Archive for September, 2010
When I was organizing conservatives in college it surprised nobody that the two biggest groups against the left were mutually exclusive.
The Young Americans for Freedom went by the Sharon Statement and allowed huge differences in how it was interpreted. The one thing they required, though, was that one believe in God.
Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged was at the top of the charts then, as it has been recently. They called themselves Objectivists and claimed only one point of view, but their arguments were as furious as any other group’s.
But the one thing that you could NOT do and claim to be an Objectivist was, of course, believe in God.
On the left there are differences of means but not of ends. If you are a Christian Socialist your ends are the same as those advocated by Communism, Social Democracy, and Marxist Anarchism.
The end is “from all according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
The left agrees this end is difficult to the point of near impossibility, but it IS the end of the entire left.
No one was surprised that the fundamental credo of the two anti-leftist groups were exactly opposite. It was taken for granted that the ideal society of the young, Catholic backbaygrouch would be a shrieking nightmare to the Objectivists, and vice-versa.
I have said before that you have to disconnect your Knee Jerk Button when you read BUGS. Whatever else may be said of Randian Objectivists, they are NOT conservatives in any reasonable rendering of the word.
I formed an anti-leftist coalition, and in that time and place any anti-leftist was a conservative, just as in a European country where 99% of the population are either Catholic or Lutheran, all the other denominations are called “sects.”
On campus all opposition to the aims of the left came under one label. The fact that the two main groups were mutually exclusive did nothing to the fact that they were automatically classified together in Mommy Professor’s domain.
This fact, which we never THINK about, is proof that the campus is, indeed, Mommy Professor’s domain.
The left does, indeed have a single aim. Its ideal is “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” A leftist priest and a Marxist have no difference on this goal with an agnostic social democrat.
We accept that anyone who does not accept this goal is classified, without question, in the media and on campus, as a “conservative.”
It is sitting there like an elephant in a living room, the assumption that there is one Direction, one Faith, toward which our society aims, and all opposition to the One Direction has been openly classified as a single Heresy all our lives.
But nobody notices.
A writer in National Review was talking about books about alternative futures. He was puzzled that every alternative history showed either 1) Any deviation from our history ends up in disaster or 2) things come right back around to where they are now.
It is interesting that this puzzled statement should appear in National Review, because that is how National Review makes its living.
National Review says exactly what the left does. The only difference is the time line. So if the founders of that publication, with their statement in 1955, were to appear t today, National Review would disagree with them on almost every issue.
The 1955 heroes of the conservative movement are either forgotten or denounced by NR today. This is the definition of respectable conservatism. It is also the REAL definition of neoconservatism..
I always have to use words two ways, the media definition and the real definition. In a seminar I expect commenters to recognize the difference. I was proud that, when I mentioned neo-conservatism and defined it, only one BUGS commenter went into Knee Jerk Mode, ignored the point I was making, and talked about the Neoconservatives as a variation on the Bilderbergers which David Duke and Pat Buchanan have exposed.
The rest just read what I said and got my point.
The term neoconservative means one who is a natural product of our literary market. He is easier to explain as an economic unit than as one holding any beliefs.
Periodically our established religion redefines what may be discussed. These guidelines are never spoken, and I have pointed out that talking about them would be a big help in exposing them.
We all know what the hierarchy of minority groups looks like, but none of us ever TALK about it.
To be a respectable conservative, one fills a slot in our society. He is against what is proposed now, but he is, above all, not an extremist. Like the minority hierarchy, no one ever mentions what an extremist is.
But everybody knows, to coin Talleyrand’s phrase, that extremism is a matter of dates. The Extremist label goes back to about 1970 now, and no one is more furious in denouncing anything advocated before the present date specified than the Respectable Right. That date is the entire story of their industry. That date is their SOLE means of livelihood.
The respectable conservative doesn’t just accept the date now specified to avoid extremism, he is militant about it.
Now let’s go back to that puzzled question in National Review about how all “if” histories wind up showing that We Live in the Best of All Possible Worlds.
Other writers have to make their living in exactly the same world that National Review does. If you say that history could have been better on some other path, you are an extremist. This is the year 2010 on the Path to Progressivism. To make a living or even publish at all, that has to be your guiding light.
Meerkat Manor was one of those programs everybody knew about. It was popular. But it was not unique. Many books and documentaries have been written about the rigid class systems and border wars of all social animals. This was just one of the better ones.
The real lesson of Meerkat Manor, though, is precisely that. In the 1960s Meerkat Manor would have caused a revolution. Back then it was assumed that birds sing only to attract mates, that social systems were totally absent in the natural world.
Therefore Rousseau and Marx and the libertarians assumed that all human social systems, all class divisions, all wars, all divisions between different people, are entirely the result of which system we adapt.
In other words, which Book we build our society around.
As usual, the real lesson here is so basic no one gets it. Every social and political and economic ideology which existed in 1960 should have disappeared without a trace, like the Humor Theory of Galen did in nineteenth century.
But not a single iota has changed. Everybody debates the same old crap. Marx is still a Great Philosopher.
Let’s take a look at one aspect of Meerkat Manor, the struggle for the all-important top meerkat in this matriarchal society. When the old leader died of snake bite, who would take power? We could make a number of guesses, since the old leader was so powerful that she had bred a troop of over fifty.
In meerkat society, the stronger the leader, the bigger the group becomes. With Flower’s death, the troop split into sections, a lead in each.
Another possibility would have been that Flower had bred one of her many offspring that was her equal
But the real lesson here is that we all know what could NOT happen.
What could NOT happen was that the overwhelming majority of the meerkats, who were kept sterile since only the leader was allowed to have offspring, would rise up and take over.
This is the critical point, so no one sees it.
Social animals do not have revolutions.
In nature every revolt is just like what REALLY happened with Communism everywhere. The dissatisfied lionesses might join an intruding male in killing their present mate if they have grown tired of him. Then the new male takes over.
A Communist “Revolution” immediately produces a new ruling class which effectively owns all the property and uses most of it for themselves or their projects. What people do not realize is that, due to our nature, it can’t come out any other way.
Instead of looking at what we now know about animal and human nature, every system that collapses is declared by its proponents to have been somehow “imperfect.”
Mommy Professor will tell you that Socialism would work, that Marx was Great Genius. The rulers of the Soviet Empire and Cambodia just “got it wrong.”
You’ve hears that from the left a hundred times.
Every form of Wordism we have today was written when it was assumed that natural social animals had no property, no territory, no class system, all of which we now assume is impossible even in a society made up of meerkats with brains measured in milligrams.
But the instant we begin to discuss social systems, we go back to a way of thinking a person would be ashamed to take to a discussion of Meerkat Manor.
