, but the world view was weeded out as conservatives learned to use only the arguments that didn’t make their liberal heroes look like what they were. Just like today our side weeds out the Mantra.
I really like it when commenters see the direct connection between BUGS and old sayings that make sense. One of you saw the connection between one of my articles and the old and true saying: A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Alan B pointed out on June 17 that he had often said that a turnip could get a major party nomination by following the OPC guidelines. In fact, the day before his comment, SC Democrats had just done that.
What happens here is that the black leaders tell blacks how to vote. In the black churches, the preachers told their flocks to vote for the US Senate nominee in the Democratic primary whose name appeared first on the ballot.
But there was some last-minute shuffling and the name on the top by election day was changed to the man you have all heard about who is now the Party nominee.
If this is the case, no one will talk about it. Back in 1962, Hollings was running for the SC seat in the Senate made vacant by the death of Olin Johnston. Back then the black vote was measured by two all-black wards, Ward 9 in Columbia and Ward 9 in Charleston.
He was running against former Governor Russell, who had appointed himself to the vacant seat. But at that time having the black vote was a burden. So Hollings called the black leaders and got Russell’s name put on the slips handed out to blacks in the two Ward 9s for the Democratic primary, and his name on the rest of them.
So Russell was reported as getting the black vote and Hollings got almost every single black vote outside the Ward 9s. This was never mentioned anywhere in the press, though Russell bitched about it everywhere.
The simple fact is that there is no such things as a black vote. These two cases illustrate it, so such things are never mentioned in the media.
I remember that years ago Ed Rollins mentioned that blacks were bribed to vote in New Jersey. He immediately apologized, because it was not a “bribe.” That was Whitey Talk. What those payments were was a new black tradition called “walkin’ round money.”
Rollins, a good respectable, crawled, peed on himself, apologized, the whole bit.
The media shouldn’t fear to talk about the black churches getting it wrong. The average person would never make the connection any more than they could see that blacks are routinely bribed.
On Third Rock From the Sun, the alien, being from outer space, said he thought the black secretary was a Democratic. She had him crawling by saying, “Just because my skin is black, you think I’m a Democrat?”
But no one wonders why the Democratic Party pays hundred of millions of dollars to “get out the minority vote.” A dark skin means a Democratic vote. That is why “walkin’ round money” is not to be criticized because it is a “black tradition,” not a bribe.
Now the one black congressman from SC is screaming foul because a fellow black has gotten the Democratic Senate nomination. He likes this competitive black as much as Andrew Young appreciated Obama.
The church’s bad information may be the reason for this totally astonishing nomination. Another may be the one I came up with LONG before Obama became a major phenomenon. I warned that all the hype about Clinton being “America’s first black president” was something the cheering Democrats should take into account.
The problem is that when you a own political gold mine, you had damned better check and be sure it doesn’t have a cave in point. I TOLD you years ago that this gold mine of minority votes, of white Democrats glorying in the fact that all they had to do was get brown skins to the polling place meant victory, would not last all that long.
You see, when blacks vote for a white man who has a black heart, it will not be long before they vote for a man with a black heart AND a black FACE. I said that when Obama was a new Senator. I did not have him in mind.
This is the sort of advice I got paid for, despite the fact that I was not a comfortable person to have around. That was one of the reasons I was not a comfortable person to have around.
The white guy who was appointed to get the Democratic nomination could have used my advice. It would have been worth a lot to him, though none of the “professionals” would have even thought of it.
It could have been the black church’s mistake, or it could have been the simple fact that a lot of blacks just prefer to vote for a black. Neither can be mentioned in the media, and neither can be mentioned by respectable conservative or even at AmRen.
You will only see them on BUGS.
It has taken twelve years for WOL to evolve into BUGS and for BUGSTERS to become a distinct, self-aware group.
You can tell it is finally going the way I wanted it to when you get responses like that of Beserker88:
When I talk to people outside of the WN movement the MANTRA is golden. They can open their door or go to a mall and SEE it. They can Google white dating and get page after page devoted to interracial dating, Google any other race dating and you will find countless pages for blacks to meet blacks and Jews to meet Jews etc. Everyone sees it but nobody says it. When it is said its as eye opening as a punch in the face. I’ve spoke of the MANTRA to fellow WN, it opens their eyes too, only its a blank stare. Those who should get it usually don’t.
You can tell people are really becoming part of BUGS when they begin to express FRUSTRATION.
When you stop philosophizing on the world and start to USE the Mantra, you run face to face into what I have been dealing with for decades:
1) You find out how well my arguments WORK and then
2) You find it impossible to get anybody else to USE them.
This is a LOT different from hearing all this from Bob. People want to enjoy talking about news and Jews, and when you get to BUGS, you want to have a fun intellectual talk about the Fate of the World.
But I can tell when someone has reached the practical, Mantra-USING stage. I see it in you because I saw it in myself.
You get angry and frustrated. I recognize the symptoms because I’ve BEEN there.
Hell, I’m STILL there.
I am delighted that General Comments 4 has become more and more a how-to on the Mantra. Again and again, General Commenters are tracking the Mantra on the Internet.
I can tell that what they say which does not mention the Mantra comes from their USE of it. A person who saw the importance of the Neanderthal discoveries had obviously been talking RACE when he saw it. When one uses the mantra, one becomes aware of the world view we are actually fighting.
As I said before, things like Beserker88′s frustration and General Comments 4 give me a joy I never expected to have. It is real lift, after all the years, to be no longer completely alone in the REAL battle.
Keep it up, and keep it REAL.
The first thing any human being thinks of when someone brags about having mulatto kids is how UGLY they are. When Tiger married that Swedish model he was destroying what he appreciated. Her kids will look like any other mulattoes.
It is immoral to destroy what you appreciate. The Wordist say if Tiger wants blonds you should learn to appreciate whatever results.
Where does that kind of Morality end? It doesn’t. You have to build more and more on other lies to cover that one.
A major part of our economy goes to making things beautiful. I once laughed my tail off when a suburban woman sitting under a her dryer told me, in regards to race, “Looks don’t matter.” Neither she nor anyone else understood what I was laughing at.
A Latin on SF Opposing views was saying to another Latin that she was considered white in her country but it didn’t matter. I pointed out to her that Latins are notoriously ugly for exactly that reason. They choose TV announcers who look, as one columnist said, “as if David Duke had picked them.”
To me, doing something that others have to pay for, like ugly children, is immoral. I don’t know of a single Moral Leader who takes their feelings into the least account.
So I don’t know of a single Moral Leader.
I am an opponent of interracial breeding for the same reason I oppose circumcision. No priest is going to consider the agony of a child when it comes to circumcision. He does not oppose abortion because of the child.
The product of miscegenation is generally ugly children and a dead society.
No pro-lifer could care less about the life that a child will have to lead than a leftist does. When a terminal patient is screaming in agony from terminal spinal cancer, they are lighting candles to the Glory of keeping that person breathing and screaming.
I see this and I call it evil.
