Archive for March, 2011
Now that the KGB files have been open for twenty years, we know that about every single person Senator McCarthy called a Communist has a KGB file describing exactly what he did for the Soviets against the US.
Please note that not mentioning things like this is more than the natural reaction of a media that was dead wrong. It is not merely a natural ideological response. The Silence is as much a strategy as is Radio Silence in war.
I am not be the only person who remembers those KGB files. I may not be the only one who remembers that the Berlin Wall was just one part of the wall around ALL Communist states as a fugitive slave measure. Every time I mention one of these phenomena, outraged protests come from others who REMEMBER these things.
But not one of them can cite an occasion where he MENTIONED them. This is more important than any claim of mine.
As I say, even those we ally with remain dumb fixtures of THEIR society.
The way one becomes a respectable conservative with a paycheck is, above all, to maintain Radio Silence.
Fox had a hugely advertised expose of Israeli spying in the US. It lasted one show.
Then something happened straight out of George Orwell. Instead of saying the series had been suspended or that it was “controversial,” which is the only reason leftists needs to ban anything, Fox simply stated, “This series no longer exists.”
That was a signal to the few Americans who even remember what freedom of speech outside Mommy Professor’s rules WAS. In an America before the Weakest Generation it would have caused a flurry, a groundswell, of defiance.
There would have been QUESTIONS: WHY does this series no longer exist.
All the Conspiracy nut jobs insist that all of Fox is just like everybody else because they couldn’t let an A-Bomb go off if it wasn’t in their book. Any other announcement of sinking under Israel Lobby pressure would have been smooth as silk. No other media would start such a series in the first place.
But when one tries to explain signals and subtleties to our side, you forfeit most of your audience.
You watch, for the thousandth time, when somebody says Hitler was only a bad guy because he was SOCIALIST. I kid you not, that saying anything good about Laurel and Hardy showed you were a homo because they were just a secret ad for queers.
Trying to explain subtleties to the old League of the South group, which was heavily populated with fundamental Calvinists, was tiptoeing through a mine field. But just about any group that could sympathize with what I had to say had been trained in an endless list of detailed historical plots, a minefield I got awfully tired of walking through.
So if I criticize BBG’s church or refuse to list the Jewish names connected with what I am talking about, remember that I consider the minefield crowd enormously dispensable.
The minefield crowd is the reason I remember at least one vicious fight a year inside organizations, and why antiestablishment groups almost invariably rip themselves to pieces.
The minefield type is not welcome here. Any group that allows them into it is headed for self-destruction.
When I say something the Catholic Church did badly, BBG has a civilized, friendly reply, and he could recite me a list of Church mistakes that I never heard of.
The same is true of other commenters who FIT in BUGS. Each one is expected to have a point of view. I am teaching a way of looking at the world, not a doctrine.
So if one is capable of walking out if any of us makes comments he doesn’t like, let me assure that that person is liability from the word Go, and over fifty years of experience have taught me that you should dump those explosives and let them go off in somebody else’s face.
General Comments Archives
It is routine for anti-whites to accuse us of hate. Only BUGS doesn’t have to bother with that because we start out with an attack on their real hate which is aimed directly at the first world-wide genocide program in history.
But we all know that if somebody says something good about whites, he is on the edge of being a racist.
If any man says something good about men, he is routinely called a sexist.
If an American says something good about America, he had better hurry and talk about the bad side.
We pay teachers and professors billions each year to denounce whites, males, America, and, like O’Reilly, anybody whose ancestors drove back the Indians and Mexicans and all the rest and made this a safe place for the O’Reillys and Jews and all the rest of the Ellis Island crowd to immigrate to when the struggle was over.
In return, the Ellis Island Museum tells us all how awful our ancestors were to the sweet little Indians. Now we are required to say the same things to get through Middle School, much less college.
While we talk incessantly about the big money the SPLC rakes in, we don’t make the connection between groups like SPLC and the Holocaust Industry and how they naturally lead to other hate groups. I was a lot to closer to this whole thing since I made my living in the middle of the Cause Industry.
If you wanted to get money for a comfortable life and a good retirement before the Weakest Generation took over, you found a demand in the market and you supplied it. It was Prohibition that made a market for a new industry, illegal liquor.
Prohibition opened a market for an industry which, by definition, had to be an illegal industry. We created the demand and the exact people filled any idiot would expect would fill it: Criminals. Today the Drug War fulfills exactly the same function.
We all have at least hard about facts like these. What we do NOT hear about is that every new hate industry, like the civil rights movement which never hesitated to align itself with white hatred for the very EXISTENCE of the white race, creates a demand for another way to hate yourself.
So new self-hate factories spread over the land. The movie “The Happening” had the True Scientist shouting, “Mankind was a Threat to the Planet!!!”
As with the white race, since people wouldn’t disappear for the good of the planet, they could exist as little as possible.
But, as with the white race, the complete end of the existence of humans would be ideal.