I spent my life trying to get people to see the obvious, to think about what they already knew. I am always afraid if I talk about anything but the basics, reality will slip away from them.
When he got into the spirit of the Mantra, even Lord Nelson found he was more and more slipping away from it. He found he was very successful when he talked about white countries being “overrun.”
So he went that route, not considering what was happening, until I reminded him of it. If Lord Nelson can make that mistake, the average joe will veer of in the wrong direction and STAY there.
“Overrunning” can be accepted. It does not criticize the Reverend Martin Luther the King or the Holy State of Interracial Marriage. It does not attack assimilation.
The only signal Lord Nelson got as he slid down this oily path was that his argument was suddenly much easier to make. When I pointed it out to him, he recoiled from it like it was a cobra. But who else would mention it to him?
There are no sign paths. World War II vets didn’t become deadly enemies of their own race because they MEANT to. They just found that the more they did it the more their papers hats were praised by the media.
So I stick to repeating and I am very encouraged when I see, especially in General Comments 4, you remind each other of the basics. You MUST learn to go back to the basics again and again and again and again.
We are always looking for ways to get our message across. But we must constantly ask ourselves if we are not succeeding by not saying what they don’t want to hear.
Too many people hack off pieces of the Mantra and seem unable to get my message: I developed the Mantra from PRACTICE, not from a committee.
The Mantra is not a Declaration, it is a TOOL. It cuts them off from each pass, like the Nazi label, I know from a thousand arguments they are going to get off on. “Anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews” is extraneous to someone ticking off the points as if it were an English exercise.
The only short Mantra I have found is “Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White Countries for Everybody.” But that is because I USED it.
The Obedient Generation shows us how easy it is to slip, ever so slowly, into accepting the Party Line. Principled conservatives didn’t do it purposely. They don’t even KNOW they’re doing it.
This leftist-respectable conservative duo was never thought of by anybody. It EVOLVED. Nobody talks about it but me.
The world is much clearer to me, people who never forget the basic principle of supply and demand or Occam’s Razar or other basics. If you get off reality like that, you have to be able to do your usual review of basics and laugh at yourself and correct yourself.
If someone slips, catch him quick.
“America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families, and the common good.”
So if you agree with the proposition, you are an American. Being born here means nothing. Then they scream that immigration laws are not being enforced.
If anyone who Believes is an American, we should have what Brazil had when it was being settled. In the harbor was a boat with agents of Portuguese Inquisition, and no one was allowed to land until he had talked it over with THEM.
In a Propositional State, it is the Inquisition which decides who Americans are.
The Republican Party Obedients, like everybody else, knows the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Not one of them can recite the Preamble to Constitution. America was not founded to tell the world how it should behave. It was founded only by the American people and for the American people.
If taken as our guide to the world, the Declaration is pure Imperialism. Everyone back to Rome and long before enforced their will on other countries to CIVILIZE them.
For their own good.
The scariest thing in the world a person can say is, “It’s for your own good.”
A person who is doing something he admits HE wants to do has limits on his actions. But when someone is doing something For Your Own Good, he has no limits, no conscience, and no mercy.
When you come up with a concept, it will become warped or it will be ignored.
Warped is better.
Brian pointed out that Wordism is being confused with objectivity. Since he noticed the subtle changes in the use of the word, I decided to discuss it a bit.
Unlike anyone else who gets a concept used by others, I don’t want to dictate what Wordism is. I would have to write a book on he subject to do that, and I will write no more books. So, as I say, I am commenting on it.
My invention of the term Wordism was to provide a direct counterpart to “tribalism,” “racism,” and a hundred other terms used against any kind of loyalty to one’s own kind.
They talk about Hitler and racism and war to say that loyalties to one’s own POPULATION have a lot of bad things in their histories.
No one can think of any bad things that anti-racism or anti-nationalism ever produced because they assume what they call “universalism” has no history. It does, and that history makes Hitler look like a Boy Scout.
Mao Tse-Tung would have laughed out loud at Hitler’s paltry death rate. Pol Pot would be insulted if his personal destruction a third of his country’s entire population would be not put in class by itself. By European standards, though, Stalin did very well and he did plenty of killing in peacetime.
To find such regular, day-to-day torture, Cultural Revolution and Oriental Despotism in Europe you have to go back the Religious Wars.
The key thing about universalism is that it is a plural. There are thousands of them. Mao and Stalin’s Communism and both sides in the religious wars were universalisms. There would be peace when the True Bible became accepted by everybody. There would be peace when he books of Karl Marx, and the CORRECT commentaries on Marx, were accepted by all.
No price is ever too high for a universalism to win World Peace forever. And each group of Believers BELIEVES that. Everybody must believe the Universal Truth, my set of words, for their own good.
And for your own good, there can be no mercy.
The problem is, they have made their labels like racism and nationalism, common currency, while, as usual, we have not given it enough thought to develop our own.
Now I see that Wordism is used to fit into whatever the person doing the writing is down on.
Wordism can be effective if it is only used in the sense I give it here. Every time one says that overspending is Wordism, it hurts the cause that a BUGSer would make that mistake.
They give all the evils of slavery and Nazism the name “racist.” They are losing the word because blacks use it to denounce any spending cut. But it remains useful to them because they don’t dribble it to mean just anything they didn’t like in the past.
Use Wordist for what it is, and for nothing else, especially your pet peeves.
Wordism is a horror. It is the reality of what Wordists accuse racism of being.
You can’t find many books on the real slaughters for religion. You can’t hear the screams of people dying by fire or by weeks of torture in order to clean their minds out before they are executed, a process Orwell described in 1984. But which was once routine.
Over a billion people were penned in by Communism and the media have no interest in the tens of millions they killed. A hundred million is a reasonable guesstimate. But almost the entire billion people wasted generations under that system, coming out desperately poor after the rest of the world had developed.
I think that is quite enough reality for one word to encompass.
Don’t cheapen it. Use it for the desperately needed truth it is.
I believe it was Carl von Clausewitz who said that “War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means.” Being a militarist, he liked to reduce everything to battle.
But the truth is that there is no difference between war and diplomacy. They are both means to the same end, and one prefers to take the least costly route to ANY end. War is what happens when less costly means give out.
Diplomacy has always been known as the alternative to war. In 1861 the North and South stopped debatint and took up arms.
But I note that our side is becoming very apologetic about this. When they say we are fermenting trouble, no one says that the only way to prevent violence is to put it all on the table. No, we tend to be defensive and talk only about how, technically, they have no right to shut us up because of the first amendment.
In other words, we are back to the time when our spokesmen talked about States’ Rights instead of defending the existence of our race.