Our whole Evil Genius crap blinds us to the fact that Mommy Professor could not have invented the perversions he uses. He is using distortions we have abandoned when we actually saw them, like the self-torture of the Trappists and Paul’s ambition to make all Christians sterile.
But there is a giant difference between seeing our people outgrew stuff and saying they never believed it. Wordism says that one never outgrows anything. No one takes a second look and a third look. The Wordist is at home in colored lands where the Word never changes, is never examined.
Mommy Professor’s World. Not considering what children have to pay for Tiger’s preferences is evil. The Church has made it Doctrine that if one is in an emotion the right psychiatrist or romance novelist says is Love, he can do anything to the next generation he feels like.
No. Not just he “can.” It is God Will for him to do so.
The Church had much the same attitude on child molestation. The psychiatrists told them this was an emotional problem and a priest should take counseling and be shifted around to prey on different kids until he was cured. I have absolute contempt for those who tell me this was not the case. The bishops SAID that’s what happened.
The fact that leftists don’t like the Church is no excuse for the Church being evil and stupid. The history of the Church is OUR history, and refusing to see evil is an evil in itself. Few leftists like dog crap on their shoes, but that doesn’t make it smell any better.
“All I see when it is a mixed couple is two Children of God together.” What I see is a couple who don’t give a damn what the kids have to face in the mirror every morning.
That’s why Latin Americans are regarded as ugly and unmixed Swedes are regarded, by everybody, as beautiful. In the Swedish Embassy they have a huge photo of a beautiful A Scandinavian girl and a law that says it is illegal.
Every thing I have just said is demanding the straight truth. No Wordism can make me do my best to see ugly as beautiful or two plus two as other than four.
I am told that it is not evil because it was general thinking at the time. But how much longer can anyone who knows ANY history use that excuse?
I think that if there is a Judgment Day, Temporal Provincialism in the age of the Internet will be less excusable than it was.
You have to be my age, and have a memory, to realize how totally the gun control argument has changed.
I remember when any discussion of crime on the networks went, without a pause, into how hard it was to get effective gun control laws. That was the ONLY crime control measure liberals approved of so no one expected any other to be mentioned.
The whole change has been the one we have been trying to effect. The Corporate Culture of the NRA was the corporate culture of respectable conservatism. All the NRA talked about was the Right to Hunt.
I am NOT kidding you. That was IT.
FINALLY, some “radical” pro-gun organizations started talking about self-defense. Only when the competition got fierce did any conservatives, least of all the NRA, start to MENTION self-defense.
You see, if they mentioned self-defense, liberals would make fun of them. As soon as they started liberals began saying that the NRA wanted to hand out submachine guns to grammar school kids. This made them LOOK bad to the only people who mattered to them.
Which takes us right to Simmons blasting at AmRen. When the NRA would not mention anything but hunting, they had no effect at all. While AmRen takes up all the publicity space and never mentions assimilation and immigration are only for white countries, they take up space and LOSE.
After a decade or so of being forced to talk about self-defense instead of hunting rights, the first response of a majority of Americans to mass shootings has been to give the heave to anyone who demands more gun laws and to point out that one person with a gun could have stopped the maniac.
But as long as AmRen and the BNP take up all the space for argument and avoid the effective ones, this breakthrough will not take place. At least half of he 22,000 gun laws in the US can be laid directly on the old NRA’s doorstep.
Simmons is right on target. The only way to have a decent society is NOT to have a safe, kept opposition group.
AmRen, respectable conservatives, mealy-mouthed “National” parties. They are more costly than outright enemies.
We have very, very little chance to respond. The last thing we need is for that space to be taken up by wimps.
Multiculturalism MEANS Multiracialism
Today, I stumbled across an article about how the American far Right hates soccer. The content of the article is unimportant, but the author concludes that soccer is becoming more popular in the United States because the United States is becoming more multicultural. He then goes on to list a number of NON-WHITE countries from which a new generation of soccer fans immigrated.
That’s when it hit me. It’s something we’ve known all along; after all, it’s all over OUR media (as distinct from the MSM), I just haven’t seen it put directly. Multiculturalism does not MEAN multiculturalism; it MEANS multiracialism.
People who advocate multiculturalism always speak in the context of people moving from non-White countries to White countries. Having a Danish neighbor doesn’t make your neighborhood multicultural for their purposes.
They SAY they are for multiculturalism, but they MEAN multiracialism. If we took them at their word, Theodore Roosevelt (having Dutch and Anglo-Saxon heritage) should be just as “multicultural” as Barrack Hussein Obama. But he’s not; at least not by their yardstick.
When I was in school, special “multicultural” curricula involved teaching the habits and history of non-White peoples, despite the fact that the folkways of Sweden are sufficiently different from Anglo-American folkways to qualify for multicultural study. They SAY they are for multiculturalism, they MEAN they are for multiracialism.
They SAY multicultural, but what they DO is multiracial.
I have said that I like historical fiction much more than establishment history because it is MUCH more accurate. The writer has several hundred thousands history buffs checking what he says. History students couldn’t care less and they couldn’t KNOW less.
I am going to write one such hisfic writer about an incident in one of his books. The year is 1775. A black walks into an exclusive London club. He says, “Is this because of my COLOR?! Like modern Brits, everybody there goes into fetal position and starts weeing on themselves.
All one Brit in 1775 would have done was say “Well, DUHH!!” or its equivalent.
Real Brits were known for their dry sense of humor, that is, for telling the obvious truth. Other countries didn’t do that an more than modern Englishmen do and for the same reason.
I hope this clown will get more than one criticism of this crap.
This was an exercise in Temporal Provincialism. Sheri described something as Temporal Provincialism but I think she was describing historical DISTORTION, a very different thing. If we cheapen the term Temporal Provincialism as a standard insult it will lose its bite.
Temporal Provincialism is certainly a great EXCUSE for historical distortion and it is A, one, cause of such distortion, but it is one of our special terms in BUGS, so it should be understood very clearly here.
No room full of Englishmen in ANY age before ours would have peed on themselves fro the room going quiet when the first black in its history walked into an exclusive club. In fact historical fiction by definition consists of historical distortion.
We certainly don’t mind if a Bill Jones who never existed is described as walking in London. In 1850 We DO mind if said fictional character is walking across Olde London Bridge in 1850 because by then Olde London Bridge no longer existed.
We don’t mind a fictional black man walking into that club is what is called a work of historical fiction. We DO mind if the room full of eighteenth century Brits goes into the fetal position modern Brits do. A writer of historical fiction is expected to get his fiction and his fasts clearly separate, unlike the BBC or Oxford.
That’s one reason I like it. Margaret Frazer writes about people in the fifteen century following the old wisdom of washing out wounds with wine so they didn’t infect. They only stopped that when Mommy Professor medicos showed that it was not part of the True Roman Theory of Humors.
Vikings didn’t get scurvy. It was not until medicos got the filter-down from Intellectuals that that crap happened. But you won’t see any of the real medicine practices in the Middle Ages mentioned in any Oxford History book. You only see this kind of thing mentioned accidentally by people who actually know something about the time.