Agencies of the British Government have been publishing recommendations for whites to have less children. It pointed out that an Ethiopian child produces about one half percent as much Global Warming output as a white child does.
But anyone seeing this will realize that NO people at all produces even less Evil
And if you follow the money, you will see this logic pursued relentlessly, not for idealism, but as a matter of hard cash.
Nowadays if you are white, you will have a hell of a time getting a good job out of the going hate movements. So the whites go out and create their own small businesses inside the Self-Hate Industry.
So we praise every species of worm and blame every human for breathing. Everybody in a specialty branch of the Self Hate Industry gives the impression that he would be glad to stop breathing, but he must keep breathing for the Cause.
Stokeley Carmichael is the only “black leader” I know of who moved to Africa to help blacks. Every other “black leader” finds it absolutely necessary that HE personally stay, not only in the Evil White Man’s Territory, but in the wealthier neighborhoods thereof.
One absolutely essential trait for a respectable conservative is that he insist that each and every leftist leader is fine and sincere person. They won’t mention the Self Hate Industry anymore than they will mention the Berlin Wall that surrounded every single Communist state, right through today.
Nobody is going to mention the Self Hate Industry, which is a major foundation of all political thinking and policy, until Mantra Thinkers are ready for it.
I feel a bit like Horatio at the Bridge must have felt like when his comrades finally joined him there. General Comments VI is pouring in new experiences and new approaches in the exact area where I spent so many years knocking down the enemy while no other pro-whites would join in.
The thing was, it was a standing joke how quickly I could take an anti-white apart.
They thought it was great.
They smiled when I confronted one of the anti-whites, but they smiled as if I was some kind of freakishly talented boxer rather than having any methods they could use. I forget when I was introduced to Stormfront, but it was at a New Orleans convention, you know, back when we had some freedom of assembly, in the 90s.
I had formalized the Mantra by then after many, many years. As one commenter noted, I almost destroyed the once-huge Opposing View section with the Mantra. For me, this was history repeating itself. I had had the same problem for decades trying to get conservatives to abandon that middle of the road crap and that getting the black vote crap.
All this I have been through before. What I would like to express to you is how it feels, after decades of fighting uphill, to suddenly have you out there DOING THE JOB. It makes me a bit dizzy.
After all these years of winning fights while the only response I got from my own side was theory about “what is the best approach,” when practically nobody who theorized had actually done any approaching but me, now we have people already developed at my level out there reporting back what they DID, not what they would theoretically do if they engaged a hypothetical anti-white, or, as they called them, an “anti.”
One of our Comments VI commenters put one part of it beautifully:
That is , unlike The Stormfronters in the Opposing Views section, who always started out by trying to prove they weren’t really “racists,” or “evil,” or whatever other verbal trap the anti-whites enmeshed them in, we go in calling THEM anti-whites.
CONSISTENTLY calling them anti-whites. A commenter called me into line when I failed to be consistent on the term “anti-white,” and you can’t imagine what a thrill it is, after decades of trying to spoon some of this into a few isolated SFers, to have one of my own people call ME down about it!
It was WONDERFUL!
And another new experience for me is that some people who have actually been ENGAGING THE ENEMY come back to Comments VI to describe a problem they ran into, an argument they had some trouble with.
After all these years of pure frustration, and you know how that wears on you, I don’t have to say a word. Several others of our team deal with the question!
What I want to get across to you is the sheer joy I experience when you get in there and knuckle it out and then come back here and THINK about it and go back in. I express all my earlier frustration, not to show off how tough I am, but to get you to feel some of the excitement, the RELIEF, the JOY of watching you sic the bastards and doing so as a learning experience so you can sic the bastards harder.
This is not just opposite to all my earlier experience, it feels like a miracle.
I have gotten used to all the bad parts, the frustration, the lack of any respect for approaches that really hit the enemy. I expect every old general who has done his best in a couple of wars has inured himself to that sort of thing especially if the poor bastard was a Frenchman.
What is unique is not my Sufferings. You get plenty of that from Jews.
What is unique is the experience I am experiencing right now, watching my gung-ho and smart operatives go in there and take what I tried so hard for so long — and failed — to get a few others to do.
Kelso is always amazed at all the pro-whites he regards as demigods whom I knew personally and worked with. Yes, I knew them all. I am honored to be a living link to our past heroes.
But, if you look at it from MY point of view, you see there is something I have missed in all the decades since then. Those were years of my youth in which I could look UP to the Carleton Coons and Carleton Putnams and Henry Garretts and learn from them and depend on them.
It HURTS when they die out and you find yourself trying to convince all the big names in the anti-Communist and pro-white camp to simply show some SMARTS!
What I want to share with you is the sheer joy, a joy I thought was dead, of learning from YOU.
To me, Comments I through VI or VII or wherever you go is a kind of joy I never thought to experience again, but more intense. I only go into my bad experiences to try to get you to understand what a unique JOY this is.
Thank you, Comrades.
Get out there and win another one for the Gipper.
