Archive for November, 2010
There was a very interesting comment which discussed “busses,” meaning people on whom other people depend. For example, a small business owner is a bus on which all his workers and his family ride.
They pay their fare, but the ride can’t take place without the “bus.”
There is a lot of talk about “precious resources,” which usually means semi-retarded kids society is supposed to dump money on so they can “be all that they can be.”
But a society that concentrates on a kinder and gentler conservatism or such like is to that extent taking its mind off its buses. In Asia the society concentrated entirely on fawning over old men who sat around and said Wise Stuff while children passed out with hunger all around them.
The Wisdom Busses of China were broken down, and the society had lots of Wisdom and stagnation.
America has had a zero growth rate for going on two generations for the first time in our history. As Asia starved and talked about Wisdom, America has stagnated and talked about Social Progress.
We have long since discovered that the Social Progress we derived from our ideas of Nature, a society without the class distinctions and territoriality caused only by man’s unnatural acts, is in fact the opposite of actual nature.
In fact, China threw out its Ancient Wisdom for Marxism, which is based precisely on the idea that all class distinctions and property and territoriality is artificial. Now China has found that that was as bad a Wisdom and is trading it in for capitalism and Social Progress.
In other words, as I suspect it has done for three thousand years, the Orient is adopting whatever it gets from Aryans.
China, by the way, is not even all that ancient. White India developed aquatic rice, the kind China is based on, and Aryan India developed the gurus, suspiciously like Chinese Wise Men, after the truly early Aryan invasions.
I’ve never seen any of this, especially the relationship of White India to China, discussed anywhere else.
But history’s bus always seems to comfort those “Scythians” or that series of “Northern invasions,” now called eastern invasion, that kept coming in the Middle East.
So who can be called the bus of history?
The Middle East?
Or those people nobody can trace who keep coming into history and causing its next stage?
Mensa, which is the Yiddish word for the German Menschen, is an organization you have to have a high IQ to enter. You may be familiar with the Nazi word Untermenschen, subhumans.
If a German organization called itself Menschen and limited its membership to high IQs the ADL would go berserk.
One thing that is noted by reporters covering Mensa meetings is that there is a fair sampling of blue collars and non-college grads there. Each of that fair sampling represents a far higher share of the high-IQ population, since very few workers or dropouts KNOW their IQ.
These are people intelligent enough to get through school and who hold responsible jobs, like repairing the subways all those college grads go to work in.
So if they are smart and if they are good workers, why couldn’t they make it in school?
I have told you here repeatedly that, if the University of South Carolina had not been the only institution of higher learning in America that let anybody in who made in the top quarter of the scores on the National College Entrance Exam — the old SAT — I would have been a high school drop out.
My grades were awful in high school. They also had a national test to compare students in high schools around the country as to how much they knew of the subjects they were taking or had taken. I ALWAYS got in the top five percent and often in the top one.
In fact, one teacher said I was quite a help in keeping Columbia High School high in the subject knowledge tests. In the course, she gave me a D.
It was general knowledge in the school that I was at the top of subject knowledge tests.
It never OCCURRED to anybody to be concerned as to why, if I knew the subject, I was making Cs and Ds.
I am not saying that no one could figure it out. I am saying that no one ASKED it.
I think we should label this a Mantra Problem. It goes in with not just understanding, but taking it for granted that no one in the education establishment is at all concerned as to why, if IQ scores were generally known, Mensa might have a majority of members who hold responsible jobs but lost out in the present school system.
A Mantra Problem is one which everybody knows about, everybody takes for granted, everybody may even take a moment to be amused at an example of it, but nobody THINKS about.
Many, many times I have taken on a whole roomful of people on race. Almost invariably someone came up to me and said they were on my side, often someone who had made themselves appear to be with the crowd.
Many of the pro-whites on Stormfront will be on line but would not take the side of someone who was fighting for us in the Opposing Views section which Lord Nelson tells us I helped depopulate.
The pro-whites who did not back us up usually claimed they don’t want to get into all that, or that the pro-white was doing OK without them or whatever else a shirker always says.
But I’ll tell you one area in which those pro-whites are not shirkers. If you point out where we are making progress, they will fight you every inch of the way, until dawn if necessary.
When it comes to arguing All Is Lost, no one has the kind of energy that defeatists on Stormfront have.