Several examples come to mind. When we talk about our side, the left always says that, if we didn’t give in to them, the Communists will get the oppressed on their side.
But how often do we point out that the Weimar Republic had Hate Speech Laws, but all Hate Speech Laws do is what liberals used to say the right does, drive the resentment under cover.
We have GOT to stop thinking defensively.
When I said that I didn’t mind a web site going straight from the Mantra to anti-Semitism someone in General Comments 4 said they would agree since I said it. In short, they thought I was wrong.
Suits me. I don’t want a seminar where people feel obligated to agree with me.
What this sort of thing will be used for by anti-whites will be to show that any mention of the survival of the white race will be used for other purposes.
The answer to that is, “Of course it will!” If you suppress seething resentments they become the PROPERTY of those who want violence.
What is really frustrating is to see is that so many of us are unable to stop hiding under the table. Speech, diplomacy and war are different ways of handling disagreement.
Why can’t our people realize that without me reminding them?
I just wrote an article about the cover up of gay activity by the military in World War II.
Now that women are being brought into the service in large numbers, we all know about scandals that have surfaced, and we also know how hard it is for even a woman to report abuse and how it is impossible for her to have a career in the service afterwards.
We all know how prisons are and how they were when a man who reported only got the report as far as the inmate who killed him. We all know the British “public,” meaning private schools, were all male and homosexual activity was a norm. CS Lewis talks about it as a given.
This is why “Why is this information produced?” is such a critical concern.
There is not a single well-known book about how any of the twelve million Americans in uniform was sexually harassed and how the brass covered it up. Such a book would have had twelve million screaming enemies for whoever was responsible for it.
Kinsey’s “Study,” which was one-half prisoners, is quoted as Gospel, not because it was anything LIKE scientific, but because the information produced suited the purposes of a lot of people.
If such truths were ever allowed out, a generation that controls most of national wealth would be in the position of Catholic priests today. How can a man in an all-male institution protect himself from a charge of homosexuality? Every member of that generation would be tainted.
That information is not produced.
And the fact that we never concentrate on why information is produced is what makes the suppression so vigorous. If we looked at this sort of thing the way we look at ex-convicts, that a lot of them were probably forced to have same-sex and others got to like it, it might be discussed.
But when this came out about the priests, it was a huge blow to the Church and made men who had dedicated their lives to the Church ashamed of their collars.
By now we all know that what makes most really huge scandals uncontrollable is the cover-up.
Everybody knows, but nobody says, that you don’t become a bishop in the Catholic Church by being naive. Every single bishop knew what was going on. Court testimony shows that priests who were not molesters would just ignore a boy’s cries for help.
This is an entirely different business from a percentage of priests, or firemen, or police, or any other group contains a certaining number of perverts. It was not that it happened, but that the Church kept it secret and took no real action that caused the explosion.
Like worshippers of the Greatest Generation, the Catholic laity did not want to consider the certainty that an ABSOLUTE absence of news in this matter needed to be checked out.
The 10% figure for male homosexuality, that is, men who actually PREFER sex with other men to sex with women, stays unquestioned at 10% is an example of this sort cowlike acceptance.
When you deal with information, the WHY is as important as the WHAT.
Why is information produced?
The official media figure for male homosexuals is 10%. No one asks where it came from. It came from a Kinsey Report, Sexual Behavior In The Human Male, in the 1950s. The Kinsey study was known by all because it had lots of headlines in it for newspapers in an age when sex was not openly discussed much.
No one knows where this came from. Kinsey was himself a homosexual, and half of his study subjects were in prison. So when he reported that 10% of males were homosexuals, he also found that half of all males had had homosexual sex.
In the 1950s prison a solid majority of males had had homosexual sex. In fact, one of the reasons so many less prisoners today do NOT have this unwelcome experience is because we talk about it, and it can be reported.
The best estimate I have seen in a careful study of the subject estimated the percentage of male gays at about 1.4%. This was barely covered in the media, and it is unlikely that more will be financed.
The media and the activists like that 10% figure, so the boat is very unlikely to be rocked again.
I am an interrogator. It often struck me that the WWII types and soldiers since have a note in their voices when they speak of their worshipped sergeants, their first ones, that one only hears in a person who is speaking of an old love affair.
From one perspective the entire theory of basic training in WWII and long after was to make the recruits into the submissive females and the sergeants into the dominant males.
“Basic training” was sloppy and it consisted entirely of making young men accept sado-masochism.
It’s kind of odd, in a society where everything is interpreted sexually, that I am the one to mention this.
There was an island in the Pacific where the officer’s club consisted almost entirely of men who had been in combat and were going back in. They were the Greatest of the Greatest Generation.
The ranking officer there would regularly go to the officers’ club, get drunk, and assault junior officers. One young officer hit him back. Her was court-martialed and went to prison.
He went to prison because not one single Hero of the Greatest Generation would say, on the stand, that the senior officer beat on younger officers in that club all the time.
The officer who went to prison was a man who had been in combat, and a captain. Now try to imagine what would happen to recruit in Basic if he reported sissy boy activity against him by his sergeant.
Conservatives are constantly bitching about how liberals are getting absolutely absurd in their use of the word “racist.”
One liberal’s advice they quote was, “Pick a conservative and cal him a racist.”
But the respectables never talk about WHY liberals are now so blatant about the racist label.
They use it because it WORKS.
And they will keep using it because it WORKS.
We have a simple truth to get across: “I wish for liberals to say I am a non-racist but the only reason they will say that is because I am a groveling wimp.”
Liberals use the anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews gambit all the time because it WORKS. Whenever they use it, conservatives soil themselves and go into a fetal position.
If you found something that did that to your opponents, you would use it endlessly, you would openly urge your allies to use it. Liberals kept using the racist label on the Tea Party and the Tea Party put out tapes of their meetings to show no one used the N word.
It didn’t help.
Hey, dumbo, this is a WAR, not a high school DEBATE! Unlike groveling respectables, liberals don’t give a damn about you proving them wrong. All that counts is whether they WIN or not.
That’s why they always win over the respectables. The only time conservatives won was when they got over their fear of appealing to the “the Wallace vote,” a phrase the left used to scare conservatives away from the Reagan Democrats for many years.
The Republicans went back to moderation with Bush and became habitual losers again, doing the job the media feels a real conservative SHOULD do.
When Republicans looked like they had some cajones again in 1994, they won BOTH Houses of Congress. But once in office, they danced to the tune of the Democratic attacks again, and lost it again.
Republicans who won the smashing victory of 1994 went Inside the Beltway. They were listening to the Washington Post and the cocktail party crowd, which cowed them with the racist and radical labels on a day to day basis.