Surely there are some among our thousands who think that Bob came up with all this stuff from sheer genius, like the gods who sprang straight from the head of Jupiter.
My poor Ego, which has suffered one constant beating since I was born the fifth of five children seventy years ago, begs me to tell those who have the idea that I am some of demigod to PLEASE keep on thinking so, and not to read this article. The poor thing has taken a lot of beatings, back to my older siblings and a football coach who used to yell out, when I did something stupid AGAIN, “Feel around you, Whitaker, maybe you’re still in bed!”
Then there was Washington, DC.
Nonetheless, I just came up with an idea for the Mantra that one would think would have occurred to a Mantra Thinker, not just The Great Genius Himself, long ago.
In discussion, the problem is to change the focus of the discussion from “I have no problem with a black man marrying a white woman” to the whole world view of which that is a part.
Now that we have a critical mass of people to try it out, may I suggest you TRY, “That is a very provincial point of view.”
Now the last thing on earth someone repeating this Politically Correct crap ever considers is that he is being Provincial. That is his main point of pride against us, that WE are a bunch of hillbilly throwbacks. You might get some shocked silence from calling them that in which you can explain, rather than ram in, the Mantra.
In some cases, you may get deep interest, since no one has ever heard an anti-white called “provincial” before, and the rest of what you say may be interesting.
I am wondering whether I should go ahead and anticipate how different the discipline may be for you not to allow them to get off the point when you use this sneak punch on them. Reading Comments VI I am often reminded that some of you have become better at this toe-to-toe and snout-to-snout battle than I am.
After all, you have done what the Mantra normally avoids. You have introduced another subject besides “ALL white countries and ONLY white countries” into your attack. They could try to switch the debate to the definition of “sophisticated.”
But I doubt it. These people have NEVER had ANYBODY argue against them, so they are usually too stunned to deal with the stated Mantra. But the problem is that a whole different world view is hard to get time to STATE.
If a regular opponent — which you shouldn’t have unless your debates give you an audience — does come up with this, you can lightly disavow the claim to sophistication and say that is a point of view larger than just an individual country or an individual marriage. But if some of you actually TRY this, you will develop your battle formation better than you will by taking ANYBODY’S untried theoretical talk — even that of Bob Hisself — as your guide.
This is the first time I have developed a possibly very important strategy and had the luxury of leaving it to YOU to try out. I want reports on it from YOU in action, not you in theory.
It seems to me that, when a group is talking and someone gives some version of “multicultural” talk or the standard line on they do not mind interracial marriage, someone who simply said, “That is a very provincial point of view,” might often get a complete silence and interest that will give him the chance to hit them with some more, instead of trying to jam the whole Mantra in at one go.
When George Wallace was running for president in 1968, the proud Governor of Alabama got a ten thousand dollar check from John Wayne. It came with a very short note:
“Sic ‘em, George!”
So I am proud to present this far overdue strategy to you with the words:
“Sic ‘em, BUGS!”
I did not write the introduction to me that is on our web page. I did add the part about me being divorced and wildly attractive but the rest came to me whole.
This is kind of thing I love, when our people just DO it and it’s GOOD.
There is a tough line between telling people you know what you are doing and bragging. Some of my stuff on this is either confused or disgusting either way. Then the writer of the summary gave me the perfect way to put it: “Bob Whitaker has been there and done that.”
Lord knows, NOBODY would deny THAT!
And it is an important description.
H. Avenger sometimes complains about how uninvolved I am, but he is the great example of someone who took the torch and runs with it. That’s what I’m AFTER.
But the fact, I AM involved. Writing this stuff is WORK. My development of ideas has gone on steadily as this writing has continued.
I am telling you here what the future is likely to be, but with me, the Future is not a Doctrine, it is a human prediction, and it takes a LOT of thought.
Four thousand articles in twelve years (Thanks, BBG!) requires a LOT of work. In those years, my audience has changed. Then I had to write for a tiny, largely theocratic Southern Nationalist audience.
Only I can see the real change! Try to imagine the terminology we used back then. Almost every paragraph I write contains a term that any other audience would need at least an article to understand. And far more than half of that terminology was developed HERE.
I am working very hard. My predictions are often astonishingly correct, but that is because I am just about the only writer about the Future whose only purpose is to BE right, not to appeal to an audience.
A professor in a real seminar is SUPPOSED to learn as much as his students do.
H. Avenger, who has not only got us thousands of readers and reaches more people than we do, but who got our entire site makeover done. He knows I’m tired and I’m on disability. He is just making it clear that I would be welcome to join in more.
My time and effort is budgeted. A lot of interviewers have given me an open invitation.
But all my time and thought should be HERE now. You have gone so far at picking up my whole system of thought that commenters are way past the stuff I had to devote articles to introducing in earlier years thorough the land mines of touchy people.
This is my golden opportunity. I EARNED it in fifty-five years of being there and going through that in the frustration YOU are now familiar with. Two heart attacks and two nervous breakdowns later, I am not an abandoned old man who was right, but I can think and speak freely HERE with intellectual peers.