I was just informed that “A BUGster who is always on message” — quite a compliment, especially considering the source — had put the Mantra in his Facebook Profile and said, “The message is spreading and we are winning.”
They came down on him like an avalanche. No, not the anti-whites; the crowd that will fight to the death to say that they love our race but All Is Lost. I honestly believe they would take pills and stay up day and night to fight for All Is Lost until the ambulance came and took them away.
When Napoleon came back from his first exile and took Paris, one old British general went to a map and pointed at Waterloo. He said, “This is where he will be defeated.”
A lot of people thought he was a Prophet. He was probably thinking, “I’ve been in this damned war for over twenty years. But they’re astonished I know how it will go.”
I feel the same way, and a lot of you are beginning to. I didn’t spend all those years developing the Mantra and trying it out and then these years with Whitaker Online because I thought all was lost. I was hitting the flint for a spark that would catch, because I knew this spark could not be quenched once it caught a set of proponents like you.
And every inch of the way I battled those who want us to read their moans and groans in huge books and whose only goal was to have others to moan the Inevitable End with them.
First of all, let me say that I have been in this and related political wars for well over half a century. More important, I have WON some. Like the old British general, I an not a Prophet. I am just a bit surprised when someone doesn’t realize that I might have an idea by now of how these things go.
Not that long ago, I was fighting alone for the Mantra and the big voices on our side consisted almost entirely of Militant Defeatists.
You and I get sick to our stomachs when we see what I call “A Jewish Wet Dream,” a very black male with a very blond girl. Every other white and most blacks do, too. It is not uncommon to hear a black say “He’s too black for HER” when a black is out to get a mulatto.
What they are doing is not only wrong, it is sickening, and they have to have everybody agreeing that it is inevitable and you better take your Tums and like it.
Whites are not trying to sneak into brown countries. A black man who gets a white woman would never marry a person who looked like the daughters they will have. He is destroying what he is after. He is evil.
This is what they cannot allow anyone to SAY. It is a house of cards, and the Mantra hits at its base.
But those who sell tomes desperately do not want anyone to see that this is a house of cards. They want it to be something dramatic, an All Powerful Conspiracy of Geniuses only they truly understand.
Others of them are simply depressives, and this world view appeals to them because it is the ideal world of a depressive.
But the bottom line is that the world view they are fighting for is not TRUE. They will fight harder for defeatism than they ever would for our race. And many of them will hate you far more than they hate any anti-white.
I like to say I always wanted to be a real wit and I’m halfway there already.
The country is run by two sets of half-wits. Both sides say “Follow the money” but each follows half the money. Liberals are always talking about Big Business and Military expenditures but they never wonder about the titanic industries that taught them their own ideology.
Conservatives believe they are wiser about “the money.” They talk about land, labor, capital and management, but they never think of the biggest economic factor of all.
The minute you cross into Mexico you are in a place where the per capita income is, and always has been, a fraction of that of the United States. Is this land or labor or capital or management?
None of the above. It is the one thing a conservative cannot say and be respectable. I put it in a book in 1982.
Mexico is poor because its population is made up of MEXICANS.
If I were to give you a choice of places to invest, and I said “The only factor you have to go on is the color of the skin of most of the population,” where would you put your money?
And for all their exceptions and loud protestations that everybody is alike except for the Book they get their economic philosophy from, it will be an icy day in Hell before Forbes or any other conservative puts his money where his mouth is.
One of the basics that makes our society so irrational is that both sides are frustrated that they cannot get the other half to see the half that is obvious to them.
I was on the Education and Labor Committee staff on Capitol Hill. Conservatives told stories about the absurdity of OSHA, the agency that regulates safety at work sites. They got their complaints from employers. Democrats in general got their complaints from union officials and ideologues who declared their sympathy for The Working Class.
All I knew about work sites was the places I had worked and the working people I had talked to. On OSHA, I followed a course as simple as the Mantra and damned near as heretical. I wrote an amendment for John that required a cost-benefit, real accidents report on a work site before a regulation was passed.
Workers were stunned by this naiveté, but the only other choice was having no OSHA at all.
I worked on plants before the rules were made, and I was about the only conservative who didn’t oppose OSHA on principle. But OSHA was also the product of the other set of halfwits.
Follow the money. OSHA was part of those programs Mommy Professor naturally advocates as a way for Intellectuals and Idealists like themselves to run industry for the benefit of The Working Class. It was staffed accordingly, with budding intellectuals, not with the poor, simple-minded working class that they tell their students about.