Historical provincialism is the Brit who was terrified of Political Correctness. Historical Provincialism is the writer who says nobody ever cured anything until the Renaissance showed them how, as a recent BBC did. Historical provincialism is a BBC showing I Claudius and showing his Yard covered with gray, featureless statues of the kind people dug up after they had been in ground for two thousand years. The Renaissance gave us those.
A person really raised in classical times would laugh his ass off at the US Capitol claiming to be “classical” building. The “Rome” films show would look to him like Spanish Harlem on a bad day.
These publicly financed jerks claim to TEACH us! This is not political distortion. This is silliness. This is IGNORANCE.
Historical distortion can be practiced by knowledgeable people. Temporal Provincialism is NOT.
When in God’s name will we ever get over this crap of portraying our opponents as Evil Geniuses?
We will only get rid of them by laughing at them.
I find reading recent comments exhilarating.
A verb occurred to me that would only be understandable by a person who has been a regular member, even if is not commenting but auditing the course carefully.
That verb is “porching.”
I sit up and take notice when people begin to tie things together. I sit up and notice when people are talking about what they DID, like Truck Roy and White Rabbit, how they HANDLE actual experiences with our way of defining our message, developing out own way of thinking, and at the same time introducing different kinds of people to THINKING.
There are words like intellectualizing and preaching and so forth, but porching, among us, does a lot to explain itself. The family on the porch is listening to old wisdom and children who are not afraid to give their opinions.
Sure, most of what young people have to say will seem obvious to them later on. But even in a normal family each person is not afraid to go ahead and say it. They say it in terms which have been worked out inside the family, inside the SOCIETY.
Porch talk, among other things, is not from Mommy Professor, but from LIVING.
Parkinson, of Parkinson’s Law fame years ago, pointed out that Karl Marx’s basic problem was that he had no one near him to say “Balderdash!” That is, of course, Mommy Professor’s problem too, and that Marx is underneath all Political Correctness, left AND right, is not coincidental.
But none of the words like over intellectualizing and so forth really lead to what we might call porching. If I could give you a clear explanation of what porching is, we would just have another Wordism.
No, I want you think some about that verb. It is the essence of a real society. It is the essence of what the family group can give that the media take away. It is THINKING. It is trying things out. It is saying “Balderdash!”
I have said repeated that what I feel I have to offer is a WAY OF THINKING. That cannot be defined, but you can sure as hell tell what it’s NOT. But really just the word itself is what I have to offer here, since we all have a clear idea what “porching” is, and only we do.
I will give one example of what “porching” is NOT. It is NOT Family Values. That is simply a way to indoctrinate your children against the ruling indoctrination. A healthy family raised on porch talk can have members who end up on the right and the left, and most of them will freely admit they don’t give a damn about a lot of stuff.
I think mantra think on the verb porching is worth one of our thousands of articles here.
After all, the whole point of Mantra thinking is that I give you things to chew on, not that I teach you some rigid doctrine. I am not Mommy Professor. I am not Family Values. As long as you clearly understand what the traps of Wordism are, you will have to proceed to build your own world view.
Here as on the porch, The Old Man’s job is to give some good ideas on how to follow your own path. I can give you invaluable practice is seeing what is just plain silly. Then you can start off clean and fresh and go out like we did from the porch, happily thinking the other is way off tilt on a lot of things.
But we are learning here what is just plain silly. Since porching went out of fashion, no one else seems to have a way of doing that.
CS Lewis’ example of the fine wine described at the end of Screwtape Proposes a Toast has a special logic to it. It is a mixture of the souls of those who were fanatical Calvinists with those who think only in terms of pilgrimages, sterility and hunger as real religion. That raw hatred was delicious to the palate of Hell.
And it is unending. Each group will be suffering eternally, but each group will also be blaming the other for their torment forever. Any lost soul who tried to be logical — they’re BOTH THERE — would be subject to the same solution used in both Hell and Canada. They would be punished.
I have noted people leaving BUGS because they found a Word. Our original editor went back to Iraq and became an Intelligence bureaucrat and his views changed right into Good Soldier views. At the end he nearly went ballistic at my objection to his Beloved Comrade Sergeant marrying a white woman.
I note we have not heard from Pain since he went off to theology school and told me that only “amateurs” think that Zoroastrianism had any effect on Christianity. That’s the last communication I remember from him.
CS Lewis said in his forward to the Screwtape Letters that the existence or nonexistence of actual demons has nothing to do with his faith. He was exposing the Mind of Hell.
What influence Zoroaster had or his very existence is not essential to my beliefs. And that is not what drove Pain off. Hell, I don’t even know for sure if he has been driven off. I’ve often been wrong and I expect to be wrong a lot more. But that is my point here.
I have been deserted or stabbed in the back many, many, many times by people who believed they had become Enlightened. These are exactly the people one recognized as being neither back-stabbers nor cynics. They are as honest as Torquemada or Cotton Mather ever were.
They simply have no room in their world for simple honesty or simple mercy or simple truth.
Everything warped about this kind of people is a warping of their natural feelings they were born with. They ban sex because it is abused. Jesus himself condemned prostitution and adultery. If he had been a later Christian, he would not have seen that much a distinction between prostitution and adultery and sex itself.
But Jesus was not a Zoroastrian. I think that, in a world where the two great monotheistic faiths were Zoroastrianism and Judaism, you could not see yourself as a scholar if you did not include Z in your discussions. That is a lot like people who claim to be Intellectuals today. They have to have a lot of Marxism in their discussions.
If you feel strongly about things, the temptation to become a Wordist eventually is almost irresistible. It is not natural for a human being to resist suggestion, as commenters have pointed out here and the Great Kresky said.
It is hard to be dedicated to the idea of human freedom without eventually becoming some kind of absurd Libertarian. We Are talking about something people die for, so it very quickly becomes capitalized. A person can believe in freedom, but can he go out and die for anything less than Freedom?
Can Salvation be “free and without price?” Not if Wordist Theologians have anything to do with it.
In order to save our race it is almost irresistible not to take on the trappings of swastikas and heel-clicking. Soon the swastikas and the heel-clicking and calling Hitler Adolf instead of Adolph become the focus of one’s attention.
It is very, VERY hard to explain to people that, though I have dedicated my life to a cause, that cause does not lead into a dead end of implications. To me, the moment a person begins to capitalize he ceases to be human.
My idea of freedom is the right to do as you wish. My idea of truth is whatever turns out to be fact. My idea of mercy is making people feel better than worse. Only in the white man’s world can these “simplistic” ideas make any sense at all.
In the Orient it all ends up in the dead end of Deep Philosophy. In Africa it ends up as spooks. In the white world, we are always turning into an alleyway of Wordism and slamming up against a brick wall.
But science has made it in the white man’s world because, despite all these dead ends, we still eventually end up heading generally in the way of truth, of reality, of what works. The only white societies that have gone down for good are the ones which were once white and are now brown.