This is a real Seminar, the first one in a generation, and every bit of energy I spend elsewhere has to come out of this, my real work.
I am writing and I am reading your comments and that is what I SHOULD be doing.
You can sure tell when a pro works on something the way our pros redesigned BUGS.
One thing I want you to understand is that I have no idea who the pros were, and this makes a very happy old trooper.
I have spent my whole life on the very, very front line or on the edge, but not because I enjoyed it. I did it because I was the only out there. To me the ultimate luxury is to delegate. So Brian told me one of our senior folk — and “senior” here doesn’t mean age — had some talent himself and had found someone to redesign BUGS.
I said Okeedoke, stick it on there and we’ll see what the reaction is. That was the end of my involvement with the entire thing.
I fully expect to be given full credit for doing it all, of course.
I don’t know who put the little bug up there in the first place. I don’t know who put the Santa hat on the bug when Christmas rolled around a few years ago. In every case I appreciated whoever had done it. And in every case I appreciated that whoever did it felt so much a part of our team he didn’t have to check it with Headquarters.
Everything here, except a little matter of, as BBG points out, over 4,000 articles, was not done by me. The BUGS you see was developed by others, people who volunteered to take over the technical work, which includes the visual setup.
They cannot give themselves credit because the other thing I give exclusively is the willingness to put my name out for everybody to see.
We are, as I have said before, samizdat.
In the Middle Ages a lord’s life depended on how many men he could hire to defend him. But that same lord spent more on his finery and obvious, let me repeat that word, obvious, luxury, he had around him. There was nothing frivolous about this. It was, to say the least, not a frivolous time.
But looks count for so much that in the hard calculation between more soldiers and more finery, lords chose so much finery.
Looks count. Looks count a LOT, and I am not the author of the professional look BUGS has steadily acquired over the years. I pity the business that has to put up its own website from scratch.
We look GOOD.
I hate traitors.
When someone accused a Southerner in my youth of “hating” blacks, his reaction was complete puzzlement. Nowadays nobody is allowed to say, “Some of my best friends are blacks, but in the 50s Deep South it was simply the case.
Some people you like personally and some you don’t, in many cases for no reason you can explain or even understand why, that’s just the way things are.
And, of course, there was paternalism. Blacks had looked to the better class of white folks to go to when they got into trouble since before the Pilgrims got to Plymouth Rock. We had some sixty black families who derived their living from the brick plant and came straight to us for everything from legal trouble to medical emergencies.
In other words, my attitude towards blacks was exactly the same as that of the modern liberal. Nobody else seems to notice that when liberals speak of white guilt against other races and human guilt against animals, the language is precisely the same. Animals and non-whites cannot be guilty, because they are not mentally capable of being responsible for their actions.
Anything bad an animal does is the fault of the humans dealing with them. Anything bad a minority group does is the result of some evil thing a white person, a real person responsible for his own actions, did to them.
One is not even allowed to mention that we had the same attitude. To put both the liberal attitude and the old Southern attitude into plain English, to hate a black was like hating a wildcat or, Heaven forbid, a monkey.
The fact is that an intelligent white has difficulty hating blacks because we all, from the KKK to the NAACP, assume they are inferior beings.
I hate traitors. I am fully aware that Jews routinely hate the society around them.
Please understand that I am aware that in today’s lingo liberals are incapable of regarding minorities as inferior and that Jews are capable of hate. We are told that Jews have been driven out of every country on earth and subjected to horrible persecution all the time and everywhere: “Two thousand years of SUFFERING!”
There was only one human being who could have spent one day SUFFERING on the Cross and not hate those who had done it to him, but he was not a typical Jew. Two thousand years of being hated and driven from land to land, which is how Jews describe THEMSELVES, is going to build up a lot of hatred in any human being, though to the person himself it will all be Righteous Resentment.
I am puzzled why people have to produce whole volumes of details to prove something they could explain in five minutes in plain English. The simple fact is that Jews hate those around them as naturally as the Poles hate the Germans or the Germans are assumed to have a hundreds of years old grudge against the French.
That grudge, in 1940, was freely called hate.
Yet here we have a group of people who meet every Saturday to talk about how the People of the Land, the goyim, have killed them and tortured them and driven them out for no reason whatsoever, in every country they have ever dwelt.
In the case of Jews this is called Righteous Resentment, not hatred. But if you know anything about human nature, you know that in every case in history the people who are described as “hating” are absolutely sure that they are merely expressing Righteous Resentment.
Jews hate us. That is because they are Jews. It goes with the territory. I do not hate blacks. Like all other whites, I see them as an inferior group. In my upbringing, a black who commits a crime is somewhere between a dog that kills human and human being responsible for his own actions.
Oddly enough, the way I was raised in the most reactionary Deep South is precisely the same view that the most progressive thinker of today insists on.
But I do hate.