There were some Democrats who actually had seen real live working people. We made changes, but the whole subject is so complicated and the results so partial that, believe me, you don’t want to hear about it and I am too tired to remember most of it.
But halfwits only see Capital, represented by corporation executives who come up through bureaucracy, and Labor, a bunch of people who must be protected, not least from themselves. Look at all those Wallace votes!
Millions of working people voted for Wallace, and no Democrat will ever admit that what he said should be listened to.
The years it took to get Republicans to get the Wallace vote, now known as Reagan Democrats, show that they had the same view of working people that their fellow country club members who were limousine liberals had.
A good example of the results of this kind of thing was OSHA. Either no OSHA or Mommy Professor’s OSHA.
The point is that the people in charge ARE half wits. But it is high time we stopped grieving over it and looked at WHY this is the case.
Some ex-hippies have told me in no uncertain terms that my impression that hippies were anti-white was wrong. I find that very easy to believe.
In the faraway 60s I was driving across the South with a young English girl. We were watching a live TV show where young people were asked if they thought long hair on males was bad. She guessed almost all of them would say no.
She was barely older than the youngsters who answered, but it was, as I had predicted to her, about ninety percent yes. She had nothing to guide her but the American media and American commentators.
The Wallace Youth was huge, but I never saw a single picture of them until Wallace was shot and his stalker’s picture was among those wearing Wallace Youth hats. I don’t remember ever seeing a picture of even one Nixon Youth.
But Leftist Youth was on television nightly.
All Youth, then as now, was radical left. That is the reason the information about “youth” was produced.
At Kent State, the average age of the rock-throwers was higher than the average age of National Guard units who fired on them. By the way, the entire national media absolutely declared that no rocks were thrown. Now that it doesn’t matter, they admit it freely.
As Al Capp said, “It doesn’t take a college education to know that the easiest way to get yourself killed is to throw rocks at armed men.”
When the TV news interviewed students about the integration of the University of South Carolina, which had been delayed until me and my group left the school, one guy yelled, advocated violence, the whole bit.
Everybody knew that in this random sampling of student opinion, he would be left out. He was a student and he gave no doubt he had an opinion, but everyone assumed that it would be edited out. I like to go into that with people, precisely because they took it for granted.
When someone edits out offensive language, the decision is looked at closely. But we have become so accustomed to neatly trimmed news that we never THINK about the implications.
As one BUGS commenter put it, censorship is more about what is left out than about what is left in.
If that guy had been a LEFTIST radical screaming for violence, CBS would have featured him as “youthful dissent.” But I had to stick that under people’s noses to get them to NOTICE what they took for granted.
But this sort of unnoticed truth is what makes the world what it is. Not Conspiracies, not Big Money, but simply what the media are comfortable with.
It is important for me to repeat that right after the 1980 election, the media didn’t KNOW any of the people in the new Administration below Secretary level. They even put ME on the front page of the New York Times because my quotes were too good to leave out!
It took them a year to find out who was nice and who wasn’t. Can you imagine any other media in the developed world that wouldn’t even have a passing acquaintance with people who just took over in a landslide?
Compared to what is coming, Reagan was very, very mild.
The media won’t mention us until we are at their throats.
National Review had a lead article about how weak Republicans were in the aftermath of Watergate, and how liberals were prevented from imposing a socialist program during that period.
During that period I was on Capitol Hill, I was working with National Review publisher Bill Rusher, and I wrote two major political books. My boss John Ashbrook led a tiny group that stopped congress in its tracks repeatedly.
I have only mentioned that I saved the space telescope because that was only me doing it and that issue is more easily explained, though it involves a knowledge of Appropriations Committee membership, the primacy of the Subcommittees, and other things that most congressional staff is not really familiar with.
And, incidentally, I was also writing a few articles for National Review.
The reason I scanned the article was to see if there was a single incident or person in the article that I recognized.
This is routine, it is as I expected, but if you haven’t spent your whole life in the guts of this business you might start thinking some of Conspiracy to Hide History was under way.
National Review was doing what every magazine does when it deals with history or any other subject. The writer wasn’t going into history to find out what happened. The article wasn’t featured because of some sudden interest in the political history of the late seventies.