That is the fact. That is the truth.
A figure I have often seen quoted is that about one-third of German Jews just before Hitler took power married gentiles. This was to demonstrate that intermarriage is not a sign that all is well.
What is interesting about this statistic is that at the time it was supposed to show HITLER’S problem. Nowadays the same statistic is used to show the JEWS’ problem. There was a major ad in the New York Times saying “Jews, be JEWISH!”
There is a lot of money dedicated by Jews advertising dating services to introduce Jews to Jewesses.
It took Hitler over two years after he took absolute power to promulgate the Race and Nationalities Act, prohibiting Jewish-Gentile marriages. There is no way one could say that the legislation was stuck in some congressional committee.
When the media began in 1962 to refer to Barry Morris Goldwater, National Review called up the shades of Hitler. They pointed out that giving the full name of a Jew was the Nazi method of pointing out he was a Jew.
Hold it, gang! Didn’t Hitler, of all people, just refer to somebody as “Jew.”
Because there were laws against it. That was why they had to put in the full name if it sounded Jewish enough.
If I remember correctly Henry Ford stopped attacking Jews when a civil suit was brought against him by Jews. This did not stop the KKK from reaching a membership of about four million. The KKK was destroyed by corruption.
But if the facts get in the way, there is a way to deal with it. Just say that the reason Hitler never took power in Germany was because of those strong hate laws that kept even Adolf, to some extent, muzzled.
And if anyone points out that Hitler did indeed take power in 1933, put them in prison.
Brian asked me if managing engineers was different from managing anybody else.
Before the Civil Service reform Act of 1978, the entire civil service as we think of it went from grade GS-1 to grade GS-18. The top three grades were called the Super Grades.
If you were a GS-15, if you went to a military installation you were given the accommodations of a Colonel. GS-18 rated a Lieutenant General. Above that you were a political appointee. If you count through the grades, you will find a GS-13 was major and so forth.
The job description on each level was extensive. So when you got to the super grades they really got intense. Then in the early 70s, I believe, the guy who founded Avis wrote a short guide to management called “Up the Organization.”
One of the many excellent points stated shortly in that book was his opinion of Job Descriptions for high level executives. He said simply that if a guy who has reached THAT pay level NEEDS a job description, he doesn’t BELONG at that level. The whole point of high-level management is that you MAKE job descriptions by getting the job done.
By 1978 they got rid of the Super Grades and established the Senior Executive Service, the SES. GS-16 became SES 1 and 18 became SES 3. Before that, all grades came with a set of numbers in the middle showing your specialty, none of which I remember.
So you might be a GS-1856-16, the middle numbers showing your specialty. So you could be a GS-6324-5, meaning an economist at grade 5, or you could be a GS-6324-16, meaning you were A grade 16 economist., a one-star general equivalent.
One thing the Civil Service Reform Act did was to get rid of that middle four numbers above grade15. The restrictions on where you could be transferred to were removed.
You were no longer an economist by trade. You were a Manager. It was assumed that you could manage a section of the defense Department or a section of The Forest Service or be in charge of a supply section of the GSA.
When you get to that level, you simply cannot know all about what is being done, no matter how many years you have been an economist or a negotiator or a building supervisor. You go in, find out what needs to be done, and get it done.
Naturally none of the political appointees understood the point of that. So when my boss was murdered and I took a job as a Reagan appointee, the politicals there showed me their new organization chart. I groaned inwardly and looked as interested as I had to be to keep my job.
I groaned because I knew that that organization chart is the standard way career people have been defanging the new administration since George Washington’s nephew turned out not to be enough and he hired another worker.
Each new administration comes in with plans to “change things.” So the careerists say, “Well, to really change things we have to reorganize.” And the happy little idiots spend their first year reorganizing and triumphantly bring their shiny new organizational chart to the President.
Which means they haven’t done ANYTHING but change names and shift people around.
If you are taking over a business the question is not whether you have a new organization chart. The only question is always The Bottom Line.
What led to the creation of the SES was to end the endless worry over Job Descriptions and who was in what department. I was in the first Administration after the passage of that Act. What had the New Philosophy changed?
We all remember what was done when intelligence organizations committed criminal errors that led to September 11, 2001.
They created Department of Homeland Security. Not one single failing of the old system was addressed.
Yes, Brian, if you can manage engineers at a high level, you can manage office supplies at a high level. Your job is to find out what needs doing and how to do it.
Wordism cannot adjust to reality. It is not based on truth, it is based on Truth. To paraphrase Heidelberg, every time a scientist looks down into a microscope or up into a telescope truth changes. When the Medicogenetical Institute of Moscow did a huge study of identical twins and concluded, as all such studies do, that heredity was overwhelmingly important, the head of the Institute “confessed his ideological error and was shot.” (Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate).
An old geneticist, actually a Fellow of the Royal Society, whom I knew later watched his Russian colleagues disappear. Lysenko took over Soviet genetics.
Marxism requires that man be totally changeable by Social progress into a peaceful, universal, classless being. Fundamentalism is at war with evolution here and in the Islamic World.
The one time I simply gave up arguing with commenters here was when I quoted St. Paul as advising that all unmarried women remain sterile for life and a group of Christians here said that that was just Good Old Families Values. After all, they said, Paul conceded that some women could not abstain, so they should “marry or burn,” with the fires of Hell or the flames of lust, which he did not specify.
How, exactly do you explain that that is not Good Old Family Values? Don’t marry unless you are too horny not to is not what Mommy tells her daughters.
Jesus defined Christianity, specifically and totally, as being the Golden Rule and loving God. You do your best and you depend on the Name of Jesus. In the course of history, the Church developed a lot of ways it felt would help people do that. Saint Paul added on the Zoroastrian ideas that were all the rage in his time, just as the Dialectic was the intellectual Forever in Marx’s youth.
For the Wordist, these extras constitute Christianity. In his sequel to The Screwtape Letters, Screwtape Proposes a Toast, Screwtape bitched about the QUALITY of the Modern Souls being served at the Tempters’ Banquet.
But at the end, Screwtape admitted the wine was excellent. It consisted of a mixture of those who had spent their entire lives persecuting others who did not have the Biblical Faith and others who were all hunger and vigils and ceremony. Their constant unending hatred of each other gave the mix a wonderful tang to the tongue of a Demon of Hell, and it would go on forever.
For these Religious Wordists, the Golden Rule was nothing. Their entire faith consisted of building huge altars or tearing down huge altars.
My natural tendency is toward traditionalism. I think ”adjusting” is too often to substitute one fad for another without any consideration for the faithful. That’s why I left what was once my family’s church and is no longer a church at all.
What is never noted is that it is Marxism, not the Christian Faith, that has died because it cannot deal with new truths. It is the Progressives who cannot live with progress.
New facts will always be coming at us. But the way of dealing with reality, of asking the right questions and being fully aware there is a lot we do not know, no matter what Magic Year we may live in, does not change.