It is an emotion I reserve almost entirely for traitors.
It is true that one should look at what the other side does when it is successful. The problem with that advice is that it has been used by respectable conservatives so much to prove their respectability. So a John McCain has a lot of widely touted “new ideas,” but every one of his “new” ideas is a liberal one.
This is particularly loved by our rulers for the same reason Republicans going for the black vote is ridiculous. Those who, defeat after defeat, said Republicans could get the black vote pointed to Republican landslides, like Ike’s wins in 1952 and 1956, when some 40% of blacks voted for the GOP.
In the case of landslides, those who own the black vote do not put out the voter lists every black has when he goes to vote.
And the bottom-line, in a landslide, the black vote makes no difference. The voter list goes out in the ones where it matters, so every time a Republican believes that 40% myth will help him win a tight race, he gets trounced and blacks vote over 90% against him, as instructed.
The same thing is true when a McCain decides to be “flexible.” McCain decided to work with the Democrats on some “reasonable” gun controls bills. The tendency has been so strongly against anti-gun bills that this one was watered down to be one that might be passed in the present state of public opinion.
So this gun bill was to give the anti-gun lobby new life by getting something minor. Since it was so watered down, McCain decided it was part of his New Image to support it.
It is Republicans who want this New Image who actually pass marginal things like that. There’s nothing minor about them. They don’t waste their time on anything that doesn’t matter. McCain gave the anti-gun lobby a victory when it was about to go down for the count.
Just as the blacks only bother to boss their votes when it COUNTS.
So the cliché that one should do what the other side does when it is successful has a very deserved bad name. It has been routinely used by Republicans who rejected the Wallace vote for the hopeless pursuit of the black vote and by other outright traitors like McCain.
But the simple fact is that we are in this corner largely because somebody found ways to destroy us. Even in the 1950s, if you had described the present situation, integration would have been resisted nationwide. Our position was that integration was step towards a program of intermarriage and of doing away with the white race.
Half of the people who denied that would have switched sides if they had seen today. Those who denied it then embrace it today, but of course they talk about a “multiracial society” as if it applied to nonwhite countries as well as white ones. But people back then would have seen it for what it is.
The other side took the line that advanced their cause at the time. They never discussed what the logical continuation of integration was. They just kept to their line about how blacks were discriminated against.
Today, we are trying to make genocide against our race a legitimate issue. We refuse to discuss what exactly will be done about it until the other side stops using intimidation against us for talking about it.
Those on the other side insist that any discussion of the issue will lead to some specific Evil End.
They never let us talk about that Evil End on integration. They would have been fools to do so.
We honestly don’t know where policy will go when the simple survival of our race is accepted as something that can be discussed without thugs throwing a riot or our careers being ruined.
I have been in active politics since I campaigned for Strom Thurmond’s write-in campaign in 1954.
The reason you read is largely because I have been there and done that. Most of us don’t feel hurt when I criticize you because you are making a mistake I made, not once but over and over and over.
Which is why it is so unique that there is actually a very popular error I never made. That was failing to learn from the other side. But before you pin the medals on my shirt that I so richly deserve, let me point out that one reason for this was that in all my reading there was almost nothing BUT the other side.
That was when any debate on television consisted of liberal Republicans as The Other Side against the Democrats who represented what was declared openly to be “mainstream opinion.”
Back then all Civil Rights legislation was stopped by a Southern filibuster. Conservative Republicans simply would not vote closure on debate, which required the vote of two-thirds of the total Senate membership, 64 senators at the time.
Southerners would take turns talking. But it was particularly hard on advocates of the legislation, since they had to sit it out, day and night, while all but one Southern senator stayed away. If at any time there were not 48 of them sitting there, the Southerner talking would simply ask for a quorum call.
The media all declared that these Southerners and Northern conservatives were stopping legislation “mainstream opinion” supported.
My brother gave a very good ironic explanation: “The South, the Midwest, and the West are combining to thwart the National Will.”
One lesson I learned from this was that the side that says it’s the National Will, or anything else, is likely to be seen as doing so. When several leftist women, each of whom had been the serial rapist’s best friend in the most extreme period of “Criminals are innocent, it’s society’s fault in the 60s, held a press conference in the 70s to declare themselves The Women’s Movement, they were accepted as such.
One of their first big issues was how many serial rapists a male-run society was putting back on the streets.
I was not surprised that the Women’s Movement had almost no popular base at all. Hundreds of thousands of women joined women’s groups with a conservative, anti-Women’s Movement agenda. But they got no notice at all.
When we set up our highly-publicized Populist Forum, we set up press conferences for genuine ground level anti-textbook movements, independent truckers, and anti-bussers, wildcat coal strikers, farmer’s groups and lots of others. Since my press releases said exactly what they wanted to say without subordinating it to any spin, we simply had to turn down all the dozens of requests for our help because we had no money.
But the media did call us the Populist Forum, a name liberals would die for.
In fact, though he doesn’t know it, we secured that title so that James Edwards can use it now.