As every writer who wants to eat regularly learns, the piece was aimed at making a point about NOW. It was written for a respectable conservative magazine to show that respectable conservatism worked then and is the only true faith now.
There wasn’t a lot of room in today’s NR for the fact that unrespectables were taking over and going for the “Wallace” vote, that a few congressmen, in the teeth of respectable opposition, were using hard ball to stop the congress in its tracks and keeping congress sitting extra days to force items off that the huge Democratic majority in both houses and the White House put in.
So a writer ignores the reality. He also avoids the John Ashbrooks. He avoids the influence of George Wallace. It is obvious that this puts him in Never-Never Land, but the reason the article appears is to serve the purposes of a publication trying to survive in 2010.
I am simply not naïve enough to expect any such an article to overlap with reality a generation ago. I am not only aware that information is produced for a reason, I assume it.
You would think that a man who was in the middle of things in a major historical battle would find any discussion of it at least worth reading. But if you have long since learned that information is produced for a reason, you know that the article is a repetition of what the magazine says in all the things it chooses to publish.
Any source of information survives by putting out what helps it survive. A lot of people are constantly enraged at this. I take it for granted because the simple, basic rule, “Why is this information produced?” makes this, not a conspiracy, but a matter of course.
When people talk about big happenings, they want big causes. When Kennedy was shot, no one wanted to attribute that to one lone nut job, especially a Communist nut job.
That is a major reason conspiracy theories flourished.
That is what makes BUGS so hard to sell. No one wants to hear that the historical catastrophes we have seen were the result of simple causes. No one wants to hear that all that complicated talk about race relations just comes down the Final Solution to the White Problem.
I just wrote a piece here about how television was monomaniacally New York-centered from the history of granting licenses. The average person who hobbies in politics would say that is a cute observation and go on to Big Stuff.
In big historical events, people associate realism with Big Stuff. Reality is not made of Big Stuff. Reality has a lot of Big Stuff, medium stuff, and tiny stuff. The catch is that when you talk about the little stuff, like TV programming, very few people want to hear about it.
Which means their picture of the world is completely unreal. If a plane goes down, it may be the result of a terrorist plot or it may be a tiny piece of defective equipment like the one that knocked out all power in the entire Northeastern United States for hours in the 1960s.
If that happened today a dozen books would come out showing it was Arabs.
The article about early New York provincialism in TV programming was written to DEMONSTRATE the truth that no one is as provincial as a rube who thinks he’s sophisticated.
The rule here is that you don’t reach reality by searching for excitement. You could have talked yourself blue about Arab Terrorist Plots or some other Great Conspiracy causing that Blackout, but the fact is that the blackout would have continued until you replaced that one little switch.
Our movement can get lots of membership with News and Jews. But it will get nowhere until it gets to the basics.
I have spent over a decade trying to get them to change that one switch. I will probably literally die trying.
There was a period in the history of TV when it was not only a monopoly of New York City, it was when no one understood you if you said “New York provincial.” At that time “barbarian” and “sophisticated” had exactly the meaning a college graduate is trained in.
To say a New Yorker was not sophisticated was exactly like saying the Pope is not Catholic.
Only big cities had TV stations. Then the FCC gave out no more for years. The TV licenses were, of course, “free,” meaning the public got no money for these enormously valuable pieces of public property.
Nobody in South Carolina could get TV without an enormous antenna tower aimed at Charlotte. Tiny, broken-down houses would have a sixty-foot piece of metal sprouting out of their roofs. This was so familiar to most of the country that Saturday Evening Post had a cartoon of an outhouse with a huge tower on it.
There was no caption. There didn’t need to be.
Finally the moratorium on licenses was lifted. Columbia got three stations almost simultaneously.
There was an immediate catastrophe in popular programming. Molly Goldberg went under. Milton Berle went under. A guy Murray’s program, sponsored by Manischewitz wine, went under. The whole program list went under.
But the network programmers, responsible for billions of 1950s dollars, learned not a thing from this. Almost every show was placed in New York.
These are the Geniuses Who Control Everything and Never Make A Mistake. The Learned Elders must have been on acid during that period.
TV Guide, almost the country’s only politically conservative magazine, pointed this out in a cover article about 1964, which I remember well. It was a breakthrough. It pointed out that New Yorkers still referred to the territory between New York and Los Angeles as “flyover country.”
That article talked about the giant money losses networks were sustaining by their Big City fixation. By “losses” I mean the media monopoly made less money than it could have.