END OF ARTICLE
If you are building a house of cards, the last thing you want to see is someone fiddling around with the base. Wordists build the entire world on a long list of assumptions. Wordism is a tower of cards, building on what earlier Wordists took for granted.
For example, in Marx’s youth The Dialectic was The Latest Thing. To a Wordist, the Latest Thing is always Forever, “This is the Year 2010″ or “This is the Year 1836.” The whole history of the world has been leading up to what we are finding out now. So Marx built his structure on the dialectic, the Now and Forever of his age.
Before Marx died he had to explain what the hell this dialectic thing was. It was about as up-to-date among his young followers as “23-Skidoo” would have been at Haight-Ashbury in the 1960s.
This is why I seem to be the only one who can see why Bible Fundamentalists and Marxists would be on the same side when it comes to history. Marx’s Theory of Class Struggle goes back to the Pharaoh-based history he was raised with, just as the Fundamentalists’ does.
Wordism is not based on truth. It is at the end of a huge, jerry-built tower of Truth, imposed Truth, required Truth. When Robert Ardrey popularized the fact that animals have wars and borders and class distinctions, it was not the anti-evolution fundamentalists who cried “Foul!!!”
It was the leftist professors. It was their whole Wordism that was based on Rousseu’s assumptions that animals only killed for food and held no territory and had no class distinctions. They were building this giant stack of cards and suddenly somebody was meddling with the very bottom of the tower.
I grew up with the assumptions that leftists were radicals. But unlike Marx I grew out of my youthful obsession. Wordism is rigidly conservative. After all, it calls itself Progressivism. You cannot call yourself progressive without knowing EXACTLY where society is GOING.
This is so basic everybody misses it. Progressivism has always meant that we were getting rid of the violence and class distinctions and obsession with territory that only man’s institutions had imposed.
Once again, respectable conservatism comes to the rescue. No one can make his living as a respectable conservative if he asks “What is a racist?” The professional progressives are not comfortable with anyone who asks “What are you progressing TOWARD?”
BUGS is the only place these questions are ever asked.
Conservatism, in fact, only gets its NAME from sharing the same assumption progressivism does. It only exists as a block in the path of what progressives want. So neither side asks what that is for exactly the same reason. The bottom cards in the conservative’s Wordist tower are as completely based on Pharaoh history as the progressive one is.
It is hard for us today to believe the assumptions about nature on which modern progressivism and, therefore, modern conservatism was constructed. The idea that animals have no borders and no class structure is at least as dead as Galen’s Humor Theory of Disease. But no one gets paid for saying that.
My time in Washington was the high point of direct mail as a new phenomenon. It also shows why so many people who came into professional political action at that time are so news oriented.
When you get a direct mail appeal and toss it away the first thing you wonder is how they AFFORD these things? Few get opened and even fewer bring in money.
Those who send these out are looking for a House List, a group of people who are interested in their particular cause and are willing to give money to support it. So you are on a huge number of lists which show your interest in a subject.
I have at least half a dozen mass mailings from McGovern asking for money for SPLC. That is because I show an interest in race.
Once you get a House List, you may rent it out for the use of others. A pro-life group will let a libertarian group try out its list because they are also anti-liberal.
House Lists for direct mail vary in size from a few hundred to a million in the case of groups like the NRA.
Direct mail was a breakthrough for anti-liberals because liberals had little use for this and did not develop it. The left is funded by limousine liberals, government contracts, and taking over large private endowments. Their money comes in huge chunks.
Direct mail is the ultimate bourgeois tactic.
So how do you get a House List? You try House Lists on causes overlapping with your own. No matter how big the House list is, you rent three to five thousand random addresses on it to test it. Since you need at least a one percent return, the size of the sample that is statistically significant has no relation to the total list.
If a list tests out and you get the minimum return from it you need to almost cover the costs of mailing, you rent the whole list. If you get a good return, you mail it again. The point is that you are looking for people who respond to YOUR message, and that becomes YOUR House List.
You mail your House List several times a year, telling them what you are doing and asking for more money to do it with. Liberals do not make such regular reports to their field hands. Direct mail became famous when it was discovered to be the only major asset anti-liberals had.
In my time, a House List address was worth about fifty bucks, discounting the amount you would get by mailing for donations over and over. You would rent it for two or three cents a name, for people to test it for their own purposes and to mail it if their test paid off.
And this House List becomes an asset. Almost every activist you heard of back then had one or two organizations that were his basic source of income. That’s how we kept people in Washington while liberals got them jobs at Ford Foundations they had taken over.
None of this is a revelation. As Paul Weyrich pointed out in my New Rights Papers in 1982, if reporters ask about how the groups are financed, he just said “It’s in your press kits, guys.”
In order to do a new mailing, which is your bread and butter, you have to come up with something that is going on in the news. The reason it is in the news is because it excites people and it is being talked about.
Contrast this with the Mantra. Here is what will change the real future but you are well aware of how hard it is for anybody obsessed with the latest news to be concerned about the real war.
The reason people who are really deeply concerned don’t make it to the top in a movement is exactly the same reason that Futurology has nothing to do with the future. Those who get in the limelight are interested in what is interesting here and now for fundraisers, just as futurologists are interested in the limitless potential of wind power because that is what the Politically Correct grant-givers want to talk about.
A lot of this political stuff is really just common-sense mechanics.
END OF ARTICLE
When the last energy revolution occurred, fossil fuels began with coal taking over the roads. For century it was like the huge UNIVAC computers, limited to large scale in the form of railroads and factories. Then Henry Ford became the Bill Gates of fossil fuels.
Neither Ford nor Gates claimed to be original. Gates said he was waiting on personal computers to reach a certain level, and he named the new PC that developed and caused him to tell his partner, “Now it’s time to get going.“
Certainly Ford made even less claim to being original.
In fact, who exactly invented something is usually a historical detail. Some Chinese invented one thing after another, OR it got to China from White India, but each time the invention stopped when it got to China. The printing press was there but died, the gun was in Japan in the sixteenth century but died.
There is a lot of debate about whether China invented GUN powder. They did have rockets that made no difference to their history, so the question is did they have GUNS that made no difference to their history?
But the real, the HISTORICAL question about Oriental inventiveness is already answered: If you have to look so closely to see whether gunpowder was ever there, then clearly the Oriental use of it is entirely different from the Aryans’.
In a white society there is a lot of debate about who invented something. The reason for this is that the SOCIETY had reached a point where the ingredients are there and someone will put them together. There has never been a debate in Oriental society about who invented what.
Unlike Al Gore, Gates did not claim to invent the Internet just as Henry Ford never claimed to have invented the automobile. Ford‘s mass production methods were what made Eli Whitney rich after he found the cotton gin was simply too simple to keep patent rights on.
But both Gates and Ford did the thing that is utterly lacking in Oriental societies. They took a concept and made it a societal advance.
The space program is going through a similar process. When the USSR’s Sputnik went up in 1958 a number of giant programs were adopted to counter that achievement in the US. What most people didn’t know was that a rocket that could do the same thing was sitting in the US stockpile.