The other side gets out in public and claims things. But it also gives the press something it can USE. You write their articles for them and they will use your title. I once made the front page of the New York Times doing that.
Conservatives expect to lose all the big titles. The conservative women with larger outfits could have called themselves the REAL Women’s Movement, but they always used words like Christian or Traditional. if they had come to me I could have helped them take over the Women’s Movement title.
And if a bullfrog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his butt every time he jumped. Conservatives didn’t like me because I COULD do things. That is NOT the way you become a respectable conservative and earn money to pay for your suit and tie.
I would like some comments on whether we always assume everybody is against us when we go into our debates. It is the ones on the other side who do all the talking because they know what to say. Who doesn’t? For one I can say we have heard it a thousand times.
But what if we go in there knowing that there are a lot of people out there who are on our side but not only fear to say it in their own names, but who have no idea how to say it at all?
I have fought many, many battles watching conservatives cringe away and standing there alone. My boss in congress, John Ashbrook, did it all the time. He and three or four others would keep congress from adjourning and get huge concessions for it, while conservative congressmen around him bitched at him.
They hated him more than the liberals did for that because they knew he was right and didn’t have the guts to do likewise.
The PC crowd always assumes it is the major, if not the only, point of view. This can be done if 1) yours is the only point of view allowed and 2) no one knows how to get snout-to-snout with you and tell you yous is not.
As revolt goes on in the Middle East, Professional Journalists are asked about the rebels. The question of whether the US should support the rebels would be influenced by what the rebels themselves stand for.
I guess I am going to be the only one to bring up a major point about this. Professional Journalists are asked about opinion among those rebelling. In every case, they simply say “I don’t know.”
But everybody is supposed to realize who the Professional Journalists are.
When Patty Hearst was kidnapped, the Professional Journalists were playing touch football on the lawn of the Hearst Mansion, while a non-Professional went out and found out where she was and who the black group was that had kidnapped her.
As usual, a Professional is one who is credentialed by other Professionals. They don’t have to produce a damned thing.
No one is going to ask a Professional Journalist, “Well, why DON’T you know, or at least how do you plan to find out?” It never occurs to the public to wonder about that.
Intelligence is the same way. An admiral who ran the CIA effectively ended all on-the ground information gathering, the sort of thing I dealt with elsewhere, so when 9/11 came along, people were finally jolted out of their sleep by the fact the CIA had no moles, no inside people , no NOTHING.
The point was that the man was an admiral and therefore a Professional.
We just went through a period when approved Financial Professionals were handling the banking system, and the banking system exploded in our faces.
One again, the Financial Professionals we not required to show anything but that they were approved by other Financial Professionals. Someone who hired a Financial Professional to handle his investments got the same average returns as someone who did it himself, minus the Professionals’ commissions.
Tens of billions of dollars went to Professionals inbuilt huge buildings and put the Professionals in penthouses, and they did not produce one single net dime. Then there were Professionals who rose into handling the whole financial system. The result was the same as turning the banking system over to Joe Blow, except that nobody would let Joe Blow get away with it.
A long, long time ago a liberal who worked for my first publisher was comparing types of bravery. He said he had worked for a branch of public broadcasting and they had been openly Marxist.
This stopped the comparisons.
You see, people on my side got their careers ruined for expressing their sentiments, we didn’t get PAID to do it.
But the left absolutely spills over with money. Whenever I see those programs about protecting the whales, my first thought is how much that gigantic, highly maneuverable luxury boat costs.
People sit drooling at their bravery. But in any large movement you can find people who are physically brave. I spent a lot of time among mercenaries. It was a great cover. What people exposing you want to find out is something like “Were you a mercenary?” Then no one asks why you were in the area. It’s a lot like pleading guilty to shoplifting so someone will not consider you for the armed robbery that took place nearby at the same time.
To our establishment working in intelligence against the Communists is being a terrorist. When they look into the background of a Red spy he is looked upon as a good guy who was overzealous. An anti-Communist who was in on any rough stuff against the Reds is a Bad Guy.
This has implications. If you read abut the Democratic congressman who got support for the Afghan rebels against the Soviet Occupation of their homeland, you will see the vast opposition he faced, and you can imagine what they would have done if he wasn’t a congressman.
I wasn’t a congressman.
So when a guy tells me how brave he was preaching Marxism on public money, a stance his bosses approve and no conservative will ever have the cajones to do anything about, I am not impressed.
All this is not to prove how brave I am. I had quite enough of old guys bragging abut their incredible bravery from the Greatest Generation, thank you mucho, but this is a practical matter. We are afraid to go out on a limb because we know the people on the right are cowards.
In fact, one of the requirements to be on the respectable right is that you are a coward. No establishment will tolerate people it cannot cow.
It is not an accident that the only one of 538 senators and congressmen, and the delegates, in congress who got out there and forced them to support resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was a Democrat. I worked for Republicans and went through battle after battle on Capitol Hill, and they have as strong a filter against Republicans with balls as they have against anyone showing up with a swastika.