Only on their trips back to their districts, talking with people who weren’t the Big Shots they now dealt with, did they hear, “Why aren’t you CHANGING anything up there?”
They didn’t change even the trend to more government up there because the Big Guys inside the Beltway are Big Guys because they know how to manipulate wimps.
And if you wet yourself and praise Martin Luther King ensconced in the idea that liberals were always right the pros are going to keep using any label that WORKS.
General Comments Archives
And a random sighting of the mantra:
Please read the first part, The Indian Industry, before this one.
The new theory that whites settled America before Indians did is very plausible but any threat to the idea that whites took America is a threat to the whole Indian Industry, which is based on our guilt for stealing THEIR country.
But saying the Indians first came here fourteen thousands years ago across the Bering Strait also threatens The Environmentalist Industry, which, it so happens, just lately became bigger than the Indian Industry.
You see, a whole range of species like the mammoth disappeared at exactly the time the Indians came over across the Ice Age Bering Strait land bridge. If the Indians did that, it severely damages the whole image of the Innocent Indians and it does violence to a major part of the Environmentalist Industry which, when it says “man” destroyed the environment, means the WHITE man.
This theory is getting a lot of acceptance because the Sermon at the end takes care of the problems of both industries. I am not saying this was planned, I am saying that when a theory does such a perfect job, I kind of suspect it as a detective does when he finds that one of his prime suspects happened to be out walking alone when the murder occurred.
White men first makes the white man the one who may have killed the whole range of species. That takes care of the Indian Industry and the Environmentalist Industry on one front.
But it is still heresy, because it threatens the whole “the evil white man took away Indian lands” on which all those casinos and guilt payments in the billions are based.
If the white man first settled America and wiped out the fauna, this leaves the implication that Indians drove those white men out of America.
This cannot be tolerated.
But the Sermon says that the European Clovis People didn’t wipe out the fauna, either. After developing in America for million of years, all that fauna and the white Clovis people were killed all at once by a weather catastrophe that occurred at exactly the time that the Indians were crossing the Bering Bridge.
Now you can see how I made a living doing political analyses no one else even thought of. Nobody comes at information this way.
I would be more suspicious of my own suspicions if the Sermon at the end of this documentary had not gone just one more step toward Political Correctness. It concluded that the weather catastrophe didn’t kill ALL the whites.
There were some whites left and they intermixed with the Indians. So, as bonus all gift-wrapped in the Sermon, America was BORN as a Melting Pot!
The Genome Project is only mentioned when one of its endless number of studies comes up with something the anti-whites can use. As a result, every announcement of Genome research has concluded that the Indians from whom we took America were pure Indians.
If the Bering Strait Indians had a lot of white blood from the original Melting Pot, the Genome Project will have to find those genes.
Norman G. Finkelstein’s book, the Holocaust Industry, impressed me because he is the only writer I know of who follows my question, “Why is this information being produced?”
The usual explanation of why all other Holocausts are ignored, including the greatest of all by the revered Mao Tse-Tung, is that there is a group of absolute geniuses with big noses who meet together regularly and rule the world.
“Why is this information being produced” just lacks the sex appeal of a single Conspiracy. But if you are doing political analysis for a living you can’t afford nonsense for fun.
The media concentrate on Jews because the Jews are critical to anyone who wants to make a living in the media. The Holocaust, among other things is, as Finkelstein details, an industry.
A major theme of our information-based society is what information people with money want to defend. You can say what you like about one of the many automobile companies that ceased to exist in the first half of the twentieth century, but you had better watch what you say when you discuss any Ford, including the T-Model.
Pre-Columbian America is discussed with the Indian Industry listening to every word. Indians receive billions every year from the government because “The white man took America from them.” The whole new and enormous gambling industry Indians alone are allowed to have without restrictions makes Indian history a matter over which a historian can end up in court.
The Indian Industry, like the Black Industry, is depended on by vast numbers of whites as a source of income. What happened in America fourteen thousand years ago is seen by many as a theoretical concern. But any twiddling with the idea that Indians are the natives is of immediate concern to a giant industry.
You will not see this discussed anywhere except BUGS, because no Indian Finkelstein has come forward to write about it.
Always before anyone who said that Europeans were here before Indians was instantly labeled anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjewsjews — a term we need to use more — but now a theory says that and is being accepted with an astonishing calm.
This acceptance, or at least this debate, which would once have been simply met with a shriek of “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews!” and then silence on the part of its proponent, can be explained only if you are practiced in the question of “Why was this information produced?”
As I mentioned in my last book, the disappearance of the mammoths and other species fourteen thousand years ago in America was once comfortably blamed on the simultaneous invasion of Man from across the Ice Age Bering Strait land bridge.
That information was welcome because it blamed this horror on Man. This was in full accordance with the Environmentalist Industry. If you don’t think in terms of Conspiracies, you see that no group agreed on it at once and plotted it out carefully
I see that this welcome bit of information was accepted, but, as environmentalism because that Italian playing an Indian with a tear in his eye over what Evil Whites did to His Land, Indians became different from the hated Man of the Environmental Industry.
It blamed the Indian, who loved Brother Buffalo so much, that as his first act in this new land, wiped out a major part of its fauna!
I have pointed out how documentaries usually end with the Sermon at the end, telling how the events it is discussing fit into the Party Line on history or whatever other subject it deals with. The Sermon at the end of this one was a work of art.
I get complaints if my pieces are too long, so I’ll explain this in The Indian Industry 2.
James Edwards of the Political Cesspool was denounced in June by Keith Obermann as the “the worst person in the world.”
I am trying hard not to be jealous, but it is not easy. I told John Ashbrook that one the great pleasures of working for him was that, in any political gathering or at any cocktail party, when I said I worked for John Ashbrook all the right people shied away.
Some years ago I also talked about James’ beautiful young wife. I know that thing about not coveting, but who can I fool?
There’s a reason we’re GRUMPY old men.
I don’t listen to James’ show because I don’t listen to ANYTHING. Honestly, after writing, giving and listening to thousands of speeches listening is a chore for me. But the Cesspool is obviously becoming an outlet for people who are famous but beyond the fringe.
Mel Gibson’s father, Hutton Gibson, has been on the Cesspool at least twice now, and the famous Arizona sheriff who makes his jailees live in tents was on, too.
There is a continuum of respectability in our society. We all remember how the militias screamed against all “racists” the moment they got a little publicity that was not wholly hostile. Respectable conservatives are the media’s ever-ready lynch mob against anything the left decides is intolerable to it.
That continuum is a practical matter. It needs to be discussed and the rings of that ladder named.