I wonder if the Soviets ever invented ANYTHING?
But there is nothing the media like like a national crisis, so a national crisis Sputnik became.
If you read science fiction from the 50s and 60s you consistently find the computers involved are giants, Univac’s big brothers, as dependent on size as on advancing technology. In China, the things which impress Americans in history, like iron foundries, were huge projects.
But it is on the Ford stage that Western technology is built. In 1958 Sputnik, which was putting an overweight basketball into orbit, was a massive project that showed that only The Collectives of the Peoples’ Democratic Republics, working the entire economy under Mommy Professor’s planning, could produce such a marvel.
Now putting things into orbit is regular business, and each year the businesses able to do it get smaller.
Right now a person can construct an A-Bomb off the Internet if he has the uranium. It is the power that is missing. So Brian and I are watching for the new power source.
With that new power source will come a time when private use of outer space is as common as it is in old sci-fi stories.
We are now seeing problems with regulating the Internet between countries like the ones they will encounter in regulating space.
But you will not see any of these future realities discussed anywhere but BUGS.
Epiphany asked what I, or we, thought about Marcion.
Please note that I answered the question what I THOUGHT of Marcion. I have thought about Marcion and here is what I thought.
Through an oversight I cannot understand, nobody has ever nominated me for Pope, much less elected me, so what I think about Marcion is all I can give you.
Marcion was a wealthy Roman who wanted Christianity to get rid of the Old Testament and most of the New which contained references to the Old. To me, he was an example of a man who can take a bad situation, apply his intellect to it, and make it worse.
There were some six million Hellenized Jews, or anyway a major portion of the total Roman population, at the time of Jesus. As Christianity advanced they disappeared from history. Most of us have only heard of the historian Josephus as one of them.
What Mommy Professor would prefer would be to say that Christianity rose and killed those six million Jews and anyone who disagrees will go to prison. But the more likely explanation is that the Hellenized Jews accepted Jesus, a Greek name, as Christ, also a Greek name.
This may be referred to in Jesus’ pointing out that a prophet is not without honor save in his own country and the question at his disappearance from the Tomb in one of the Gospels, “Has he gone to the Greeks?”
It is my deduction that Hellenized Greek Jews looked upon their Hebrew-speaking coreligionists in Palestine as a bunch of hicks. In fact, they assembled the Septuagint, seventy-something scholars, to write a New and CANONICAL Greek version of the Old Testament. The new Greek version was considered more canonically correct than the one in the old language, which does not show a deep reverences for their country cousins’ inheritance.
This is all based strictly on my own experience with Intellectuals and their pretensions. None of THIS is canonical.
The Hebrew-speaking Jews of the Temple were, if human nature hasn’t changed, regarded a bit like South Italian monks are by theologians today, simple-minded with admirable characteristics but no idea of what The Latest Dogma is all about.
Hellenic Jews considered themselves to be out in the wide world, not a bunch of rubes stuck in a thousand years of provincialism. In The Name of the Rose it is odd to see theologians in the Middle Ages quoting Aristotle as if it were Holy Writ, but this is seldom noticed. Both were part of the Hellenic Jewish tradition.
There was another “sophisticated” tradition, that of Zoroastrianism. In the Gospel of Judas, third century, Jesus is talking to Judas and laughing with the same leer a Mommy Professor would give at a bunch of Bible Belters while he said to Judas, as one Intellectual to another Sophisticate, that the God they were speaking of was The God of this World.
That is as much of a giveaway to the writer’s Zoroastrian background as Political Correctness would be to its Marxist origins if Mommy Professor’s products were capable of thinking.
This attitude on the part of the WRITER of the Gospel of Judas is as familiar to us today as the attitude of the Septuagint Jews toward their hick cousins down in Jerusalem.
There is certainly a contrast between Jesus’ Father and the genocidal Jehovah so often depicted in the Old Testament. But for over three centuries, that was the only official Bible the Hellenic Jews had. Apparently each group had its own unique Gospel or two, but none of them were accepted by all.
Marcion was rejected in his attempt to get rid of the connection between Jehovah and Jesus’ loving and merciful Father. Or at least that is the way one COULD think of it.
But Marcion, being a good Intellectual, did not just criticize the old. Like Mommy Professor it was not enough just to point out the failings in Adam Smith. He wanted his own Marxism to replace it.
Marcion came in about the time the Gospel of Judas did. He too wanted Zoroastrian Intellectuality to replace the Rube Religion. Whereas Paul had recommended that all unmarried young women remain sterile, but admitted that some couldn’t do it, Marcion demanded that ALL Christians be sterile.
My opinion is that Marcion was a Mommy Professor of his time.
Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, said he was synthesizing the two Great Religions of his day, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, and his name has been attached to all the Christian heresies that have demanded total sterility.
I am fascinated by some of what seem to be parallels in the first centuries of the rise of Christianity, which was almost as dominated by writers as ours is, and our own. I am also aware of just how wrong a person who makes such an observation can be when he tries to make everything fit into it.
Someone described the profession of law as “finding out where money is changing hands and going there.”
The more money that changes hands in litigation, the bigger the legal profession will be.
One statement I keep trying to correct is “Justice is for sale.” This means that the bovine mind repeating this cliché is incapable of realizing that acquittal is not justice. Acquittal is certainly for sale, and the mindless creeps repeating this crap assume that they, being black or innocent kids or whatever, deserve acquittal.
This tells you all about where they are coming from, but it also shows they have no interest whatsoever in justice.
There is not the slightest bit of evidence that the student-teacher ratio, the better the education. It is true that richer schools have genetically smarter kids in them and their ratio is lower. But closer studies have not shown any other relationship.
Home study does not show that fewer students make them better, but that teachers who care and who have been out in the world do a better job of teaching than what the education bureaucracy puts out in its factories. Having one Mommy Professor product per five is the same as having thirty per standardized Mommy Professor product.
Every bureaucracy wants people to believe that the more they spend on it the better product they will get. Everybody in any bureaucracy will tell you that.
Try to truly put yourself in my place. What if ten educated guys were standing around you and you said, “Well, naturally the car dealer wants the customer to buy a more expensive car.”
And everybody looked at you with total, cowlike incomprehension. How would you feel? How would you like to have explain that kind of point every day of the week?
Every day of the week I get a cowlike stare when I explain that JUSTICE is not for sale or when I have to explain why Mommy Professors think that Marxists are right that Idealists and Intellectuals should take over the world, be our ruling class, in the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Every now and then a commentator will extend this reasoning. But usually I get another Learned Discussion of Larger Implications. But this is not a loss. I get better thought and commentary than anyone else I know of, and certainly more original.
But a good teacher is never satisfied. When I wear out will there be NOBODY to slap together Point A and Point B in plain English?
It was a cold feeling to be the only one to laugh. When the professor read the Soviet Constitution declaring it a land of Workers, peasants, soldiers and intellectuals” I was the only one who got the joke: “We have a land where Tom does the work, Bill goes out and fights, John raises the crops, and we will sit and tell them all what to do.”