That Democrat was also a Southerner. He got the black vote up against the congressman he replaced, and that’s about all you hear about him. He explained he did it all because of a personal grudge against that man for killing his dog.
In real politics the guy he replaced was as pro-black as any other Democrat. I heard him say that on an interview, but it got tuned out somehow.
The sum of what I am saying here is not Deep Wisdom. What I am saying is that, since the left dominates the media, even the most desperate don’t deny that since the Obama campaign, it is the media who get to select their own “Opposition.”
If you got to select your own “opposition,” would you pick people with any backbone, any brains, any irony, any depth,?
If you don’t believe me, take a good look at every one of the professional, quoted conservatives.
This is not a conspiracy, this is a fact of life.
Irony is not allowed in respectable conservatives.
To be respectable conservative your discussion must be long, verbose, preferably with a few big words thrown in and lots of references to some Critociticologenous in the fourteenth century, whose real name was probably Smith.
When you can’t impress people with your thinking, you can cow ‘em with your Greek.
I was looking at the White Genocide project and I noticed one of this type there, declaring that the really important thing was to use a term like Euro instead of white people. He said that anything else would have a “Made in America” look. As a comment, it would been OK, but he went on and on about it, how he knew how to influence European thought and this was the wrong way.
I can’t see any sign of him influencing European thought. I also note that the reason every European country has adopted the term “multicultural” is because it was Made in America.
Every country in Europe thought it had a culture of its own, but the minute New York and San Francisco took over they all, every single one of them, set up whole multicultural programs.
There is a piece somewhere on the net called “debunking Bob Whitaker.” The words flow, but there is no meaning in them.
This is another example of one of my favorite expressions of irony:
“It sounds obscure but it is actually meaningless..”
It’s the old bit that terrifies respectable conservatives when one of the liberals they worship threatens to say it: “You just don’t agree with me because you don’t Understand.”
Buckley was the ideal conservative because he trailed along behind Galbraith who was a REAL WASP professor at Harvard, with no stain of Catholicism or Southernness about him, and he was willing to be seen in public with Bill.
When a lot of people pointed out that Buckley’s New Love, the neoconservatives, were just rats deserting a sinking ship, the replied, “Well, why shouldn’t rats desert a sinking ship?”
It is not surprising that those rats took over National review at the end of Buckley’s career.
One of my best friends at National Review, Bill Rusher, wrote a history of the conservative movement right after Reagan’s election. He showed it was by getting the Wallace vote that the Reagan majority was formed.
But he spent half the book praising and thanking and doing kow-tows to neoconservatives for the Ivy Leaguers and New Yorkers who had left the sinking liberal ship and condescended to switch to be against liberals. He admitted they had nothing to do with the Reagan victory, “But…” he said, and went on and on about how glorious and wonderful they are to speak with such as he the way a peasant would go on if the King visited his village.
People on that level of superficiality would never understand irony.
People on that level of superficiality are AFRAID of irony.
What the word “irony” really means is that something is absolutely ridiculous and usually cruel, but it is also absolutely true. Most Politically Correct doctrine falls into this category.
We all know that colleges simply will not hire more than 10% conservative faculty and we all know that any criticism of this is declared in the media to be a violation of “academic freedom.” This is irony to those who allow themselves to think about it.
Most illegal jokes in other tyrannies are also ironic. The Soviet joke, “Saudi Arabia has just gone Communist and the government has announced that there is a shortage of sand,” was profoundly true to those who lived in Eastern Europe on a level far, far below the poverty level right across the line in Western Europe.
Respectable conservatives had long articles about the philosophy of Marxism versus their pet authorities when every single Communist country was surrounded by a wall or a guard strip that would make a prison proud. There was no theory about it, people wanted OUT.
In over thirty years, National Review never mentioned that simple fact ONCE. In thirty years, that fact was never mentioned by a conservative “opposition” voice on the national media. Because it was irony, it was, and is truth: “Why argue about Communism when all Red countries are prisons?”
I went to a refugee conference in 1959 in West Berlin. East Germans fourteen years old or older were accepted alone in West Berlin. Half of the working-age population had already been “lost” to the West because of that outflow to the giant refugee camps we visited.
So they built the Berlin Wall to face down the new president, John Kennedy, in 1961. Anyone trying to escape was shot.
Respectable conservatives give you the impression that the Berlin Wall is special. I have been on the borders of many Communist countries, and every one of them had at least land-mined strips and guard towers with orders to shoot on sight.
Robert Morley, very pro-Communist himself, was vociferous about the time he was just walking along the Hungarian border on the inside and suddenly realized he had a machine gun pointed at him ready to shoot.
But I have never heard ANY respectable conservative mention this.
A person who understands irony ruins the debate. If a conservative said to a socialist, “So you want the whole economy run like the U.S. Post Office” the Serious Two-Sided Discussion would collapse in laughter. A respectable conservative can not make a living if he sees THROUGH things.