I have found that what really hurts our established religion is when one starts discussing the Politically Correct Order of Preference. PC required Women’s Liberation, but what if the woman who was raped was raped by a black man?
This is like quoting the California guy who asked, “Are we still boycotting grapes?” No respectable conservative would do that. No respectable conservative would discuss with a liberal the exact priorities of the preference ladder we all know about?
Respectable conservatives make their living avoiding anything that hits home like that. But I am the only one who talks about exactly what a respectable conservative avoids. It is perfect guide to what hits home.
The Ladder of Political Correctness for each group, the Ladder of Respectability, quoting the most slavish statements on the left. These were the kind of analysis by which I made my living.
The Ladder of Respectability tells you where liberals are hurting. They divert public hostility they can no longer ignore into the direction that hurts least. So they gave up gun control, and militia groups obediently began to denounce racism. To a person who doesn’t do this sort of thing for a living, this is a connection that sounds almost esoteric, but it is actually routine.
I had to know what legislation could be passed by our side and when. I knew exactly where and how they were backing down in one area to retrench in another. It is called strategy, and it is professional matter.
And when they give respectability or even attention, you have to talk openly about what they are going to want in return.
You see, they, too, have their professionals.
The political front is not called strategy for nothing.
I know James, and we talked about all this stuff years ago. He is a hale and well-met, smiling chap, but I hope the cold steel I saw back then remains beneath his charm.
We laugh and joke, but we do not play. This is a war, not a game.
Please let me know if what I am saying here bores you. It is not on our subject, but it is general history that will die with me.
Obama has raised the minimum wage. In the debate over this, no one mentions where it came from.
After the Civil War the Northerners who then owned all the railroads made agreements that kept industry up North, especially in New England. These agreements were a major part of legislative history no one hears about, and they kept the center of American industry slightly NORTH of the center of industrial production in CANADA!
As these railroad rates were slowly being equalized after the Republican defeat in 1932, industry began to move south. Nobody but me remembers that that was where the minimum wage got its majority vote.
Unions have no minimum wage workers, so people wonder why they are the biggest force in favor of it. Now it is to keep two minimum wage workers from replacing one union man. But in 1935 it had to do with the evening of railroad rates.
Unions were afraid that a huge part of their jobs would move to the low-wage South. So with the South having all the chairmanships ruling congress — all the seniority from when most of the few Democrats in congress were Southern — the unions demanded that the competition be limited by a minimum wage for Southern labor.
Mommy Professor teaches that it was Idealists and Intellectuals like him who gave thought to the working poor that caused the minimum wage.
Unlike Mommy Professor, I have KNOWN a lot of working people.
The most fanatical opponent of a minimum wage rise I ever met was a black man who worked on our brick plant. He didn’t drink and he fired the kilns and supported a big family.
Normally the “fireman” had to stoke the kilns every half hour or every hour. So he just slept in between. He preferred being in the plant to his crowded home and his family could come see him at the plant nearby.
There wasn’t a lot of entertainment in Pontiac, South Carolina.
So he was happy to put in a hundred hours a week when the minimum wage was a dollar an hour. He got $1.50 for the other sixty hours. That was $130 a week.
When the minimum wage went up to $1.25 we could not longer afford his overtime. He went down to 50 a week and had nothing to do the rest of the time.
The unions were right. Their area has been known as The Rust Belt for a long time. The minimum wage was passed to keep the flow of industry to the South down.
Our use of the term Mantra Thinking could sound strange to the Beatles in their New Age time with guru in the sixties or to the 90s New Age fad. To them a Mantra is something to clear the mind of all thought.
To them, the word mantra is from later, colored India. India turned brown, stagnated, and died. Those who have not outgrown their college education assume that Real Wisdom comes from the places that have turned brown, stagnated, and mummified.
The other use of the word mantra today is something that repeats and repeats, which is part of our program. But the phrase Mantra THINKING sounds strange in that use, too. They see a mantra entirely as repetition.
White India developed the aquatic rice that made regimented China one-fifth of the world’s population for the last two thousand years. Its Mantras were not Wise Ways blanking your mind or creating incomprehensible tomes, but a kind of thinking that took a low-yield land product and transformed it as utterly as the whale changed as it went from a four-footed small omnivore to the Blue Whale and dolphin.
This was the kind of mind that we now go to for its colored descendants’ poverty and mindlessness.
Everything we talk about here relates, and one can only understand this by seeing clearly that we are still Aryans, and we use the term Mantra in the same sense our white Indian relatives did.
Today the words Indian Mantra means something that sounds profound but is actually meaningless. It is meaningless because white India did not say this sort of thing as an end but as a beginning.
We call them axioms. We call them Basic Laws.
Yes, we repeat our Mantra, but we repeat it the way a person educating a people has to begin by repeating the alphabet. We do not feel that the end result should be people sitting and repeating the alphabet as a Wise Saying in a money-raising pamphlet.
The alphabet is a necessary repeat for one to enter the world of literacy. The Mantra is a weapon in itself, but it also frees the mind to see the world as a whole. When you see white genocide for what it is, you can begin to see a whole new world of thought.
Axioms lead to postulates. Supply and Demand are not the end, they are the beginning. I think our ancient cousins would have understood perfectly the Laws of Thermodynamics are not just words to be repeated as you sit there with a begging cup in front of you or to impress rich New Agers with.
To the gurus with the Cadillacs, the term Mantra Thinking would be a super no-no.
The New Age use of the word mantra reflects an awful tragedy.
If we “brown out,” I can see people calling themselves “humble scientists” sitting there repeating mysterious equations with their begging cups, or becoming advisors of their brown Raja in the name of the Ancient Wisdom that once went to the Moon.
The danger of going brown is seen only if we use real, Aryan Mantra Thinking which BEGINS with wisdom and proceeds FROM there.
They just found the Czar’s gold. The Soviet regime had been looking for it since 1917.
Today the media Party Line is that the USSR suddenly collapsed economically in the 80s. Actually, the only thing that was holding it up was petroleum exports.
Petroleum was well known before Lenin took over.
But the media still wants the impression left that it wasn’t the whole silly ass system that was held together only by force, but “mistakes” at the end.
Once Americans got in there, Afghanistan, which was considered a land about as poor in resources as Japan, we found, says Brian, that:
“The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.”
Few of you remember the image of the Soviet Empire projected in the US during the Cold War. It was like our side’s version of the Jewish Conspiracy, a united, dedicated set of people working under almost infallible geniuses.
In fact, the group that the rapid economic advances of the Soviet Union that they reported to the UN and that the CIA threw its whole reputation behind was at the University of Virginia when I was in grad economics.