There have been many times when a wide-eyed prof has said something like, “And the dealers always want to sell the most expensive cars.” It took the form of “professors tend to be politically left,” but it’s the same thing. I don’t laugh anymore.
It’s too creepy
So when the courts decide that more and more lawyers mean more and more justice, I don‘t even giggle. This is getting pathologically serious. The same person who says “Follow the money” everywhere else completely forgets it when an education study shows that people with more school years tend to make more money and then attributes the extra money to the education.
No one makes the obvious connections, much less laughs at all those missing the connection.
No, I’m afraid it’s not so funny any more.
The advantage of seeing Political Correctness as an established religion is that it follows the continuum of history. A person who is a complete temporal provincial sees what is happening in his own time completely out of context.
It took a long time for commentators to see that the dichotomy between Modern Marxism and Middle Age Religion was totally bogus. Marxism was imposed on Christian countries exactly the same way Christianity was imposed on pagan lands.
Christianity came as the Gospels, the Hope, the Salvation and Good News. It offered hope to the poor who had nothing. It was represented by poor men taking enormous risks out of a pure love of their fellow men.
Once countries were converted, the Old Testament, the Laws and the Prophets, and the burdening of heretics began. Kingship began in Northern Europe along with bishoprics. Two thousand years before Aryans had invaded southern Europe and brought various forms of government, all republican, from Greece’s democracy and the vicious equality of Sparta to Rome’s Republic.
Roman history began with the overthrow of the Tarquinii Etruscan kings.
Christianity brought kings to the North. Iceland was settled by people running away from Norway’s first King, and first Christian ruler. Regular historians always described Iceland as INVENTING a parliament. But the Iceland’s elected legislature was simply a continuation of northern government as usual.
History got it backwards because “king” was the “old” form and democracy the “new” form.
Marxism came in the same way Christianity did, with Idealists giving Hope to the common people. Once it took power, its kings and bishops came in and the Inquisition began.
This is, at long last, fairly easy to see. But you do not understand history IN THE LEAST if you do not see its CONTINUITY. You have seen people ALMOST get a point and then ruin it by showing they did not get the REAL point.
The way you completely miss the point made here is to say “Marxism (Political Correctness, no one but Marxists ever used the term) is a new twist on an old theme.”
It is emphatically not a new twist. It is EXACTLY the same old theme. That is the reason everyone, including people RAISED in Marxist countries, did not realize Political Correctness was the same old thing. One man raised in a Marxist country told me they called it “political rectitude” in his language. “Political rectitude” is an exact synonym for political correctness, but he was so used to having everything spelled out to him he didn’t RECOGNIZE it!
And if you think Marxism is a new twist, you are being as dense as someone who has lived under Political Correctness all his life and doesn’t recognize it.
There is no “new twist” in Marxism.
Political Correctness is familiar to anyone who has read Marxist letters. But they cannot attach them to this world. This sort of cowlike absence occurs when someone hears “bourgeois values.” If you read at all, you know you still hear this condemnation of middle class values in one of twos place: Among aristocrat-worshipping monarchists or among Mommy Professors and their pet limousine leftists.
But hearing both, the drooling college graduate with the absent eyes sees no connection at all.
This is the only place you will see this connection written down:
The “bourgeois” is the group which presumes, with no royal title from the Old Regime and no Doctoral Degree from the group that fools the herd by calling itself a New Order, to own its own property and make its own rules.
But when a person hears hippies using the term and the French Old Regime using the same term, they may as well be hearing from different worlds.
Thinking is making connections. When you’re six it is all right not to realize that if three plus three plus three plus three equals twelve, then four times three makes twelve. But if you become an adult and STILL not do make this connection instantly, you need help.
“Officer Brian, you reported an armed robbery. Do you have a description of the suspect?”
“Well, give it to us.”
“I said I HAVE it. I’m not sure I can give it to you.”
“Why, didn’t you see him clearly?”
“ I didn’t say it was male.”
“Was it a female?”
“Sergeant, more than half of the people in this country are female. If I said the person was a female you would suspect millions of people on no basis but their sex?”
“Well, how tall was the suspect?”
“Sergeant, are you going to go out and start rounding up people on the basis of their height?”
“For God’s sake, man, which direction was the suspect going in?”
“If I give you the direction, you will start looking at everyone going in that direction. A person is innocent until proven guilty. Thousands of people are going in every direction in this city, innocent people. There could even be roadblocks set up which implied that this group of people is more likely to be armed robbers than people who choose to go in another direction.”
“Were they in a vehicle?”
“If they were, it might mean they had a handicap because they could not walk or run. If so, this would be profiling of everyone who is old or differently abled. Otherwise it would profile those who are not.”
“Officer Brian, is there ANYTHING you can tell us about this perpetrator?”
“ALLEGED perpetrator, sir.”
“ALL RIGHT. Is there anything you can tell us about this alleged perpetrator that would aid us in finding him or her?”
“Not without profiling. It was just a person, regardless of race, color, creed or national origin.”
“Officer Brian, turn in your badge and gun. I just checked with headquarters and you are fired.”
“Not for refusing to profile I’m not. The ACLU will beat you on that.”
“The ACLU is against you. You continuously referred to your subject as “a person.,” so PETA has filed a joint action with the ACLU for your removal for specieist profiling.”
The title of Prophet has several big advantages over that of Genius. First of all, you don’t have to be smarter than everybody else to be a prophet. I am sure someone has made an IQ estimate of each Biblical prophet, but it is not among the foremost considerations.
Jesus went out of his way to tell stories based on what everybody KNEW.
A prophet does not need to know everything. No one can say whether Socrates, Plato or Aristotle was the smartest. But Socrates would have been forgotten without Plato.
Those who insist that Jesus was “a good man” don’t like to remember that that was not what he claimed. Yes, he was A prophet, but what he said is THE Savior. Back to CS Lewis, “Jesus IS God or he WAS a madman.” Modern Religion HATES that idea.
Even if the tale of the young Jesus in the Temple is literally true, it would be a toss-up whether he had more actual book learning than Paul. With Peter versus Paul it is not even close. A prophet is not made by book-learning and he is not made by his IQ.
What a prophet does is to apply simple truth to ALL realities. There are at least ten million people who are convinced they are Intellectuals and Idealists. Maybe it’s my Bible Belt background, but just a suspicion that I may be an actual PROPHET beats the hell out of any such claim for me.
It should be remembered that when Moses gave the Ten Commandments out, he did NOT say that he, Moses, was doing anything original. The actual rules came from God, not from a prophet. He was not even able to get the Tablets down to the people without breaking them the first time, which sounds a lot like Ole Bob to me.
Modern Religionists who quote Christ and Buddha have not the slightest idea where either of them was coming from. Buddha, like Christ, may have claimed to be prophet, but that was his LESSER claim. After his Enlightenment, Gautama declared that he was “a perfect Buddha.” This is far above a human being, prophet or not.