We are not talking chickenfeed here. These were some of the country’s top executives, and not entirely by cheating.
Being provincial is routine. But for top executives to lose billions of dollars by being provincial demonstrates that there is no one as provincial as a rube who thinks he’s sophisticated.
A large part of our age is explained by rubes who thought they were becoming city slickers by adopting the Little New Yorker mentality.
Lord Nelson impressed the hell out of me with his reaction to a criticism I made of him. It has been discussed here a number of times.
Lord Nelson had slipped into the habit of saying that white countries were “being overwhelmed” by immigration. So he was not criticizing our established religion’s Holy of Holies, assimilation.
He didn’t realize this. He just found that for some reason this argument was easier, so he continued it.
“Being overwhelmed” keeps you from criticizing interracial marriage, so it makes things easy.
I pointed out to him why he was having such an easy time of it.
What really impressed me was that the moment I mentioned it, Lord Nelson said he was glad I had.
No ego trip, no “but I was sort of right,” just an immediate change of course and sincere thanks to me for setting him straight. THAT was the lesson of the event.
Lord Nelson just did the same thing for me Here’s his comment:
“I do get it Coach.
We are in effect dealing with a faith based belief system. Which is basically how you define a religion. I also understand your comments about the inbred stupidity of academia. It’s a very important point too!
Just a detail point. We should start to refer to ourselves as ‘Pro-Whites’. Not as WN’s or even BUGSers. It’s an important piece of propaganda. If we call ourselves ‘Pro-Whites’ then anyone who stands against us is by default, an Anti-White.
Just like all the best propaganda, this also happens to be TRUE!
In the particular subject we deal in (White Genocide) there is no middle ground. You are either Pro-White, or Anti-White. We are Pro-Whites. And we really need to start calling ourselves exactly that. We have started to use the correct term of Anti-White to label our enemies. Now to really hammer that label home. We must always refer to ourselves as PRO-WHITES!”
Lord Nelson was very deferential, but the point is I was WRONG.
One of my big crusades on SF was to make our people call our enemies, not “antis,” but anti-WHITES.
But I have not been practicing the consistency I was demanding.
So Lord Nelson pointed it out. And I want to prove that I am as good a pro-white as he is.
He is a man with good upbringing. He shows diffidence to the old man in making this correction.
But the fact is that I was dead wrong. From now on pro-white is what it is and I am sincerely grateful to the Admiral for calling me on it.
In this battle for survival, our egos don’t mean a damned thing.
I have never seen any evidence that anybody ever actually thought the world was flat.
The reason we don’t see what shape people thought the world was is because it was information that one would produce. It takes a LOT of leisure before one begins to talk about things like that.
Such information is not produced and it is not preserved. We try desperately to hook our history to that of Rome, but again, one of the most basic aspects of Rome is totally unnoted.
Rome kept records only of itself. They kept Greek records because of their claim to have come from the Trojan War, but otherwise they kept NOTHING. Yes, they did ignore all the languages of the “barbarians,” but they also ignored the Etruscans, who were once their kings and from whom they actually did get a beginning of their knowledge of building.
The only Etrurian title we know of now is “chief builder of bridges.” That is because it was a title given to the top man in Etruscan Rome, it was adopted as a title by the Emperors, and now is known as Pontifex Maximus, one title the Pope has.
The point is not the accuracy of that observation. The point is that we have NO survival of anything Etruscan despite the fact that the titanic record keeping capitol of Rome was built there.
Just as it is assumed that all earlier people thought the earth was flat, it is assumed they were illiterate. As a matter of fact, the first thing any Jehovan faith does is burn all writings.
In my youth, no one had any difficulty with the idea that the only writing Nordic peoples had was on rock.
Nobody knew of anything but advanced writings etched into rock. Pretty good, to learn how to etch rock without ever having any place to do your learning. No destructible writings were found, so it was assumed they didn’t exist.
Destroying writing is serious business for Jehovans. We do know that when Islam took over Iran, its native script was abolished for Arabic script, as was every other native script. Today, we all know that Yiddish is a simple form of German, you can actually understand Yiddish if you speak Afrikaans
But Yiddish is written in Hebrew script.
When Christianity took over Egypt hieroglyphics was still Egyptian writing. The last hieroglyphic writing dates to about the fourth century.