Craig Roberts was one of my fellow grad students.
I was on just about every front that actually brought down the Soviet Empire, from economics to the streets of Louisville on the making of the Reagan Democrats. It made me feel good when someone commented recently that I had been a major force in the Cold War victory.
What is important about this is that you must have a very realistic estimate of the enemy to bring him down.
I won’t bore you with too much of this because it would be lot of articles, some long. But at every weak point, I was active in the background. I want you to know that, when it comes to political warfare, I really am experienced in WINNING.
I was essential to saving the space telescope and Edward Teller came by our office to thank Congressman Ashbrook personally. It was Jerry Pournelle who told Reagan about the Strategic Defense Initiative that finally brought them down.
I am not interested in the public knowing about this. But I do want YOU to know it. YOU who are fighting this greater war for the survival of our race should KNOW it is very winnable and that your seminar leader knows what he is doing better than anybody else on this planet.
When I say the picture of the Great Conspiracy can ruin our efforts, I am harking back to the years I spent doing the same thing about the Great Soviet Genius.
The enemy has gaping holes in his lines, and the Mantra is our Strategic Defense Initiative.
I mentioned before that Portnoy’s Complaint started with Portnoy proving he was a good man. But every instance of his being a good man was what he did for Jews.
Portnoy’s Complain, as I said, was a best-seller among Jews because it expressed their own internal psychoanalysis, and among gentiles because this as a new, unguarded frankness about Jews, a new thing to them.
A major theme every good Jew hears every Saturday is how everybody else is bad to Jews. If sermon after sermon in a church declared how evil the Jews are to everybody else, it would be suppressed.
Jews are raised on resentment. I have often said that today’s Christianity is just self-hatred and today’s Judaism consists entirely of feeling sorry for themselves.
The influence of churches on Western gentile thinking does not end when a person becomes a lapsed Catholic or an agnostic Protestant. New England’s rabid intolerance of and hostility to the West and the South, including that of the Kennedys, is straight out its Puritan background.
Harvard persecutes those who are suspected of believing in heresy as Cotton Mather did.
Jews do not leave their resentments when they leave the synagogue.
An American Jew invented the term “melting pot,”, Emma Lazarus declared America open to all other peoples, but in her time she was better known as a crusading Zionist, seeking a homeland for Jews only.
Franz Boas introduced the idea that all non-whites had a common cause with Jews. To him, anybody who was not a white gentile was the common enemy. He was a Marxist, but his thinking came straight out of his childhood religion, just as that of Harvard does.
Benjamin Franklin points out that, though he was a Free Thinker, he doubted he would have had his dedication to Morality and the Virtues if he had not been raised in a strictly Christian household.
Jews are dedicated to their own, as Portnoy details. It never occurs to him otherwise. Many great truths are spoken of only in jest.
And this truth is critical to us. Jews as a group are fanatically devoted to minorities against whites because resentment is their morality. They are ferocious when they get on the race issue because to them non-whites are honorary Jews, little Jews.
I think that is what made Germany go Nazi. German Jews were solidly Communist before Hitler entered politics. Even a Jew has written a book about how the sudden rise of Communism terrified the Germans and he blames that as much as the genetic Evil of Germans for Hitler’s rise. He got a lot of criticism, but the book got published.
Mantra Thinking sees what is actually there. White suicide as our morality owes more to our own Traditional Values, from Zoroaster through Saint Paul, than it does to the Jews. Latin countries were pushing “asimilacion” centuries before Franz Boas was born.
Jewish hostility, everyone must now agree that Jews are immune to simple Hate, is endemic.
We Christians must see and overcome our self-hatred. If Jews do not similarly overcome their hostility to those around them, they must be expelled.
In Portnoy’s Complaint about the first thing Portnoy did was explain was how he had been a good man. If he had been a Christian he would have talked about charity or kindliness or love of his fellow man. Being a Jew, all he talked about was what he had done for Jews.
Being brought up in an environment where the very definition of virtue for a 1950s Good Christian was what you as a white did for non-whites, and for a Southerner was to denounce or at least ignore the South or anything else you were loyal to. This was a whole new point of view.
In fact, a major reason Portnoy’s Complaint was such a hit was because it really did sound like a Jew really psychoanalyzing himself. Jews bought it because, warts and all, no one is more interesting to you than yourself, and others read it because it was a startling revelation of real Jewish thought.
This is why the Good Samaritan was such a shock to Jesus’ orthodox Jewish listeners. To them Samaritans were as Jewish as Luther in 1530 was a Christian to the pope.
It is not true that Jews do not forbid usury. They invented the prohibition. But usury was taking interest from other Jews, so they could do it in Christian Europe, whereas Christians were forbidden to charge interest to other Christians or to God’s People.
The Commandment does not forbid lying. It forbids bearing false witness against thy neighbor. This meant other Jews. So Jesus, as He did so often, took upon Himself the power to change the Commandments Himself, as He did when He and His disciples worked on the Sabbath and when He took the gigantic step of reducing the Ten Commandments to two.
Bible literalists love to quote Jesus as saying that He had not come to change a jot or a tittle of the Law and the Prophets so they can put the Old Testament on the same level with the Gospels. They NEVER quote His next statement after He reduced the Commandments to two: “This is the Law and the Prophets.”
Theologians are not always completely straightforward, to coin an understatement. The shortest book in the Bible, the Book of Titus, says to Christians, “If you are a slave, be a good slave.” It also says “If you are a good master, be a good master.”
The idea that Jesus was a social revolutionary in this world is absurd because Jesus, as CS Lewis uncompromisingly says, did not believe that this WAS the real world.
To mention this in church today would give a preacher the same heebie-jeebies that a Marxist would feel if he called the Party Line “orthodoxy,” or a liberal if he called Political Correctness, The Party Line.
Bible Literalists do not ever mention that He was demonstrating that He WAS the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets. He made that so clear when He drove the money changers from the Temple that He was finally arrested and crucified for it. Those people had their place in the Temple by every Jewish authority, because nothing could be in the Temple otherwise.
Jesus finally overruled the Authorities in the Temple itself, the official representatives of the Law and the Prophets.
Anti-whites love to quote Paul when he said that there were no longer any Jews or Greeks and so forth. They say he was advocating their program of getting rid of whitey. But he was also saying that Jews were no more the People of the Book than anybody else.
But we got Jews as a permanent Western population because of these selective quotations. Jews were allowed to settle in Christian countries where any other non-Christians, or the wrong kind of Christians, were burned alive.
Look at the instances I give above. A lot of people talk about Jews, but nobody dares notice why were HAVE them.