Even The Prophet only claimed, like Moses, to be God’s writer. I don’t know whether they called him The Prophet, putting him above Moses, but he made it very clear that he was A prophet.
Buddhism has no God. Buddha, one in whom the Truth dwells, is as high as that hierarchy gets. Neither Jesus nor The Prophet nor Buddha worried about whether they knew more facts or had a higher IQ than those around them. Each of them delivered what he insisted was the truth, not because they were at the head of the Smart Table in school, but because they were repeating the truth as they, and ONLY they, knew it from a higher authority.
Neither Jesus nor Buddha not The Prophet ever claimed to be ONLY prophet. Nor did every prophet say exactly what they revealed to be Final Truth.
As I say, none of the Great Religious Founders said that a prophet had to be smart or knowledgeable or, for that matter, even religious. Jews recognize Jesus as a prophet, at least publicly, and the Catholic Church declared Buddha, despite the fact that it looked at him as an adherent to that strange “religion without God” as a prophet.
But NOT as a Saint.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the Hellenic Trio were recognized by the Hellenic Church as prophets, but definitely not saints.
A prophet does not ORDAIN other prophets. Like the Wizard of Oz said, Intellectuals ordain Intellectuals with a piece of paper. If you have a doctorate who you are or how smart you REALLY are makes no difference whatsoever.
But there is no paper one can carry to make a person a prophet in his own time. He must apply the rigid truth as he sees it fearlessly in his own time. He has a lot of foresight, but not necessarily because he is holy. He APPLIES what I see as the simple truth rigidly and insists that others do the same:
“Prophets do not come among us to declare NEW truths. They come to remind us of the old ones.”
I am not the smartest. I am not the most informed. What I do claim is that I always try to start out right back at the simple truth and go on from there. A prophet teaches others to do the same thing.
Am I a prophet? Unfortunately, like artists, real prophets are seldom recognized in their own time.
But for an old Bible Belter, it’s a title to shoot for.
Besides, what other title is there for me to shoot for? If the Intellectuals or the Idealists were to claim me as one of their own, I would be shamed.
Like anyone else, it makes me feel good when readers say my ideas are absolutely original. But as CS Lewis said, “Prophets come among us, not to declare new truths, but to remind us of the old ones.
In this vein, it comforts me when what I have worked hard to explain, something that is going on, I end up running into some old saying. In fact, what I say, if I am working it right, ends up going back to an old truth.
I keep explaining how things work in terms of normal human action. I introduced a careful going-over of people’s motivations in ALL cases. We all know we should “Follow the money,” but until I wrote my first book, no one even THOUGHT of doing that in the case of the Human Betterment Industry as well as “ the military-industrial complex.”
You might think it would bother me that I think hard about something, put a LOT of hard intellectual work into it, and end up with a piece of common sense someone expressed better two centuries ago. But that is really all that prophets do.
Everybody knows how awful anyone can get if they are not called on it. But it is only a prophet who looks the King straight in the eye and tells HIM he is violating basic decency like any other human being. Only a prophet will go into a Sodom or Gomorrah and tell them what they are doing wrong.
They had people Beyond Criticism back then, too. They had Authorities in Robes like our Supreme Court who were not to be questioned. One man did that and he was lynched for it. He was nailed up by the Romans, but only the Guys in Robes gave them no choice.
So when I say you should always ask “Why is this information being produced?” it is clear that every conservative politician’s credibility is tested by this standard all the time. Many times a commentator will simply explain that a politician gets so many tens of thousands of dollars a year from the NRA. He leaves the implication that only conservatives get contributions.
They almost never say where liberal contributions come from, though the Democrats recently got a hell of a lot more money than the Republicans.
And it was in huge chunks. Foundations, unions half of whose voters vote the other way, and groups as activist as the NRA give money to them. But until 1976 no one ever “followed the money” on the LEFT. They don’t now, because conservatives never challenge on this, either.
So what strikes a lot of people as pure genius in BUGS is really just applying one’s THINKING in all areas.
This doesn’t hurt my ego a bit. I am trading in genius for the title of Prophet.
I’ll take that deal!
We would like to apologize for the inconvenience over the hijacking of our comment pages and a hat tip to AlanB for bringing it to our attention.
If you find yourself unable to log in, please follow the request a new password link on the Login page.
Thank you for your patience,
-The Technical Staff.
I always want to apologize to our radio hosts about my failure to listen to them. I have trouble with understanding these days, which makes it worse, but the fact of the matter is that when I fly a thousand miles to a convention about the only speech I hear is my own.
I spent tens of years listening to speeches, writing speeches, making speeches. Now when I sit down to a speech I feel trapped.
My grandfather was circuit rider, and his motto was, “The brain can only absorb what the seat can bear.” Given the benches in those old churches, that was a limited period. But, believe it or not, the usual complaint was that the sermon was too SHORT! My grandfather could have to do five sermons on one day and ride his horse between them on something less than Interstate Highways and each sermon was the same.
Most of us feel that the shorter the sermon the better. In my tiny Methodist Church in Dentsville the clock was over the entrance, where anyone in the congregation had to turn around completely to see it. It was, however, directly facing the preacher.
Even in those days there were wrist watches, so the parson didn’t NEED to be facing the clock during his talk, but the congregation seemed to think it was good thing to do.
In the Puritan churches sermons would routinely go on for three or four hours and a couple of guys patrolled the aisles with long sticks in their hands to bop anybody who nodded off towards sleep. When I heard about that in school — history never mentioned anything BUT Puritan churches back then — it struck me as perfectly natural.
I thought everybody had always squirmed until the preacher wound down.
I was astonished to learn that in previous generations there was what was called “A Hunger for Sermons.”
LONG sermons. They lasted for hours. People would buggy from twenty miles away to hear a preacher — not a famous preacher — to sample his wares.
In our day, food, housing and clothing are major expenses, but entertainment costs very little compared to these giant budget items. Not so long ago you either did your own singing and dancing or you went a LONG way or paid good deal of money. If a preacher was in town you could listen to him or sit with your family or out on the porch.
It is easy to think of a person with a large beautiful home in England sitting on his porch as a beautiful scene. But we never thin of them as sitting there for DAYS.
I remember in the 50s sitting and watching the test pattern on TV, waiting for the time that seemed like hours before programming would begin. At the same time in Europe you would only have one radio station on your dial.
The picture presented by these old man’s wanderings is, if you SEE it, of critical importance. We look at the causes of yesterday and see that they Carried the Message. If you got out to them, people would come. There was competition, so you had to be sure not to conflict with the only other thing in town that week, but the big thing was Carrying the Message.
How totally different the whole business of Carrying the Message has become! Now Beulah, Mississippi is at least as reachable as Manhattan.
It used to be Take It to the Streets. That was when people would be on the porch FACING the streets.
Porches are empty now, not because of TV, which can be watched on the porch, but because of air conditioning. If you are going to march, you had better choose a cool, dry day to do it if you want it to be noticed. And even then you’ll want it on the TV.
Communication isn’t different now. It is a completely different THING.