The Romans outlawed the uniting factor of Celtic society, the Druids. If the Romans didn’t leave a shred of Etruscan writing except on tomb walls, what do you think they would do to Druidic writing?
So we all assume the Druids wore robes, totally alien to their society, and that they had large organized seminaries but no writings.
This information is worth producing because it demonstrates that all real knowledge, the world is round, writing, so forth is entirely the product of those who own the Books today. It is one with the idea that we wouldn’t have the electron microscope today if a Greek philosopher had not argued with Aristotle about whether the substance of a thing changed if it were cut down to its irreducible size, what ancient Greeks called the atom.
We have learned in the last generation that animal society is NATURALLY much like our own, and that our society is NATURALLY different from what all forms of Wordism tell us. As real history is dug out, we may have to cope with the reality that literacy was much more general, and that our real legacy from Egypt, Rome, and the Jehovan faiths is bigotry.
I talked before about the guys who wear their paper hats when they’re seventy and brag about their War Against Racism.
What they are demonstrating is that they haven’t had a life since.
I knew that my boss, John Ashbrook, spent three or four years in the Navy.
I didn’t know until twenty years after his death that, as a young Navy man, he was on a polar expedition with Admiral Byrd.
I had done a lot of research on him. I knew all there was to know about his father, who had been a conservative Democratic congressman. But his Polar trip just never came up.
Why should it? John died mysteriously when he about to win the Republican primary and was leading Senator Metzenbaum in the polls. I went to his funeral, but he didn’t. The police were still examining his body.
In other words, we had hell of a lot to talk about, and he had more to do than run around in a paper hat.
My uncles, who were with the marines in the Pacific, never said a WORD about it, and I must have talked to them a thousand hours over the years.
I was at a meeting to keep the Confederate flag over the South Carolina Capitol. I remember one of he guys talking about an old guy who wouldn’t commit himself. Someone said something about old guys and he replied, “No, he’s not one of the World War II crowd.”
I quote that because I remember it as a specific quote, and it showed that a lot of people besides me were aware that the World War II Generation was the Tough Guy Back Down Generation.
They would say things like, “I fought a WAR. I don’t want to get mixed up in little crap like this.” They backed away from any fight for principle, but they did it as Tough, Experienced Types.
They couldn’t be cowards, you see. They had had on costumes and one in three of them had heard a hostile shot fired. They watched the John Wayne movies and decided they were heroes.
As I said, when people like Carleton Coon parachuted into North Africa or John Ashbrook went to the Antarctic, it just never came up. Marines in the Pacific didn’t talk about it.
But now that I am not in one crisis or another day after day, things like this are falling place for me. I, too, was a bit too busy to philosophize. BUGS makes it possible for me to do so.
It has often been said that Communism is the bastard child of Christianity. But they don’t THINK about it.
The advantage of keeping it firmly in mind that Political Correctness is our established RELIGION is that one remembers that a bastard inherits just as many of its parents’ characteristics as legitimate children.
Since Paul screamed that no one should associate with fornicators, just as Temple priests told Jesus he should not eat with the tax gatherers, we have seen everything connected with reproduction as evil.
Please note I said reproduction, not sex. The reason that Paul hated sex was because Satan was King of This World. This world was going to end and the next world would belong to God, which is why Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world.”
Communism and Political Correctness simple change the date and nature of the Arrival of the Kingdom. You always know a person is Marxist when he refers to Communist states as “socialist,” because for him to call any country communist world be exactly the same as a Christian declaring any country to be Heaven.
Heaven or True Communism, in the eyes of each respective faith, will arrive in its own time, and any specific time or place is regarded as heresy by both religions.
Theologians are always upset when one claims that the New Testament says what it says: that Jesus simply got it wrong when he said the world was about to end. The Christianity Industry pays very little attention to anything Jesus said that doesn’t fit in, so they forget that Jesus himself told his disciples that he did not know the time of the end of the world.
One after another, specific prophecies were made about the End of Days, and each is faithfully recorded. He said that there were people listening to him who would see the Day. Saint Paul believed The Day was always eminent.
This makes me feel a bit better about Paul, since, if he had known we would be here two thousand years later he would not have demanded that the entire population be psychologically spayed or neutered.
The established religion of today says that its predecessor was fanatical about sex. That is what the old religion did, in fact, degenerate into. Its leaders did not understand Paul’s Zoroastrian influence, as a sophisticate in a time when Zoroastrianism was a bigger religion than Christianity or even Hellenic Jewry with its six million adherents.