In the teeth of Jesus’ overruling the Old Law and becoming its fulfillment, in the teeth of His telling the Jews to their faces that no man comes to the Father but by Him, the People of the Book were taken into our society in huge numbers.
This is what happens when Christianity becomes Wordism
Brian reminds me that Whitaker Online began on September 12, 1998. For the first time, I will announce our WOL/BUGS anniversary on the right date instead of realizing it later.
I had been writing emails to a small group of people and one of them asked me to begin a blog for the Southern Nationalists. He got us started on the technical side, and there may have been fifty readers.
A good teacher learns more than his students do. I don’t think there is any other blog which has a tenth as much intellectual WORK in it as this one does. Everything has evolved, from my audience to my message to my whole approach.
If it were not so much against the political grain, the last twelve years could be the Montesque’s Essays of Blogdom, developing into the form of a modern blog just as the medium itself became general.
I can’t imagine anybody has learned as much from BUGS as I did developing it. As a graduate assistant in Political Science and then a professor of economics, I felt I had never really read the textbooks until I had to teach them.
The same is true of BUGS, on several levels.
The Southern Nationalist movement turned out to be a front for some Presbyterian theocrats, and it did the usual split. But I learned about blogs, and both sides in the split carried Whitaker Online, for which neither side ever forgave me.
All they were arguing about is ancient history. We are their only legacy, and it is one hell of a legacy.
In that long stretch of years, I couldn’t get my book out, surprise, surprise, it was a screed against the whole professorial class that tells people what to publish. One publisher took it on my credentials and then READ it, and then told me that they not only would not publish it, they were DESTROYING ALL CORRESPONDENCE relating to it!
There is such a thing as being TOO accurate!
I spoke at a New Orleans conference and found Stormfront. On Stormfront I was famous for cutting down the anti-whites but no one would use my arguments. That is the story of my life, so I used what I had, I EVOLVED what I had.
Twelve years down the road, we have a simple message and a group to spread it. Like supply and demand or Newtonian Physics, it sounds simple once you GET it. But the job of hammering it down and then slowly finding people who GET it has required thousands of hours of work by me, and even more by those who, for nothing but the Cause, did what I could not do.
It looks simple, in retrospect, but I have been a professional writer for many decades. One of the first things you learn about writing is that when a piece ends up looking so logical that the author just sat down and wrote what was on his mind, there is blood on the typewriter keys.
It is the easy flow of the professional writer that makes it look so easy. I don’t know how many people have said to me, “I can say things, but I can’t WRITE them” When a professional writer has rewritten his piece a dozen times, it is easy reading, it flows naturally, or LOOKS natural. Naturally people wonder why they can’t write exactly what they are thinking of exactly like that.
Gravity was around for billions of years when Newton came along. Everybody PRACTICED the economics of supply and demand for millennia, but nobody THOUGHT IT OUT until Adam Smith.
As In the development of WOL/BUGS, what you end up with looks like what you would have started with.
What in the hell has Bob been DOING for twelve long years?
Does anybody remember the term Party Line? It was invented and used exclusively and openly by the Communist Party for decades. A Croatian told me that the word for it in Communist Yugoslavia was “political rectitude,” political correctness.
The Part Line on June 21, 1941 was militant neutrality between the Allies and the Axis. On June 22, 1941 the Party Line became militant anti-Axis. That was the day Germany invaded the USSR.
The Croatian did not realize until I explained it to him that political rectitude is political correctness. In English the term “rectitude” is too old fashioned for common use, but not in Croatian.
In Croatian, “rectitude” is relatively new. It is a Latin word. It was adopted very early in the Latin using West but later in the Slavic world. So we use it, and translate it from Russian, as “correctness.”
English is as far as I know the only language which adopted the term “Party Line.” The reason for this is obvious to us older folk. A party line meant a telephone line that several people used. You couldn’t call while someone else on the party line was speaking, and it was famous for gossipers to listen in on.
Political Correctness was entirely a Marxist term because other religions have other words for the same thing, like “orthodoxy,” but of course the term “orthodoxy” would be poison to a Marxist.
So they wrote each other about what is translated as “political correctness” or “political rectitude” which is translated into English from those letters dating back into the Stalin period as “political correctness.” The interpretations are not fooled by the nature of that term, but respectable conservatives show the usual cowlike blank face when one points it out.
Liberals don’t choose pet conservatives to point out that political correctness is the same thing as the Party Line, though every translator knows it. Party Line makes their direct association with Marxism too obvious.
Political Correctness is the Party Line. When Moscow represented the Party Line on Strategic Defense against Reagan, Teddy Kennedy committed treason so blatant it was actually reported after his death that he allied with Andropov to defeat Reagan on it.
It was a desperate and carefully forgotten campaign which united the entire left against what Kennedy called Star Wars. All the way from Peking to Saturday Night Line to Superman the Nuclear Freeze was a titanic campaign.
Jay Leno even talked about how the comedians had been mobilized in the solid leftist front. It is a secret kept only by conservatives who want liberal approval.
No translator is fooled. Jay Leno, no conservative himself, was not fooled.
No, one must have one’s livelihood on the line to miss that obvious point
In the novel 1984, the all-powerful State went to the trouble of beating an arrested person down until he loved Big Brother.
THEN they shot him. But not before his mind was made pure. Not until he consented INTERNALLY.
And they said so.
The subject of Orwell’s novel asked them why, since they already had him on a death sentence for his speech and writings, they spent so much time and effort, even the time of a top Party member, torturing him and beating him down.
The senior Party member said that the essence of this horrendous tyranny was that they would not settle for outward conformity. They had to get IN the mind and make it consent.
The last words of the novel are, “He loved Big Brother.”
The essence of freedom is that one can be made to obey the laws, but not that you have to believe in them. An old hit song used to say, “You can’t arrest a guy for what he’s thinking.”
The 1964 Civil Rights Act brought an end to that. It said Federal aid was to be denied states that did not intend to integrate at the greatest speed they could manage. Anyone from a Southern State who did not guarantee that he was FOR integration risked sanctions, the least of which was the withdrawal of Federal aid, against its schools.
You won’t see this discussed anywhere else.
The Boston Southies were the only people I have ever met who had both a memory and a conscience. When I was up there handling their press relations, several of them told me that they had cheered when the Feds had enforced integration in the South.
Now the Southie’s children were being bussed. Now they understood what we were talking about.
What is unique is that THEY remembered it, that THEY brought it up.
They REMEMBERED it. They were ASHAMED of it. I have not run into such people since, and I had not before.
The star of MASH made a movie where he played a crusading liberal senator. A high point of the movie was when he exposed the fact that a Southern official had criticized integration in private conversation. The whole court said, “AAAH!”
When Senator McCarthy did that sort of thing it was condemned. Private opinions were sacrosanct. The fact that Robert Oppenheimer had only Communist friends was not to be used against him. You had to prove actual treason, not a mere admiration for Stalinists who were gobbling up the world.
The crime now is doing what I do, refusing to say that I have no concern whatsoever about the end of my own race.
Today the charge is “racism,” and racism means that you do not consent INTERALLY to the disappearance of your race. The last time we had that sort of demand for internal consent it was called the Inquisition.
Anti-whites are, literally, Thought Police.
In the 1950s anti-whites would insist my racist stance was because I was a provincial. They would point out that the world population was overwhelmingly non-white, so Americans could not afford to concentrate on saving the white race.
Regular as clockwork, I would say what nobody else ever said, “That is exactly the reason I am a segregationist.. If we don’t fight miscegenation our race will disappear.”
Then, regular as clockwork, they would go from me being a provincial to me being an alarmist. As Senator Edward Kennedy said in the debate over removing the national origins provisions from the Immigration Act, “If we are being overwhelmed, we’ll just change it.”
They laughed their asses off at me when I predicted in high school that Federal troops would be used to enforce integration. They laughed at the idea that the third world would pour in.
Even then I knew how weak Europeans were. If America set the standard, Europe would open its borders. But at a time when the fight was over one black entering a Southern University, the idea of hordes of non-whites pouring in was laughed at.
So here we are.
Our language was not sophisticated but it was dead accurate:
“Give a nigger an inch and he’ll take a mile.”
“Integration is like pregnancy. There’s no such thing as a little pregnancy.”
What scared me was the MENTALITY I saw behind the race-mixers.
They used to argue that all that was needed was little bit of integration, let black students attend white schools if they wanted to. The courts got rid of THAT right quick. But I was known as Federal Troops when I predicted in high school that the Feds would have to send Federal troops at us.
No one remembers any of that.
And no one ever reminds them.
I spoke the Mantra in my early teens.
Those who fight the Mantra lean heavily on their own provinciality. They say they are only advocating open borders and assimilation in the countries where they live, so it is not an attack on the white race.
Many a self-styled British Patriot has wrapped himself in his flag and said he loves anybody who is British, whatever their color. You have to recite that crap to get promoted in the US Army.
But nobody in Japan is required to insist that he is for open borders. Nobody in Singapore says the world is welcome there. It’s funny how the “Patriots” are in WHITE countries.
A commenter with good taste said he or she was getting a lot out of backbaygrouch, (BBG)‘s comments and asked if BBG had a blog a of his own. He does. It is the blog you are reading now.
Take it from me, it would be a lot of work for BBG to set up his own blog. And tiny blogs tend to get tinier. I don’t think anybody but a monomaniacal would want a columnist’s job of writing a new piece each day for free.
This is Dave’S and Simmons’ and Sheri’s blog, too. They do more writing here than most private bloggers do on their own sites.
This group’s comments on the daily article helps, but I get a lot of joy looking at General Comments IV. There we have BUGSers who are actually out there in the field, trying out sites and different approaches.
White Rabbit and Trucker Roy are out there TRYING it, not whining at the rest of us.
White Rabbit, who is out competing for a more general audience, kindly reports to me from time to time. I hope he is not disappointed in my lack of replies, but his reports show that he is going about it in the best way, so what’s to comment on?
White Rabbit is surprised to discover that his site is getting to be “hep” among a lot of young people. I’ve seen that before, as when the conservative movement grew up in the early sixties.
Those responsible for the growth of conservatism brought in young people because they didn’t do the same old bitching about balanced budgets conservative losers repeated endlessly to earn their salaries.
White Rabbit is trying out new approaches, each of them involving a lot of talent and practice. He found that his audience doesn’t grow if he hammers on one issue, so he sticks in Mantra Thinking a lot where he can fit it in.
Which is the way all professional media get their political message across. And it can only be done by practice and experimentation.
After seeing me rail endlessly at News and Jews, WR was almost apologetic in saying that he had found that news sells, so he uses a lot of it. He does that White Rabbit and gets young folks because, his readers say, he delivers hope with his news. His spin on the news gives young people hope and attracts them.
There is no way I will mix WR’s work up with the News and Jews obsessives on SF.
I wear the White Rabbit tee-shirt and act like a proud grandpa, “This is one of MAH granchillen.” The fact that the baby had three other grandparents never comes up, at least in my dialogue.
It is due to my efforts that WE have a blog. So when the commenter asked whether BBG has a blog of his own, it is a compliment to the success of BUGS that he does.
In a team effort, you don’t have to take anything from another team member to feel good about what YOU did to make it possible.
“YOU marry who YOU are in love with. Nothing else matters.”
I hear PREACHERS saying this, I hear priests saying this.
Tiger Woods would never marry a girl who looked the way his mixed-blood children would look. That is why it comes so often from the pulpit. It is today’s church morality.
They are actually saying that the only thing that counts in marrying is whether or not “Tammy’s in Love.” But nobody seems to notice how ludicrous this bald statement is.
I was picking up my wife at a beauty shop and a woman said, about miscegenation, “Looks don’t matter.” She was in the process of having a beauty treatment my wife couldn’t afford.
I said something like “So what are you doing HERE?” and she never spoke to my wife again.
The Wedding at Cana would not have been blessed by Jesus if the couple had not both been Jews. I have been to interfaith marriages, and the rabbi met the couple in the reception room. I knew a couple that looked long and hard and unsuccessfully for a rabbi in the whole Metropolitan Washington area to marry them.
If a woman marries a man who cannot take care of their children, the “I was in love” excuse is IMMORAL.
People are always puzzling over the collapse of the institution of marriage. But they never think about the hunger for miscegenation has trivialized it.
“You marry who YOU are in love with, Nothing else matters.” The children do not matter. In polls women always say they want good-looking children, but they also say it doesn’t matter what he LOOKS like.
The last time some wisdom was spoken on this subject was by Marilyn Monroe in Gentleman Prefer Blondes. She told the rich father, “No, a girl shouldn’t marry a man just because he is rich.”
“And a man shouldn’t marry a woman just because she’s pretty.”
“But my goodness, it HELPS.”
The song said, “Your Daddy is rich and your mama’s good-lookin’, so hush little baby, don’t you cry.” But the illiterate Mammy would have been to wise to say that all that matters is those two things.
If this requires explanation, I won’t be able to give it to you. To say that a union that bears children should depend entirely on how a man and woman FEEL about each other at the moment is insane.
And if you don’t say it, you’re a racist.