So Christianity and Communism are of one mind when it comes to genes. We know that there will be future generations, but, along with Paul, we have a two thousand year old sewed-in morality that says that talking about genetics is Evil. This fact is avoided by talking about attitudes on sex itself.
Stalin wiped out the Medicogenetical Institute of Moscow because it showed a vast identical twin study saying heredity was more important than environment. He then adopted Lysenko’s Politically Correct theories. There was no such thing as human heredity.
This was adopted from Christianity. The early socialists put genetic planning in with economic planning. But Christianity had had it right. The welfare of the next generation is a waste of money that could be spent on the Spreading of the Faith or on God’s Work, aka, pocketed by priests or commissars.
Genetics is, in fact, considered dirty by both faiths.
So we take it for granted in Political Correctness.
In a world whose education, economy and morality is to be supervised to the last inch, Political Correctness would make reproduction as free as the market under Ayn Rand. This represents what we call Both Sides, since Christianity still demands the spayed and neutered doctrine in Paul,
But the old religion no longer depends on the Final Days. The last gasp of that was probably in the panic of the year 1000 AD.
Absolute refusal to adopt any form of genetic morality is useful, because concern for future generations doesn’t do the churches or Mommy Professor any good.
The spayed or neutered morality is deep in our cultural roots, or more accurately, in our religious roots.
When the Plague hit Europe, they did exactly what they do today. A plague victim would cough up blood. Blood would be in their urine and come out of their noses.
So they were bled.
What do Europeans do, including the Northeast, Canada, Australia and the like, when they have an incident where a nut fires on an UNARMED crowd, killing as many as he likes?
They punish themselves by making sure that no one in the unarmed crowd is armed.
We all know about the Flagellants, who tried to end the plague by doing more of what didn’t work. The Church said the plague was the result of Sin, so they did what an Idealist today would do, they whipped themselves bloody through hundreds of miles.
None of this is new, and I get restless every time I hear someone talking about Traditional Values. One seemingly intelligent email writer said in passing that I was a “conservative,” clearly not realizing what a nasty insult that was.
Conservatives want to oppose the present regime based on sick guilt and get back to an older regime based on sick guilt. When someone sees how silly this is I’ll be waiting out in the hall.
Then the retarded turkeys talk about he Renaissance. Then they talk how silly the doctors were. But the doctors were silly BECAUSE they stuck to the books the Renaissance was supposed to have got Enlightenment from. They bled plague victims because Galen said to.
Modern medicine did not come from the Arabs, as people who think they know history say. It came from US.
The germ theory of disease was well developed among Europeans in the seventeenth century, but had not been thought of by any other group of doctors. John Astruc, physician to Louis XIV, expressed the official reaction to it:
“There are some, however, whom I forbear now to spend Time in imputing, such as Augustus Hauptman and Christian Langius, who think that the Venereal Poison is nothing else but a numerous School of little nimble, brisk, invisible living things, of a very prolific Nature, which when once admitted, increase and multiply in Abundance: which lead frequent Colonies to different Parts of the Body and inflame, erode, and…
But as these are mere visionary imaginations, unsupported by any Authority, they do not require any argument to invalidate them…if it was once admitted, that the Venereal Disease could be produced by invisible living things swimming in the blood, one might with equal reason alledge the same Thing, not only of the Plague, as Athanasius Kircher, the Jesuit, formerly, and John Saguens, a Minim, lately have done but also in the smallpox, Hydrophobia, Itch, Tetters, and other contagious Diseases and indeed of all Distemper whatsoever; and thus the whole Theory of Medicine would fall to the Ground, as nothing could be said to prove the Venereal Disease depending upon little living things which might not be urged to prove that all other Diseases were derived from the like little living things though of a different species, than which nothing can be more absurd.”
Look at the list of doctors, cited merely as examples, who were for the germ theory and who knew bleeding was stupid, two hundreds years before Lister or Koch were supposed to have been the first to even imagine such a thing.
The only Authority who could have made a difference was Galen or one of the other Glorious Renaissance writers Mommy Professor still insists brought the Wisdom of Mankind to the West.
Every part of modernity that works was probably as general as germ theory. But the above quote is from a 1928 history of medicine. You will see it nowhere else.