In other words, there is a very strict upper limit on the intelligence of respectable conservatives.
From time to time there are those who are allowed to make a living as respectable conservatives who are intelligent, Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan come to mind. But in every such case, there is a reason. The reason Buchanan was allowed to be a major voice so loud was because, as he started getting some national attention as when he ran for President they could depend on his ending up a religious nutcase.
His advertisements denounced funding for gay rallies but his sister decided that putting those gay marches on national television would be pornographic. So all you ever heard of those ads was that they were not real pictures, which was true, and the rallies themselves were made to look respectable.
Pat actually denounced suppressing fundamentalist Creation doctrine in the schools, which would have been legitimate on the basis of local opinion running schools, but instead he went into the same old nineteenth century crap about how he was no monkey.
People can respect a person who gets his science out of the Bible, but nobody’s going to elect him to national office, much less the Senate.
To be a respectable conservative, you have to have some mental handicap that makes you harmless.
From time to time some young person on campus asks me how much he can say and still not be liquidated career wise. Some are actually staying on for an academic career, and they do not look forward to all those years of hypocrisy until they get tenure.
I am not very comforting, nor do I think I am the person who could advise them best:
I went back to grad school briefly in 1992,and from that and other sources I know that the suppression of thought is much greater seen than when I was in academe, and it was rough then.
I am able to say what you want to say because I am safely retired from a workaholic career.
You can probably get away with some version of Mantra as a “special concern,” but you had better be orthodox on all else.
It will be of interest to me if you get away with some version of the Mantra before you get warned.
You can do good field work as you find the answer to your own question. What CAN you say? You will have to find that out in the field rather than from a person who’s a generation out of date.
I think you can get away with some version of the Mantra. But even tenure won’t protect from this kind of heresy,
Like the Soviet samizdat writers, “You will NEVER be FREE.”
So, as always, I want to remind you that YOU have to learn all this in ACTION.
My drilling can be very useful to you, but one reason it is is because I read GCVI carefully, and I read the reports people send to me.
Calling my stuff your drill has some lessons in it. The most obvious thing you find in military history is that professional soldiers fight exactly the same way they lost the last war. The strategy of France against Germany in 19870, 1914, and 1940 was exactly the same, and each time they got stomped on.
This may be part of the explanation why so many pro-white leaders keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. They can’t overcome their DRILLING.
You note I am wrong about a lot of details and even spelling. You will correct me if I go too far over the edge, and the only facts that would make my writings seriously wrong would be if someone actually showed me an Ancient Civilization whose people collapsed PERMANENTLY and who didn’t turn into brown people, or how the world was anxious to get rid of any other race than ours.
I give you pivotal realities, and the details are part of the explanation. But the real test of what I say is when I am out there trying my stuff on real people. My advice to you is tested daily on the battlefront YOU are on.
As we get more participants, we will have some who report their experience among the Thought Police, who make no secret of their existence, on campus.
In the Soviet Union, samizdat writers had no guide but how many of their fellows were arrested for a particular article, to the extent they could find out.
But, as one commenter pointed out, the samizdats did not make real progress until they broke through the Silence, exactly the way BUGS is aimed at doing.
A totalitarian today makes as few open martyrs as he can. Everywhere the modern tyranny ruins or commits people, it doesn’t smash their door down.
The Silence has been imposed steadily on America. Racists used to be interviewed by talk show hosts, under very unfair conditions, but they were interviewed. Then all the hosts decided that anyone who even interviewed one would be committing heresy. They were no longer subjected to ridicule, because Archie Bunker showed a lot of people saw through the game, so they were subjected to the Silence.
Today respectable conservatives are the “other side,” the ONLY “other side.” In their later years, the Communists adopted this strategy.
In East Germany I saw the headquarters of the Social Democratic Party of the DDR, an “opposition” voice supported and chained by the still-Stalinist Communist Party which ruled East Germany. The Russian Orthodox Church was a branch of the State in Soviet Russia, which paid the priests’ salaries.
Those who thought the Church would oppose the regime were sadly disappointed.
Respectable “Christian” conservatives know which side their bread is buttered on.
This is a life-and-death game for young people who expect to depend on academe for their livelihoods. Nor is any other pro-white’s livelihood much safer.
In a case like this, I am not about to play The Wise Old Man at the risk of people’s ruining themselves taking my advice.
If you have some good advice on this and you withhold it from Comments, you are taking the same risk with your comrades’ lives.
The final authority in BUGS is not Bob, it is reality.
Conservatives have just adopted a “new” policy on crime. It calls for more parole, shorter sentences, and less prisons.
It is pure déjà vu. But ALL new conservative policies are déjà vu. The National Review article announcing this great new crime advance is exactly like the ones I read from liberals who were demanding all the same things in the 1950s. They were adopted and crime went out of control. Like the liberal articles then, the NR one carefully said that none of this was being soft on criminals.
Likewise, the new heroine of paleoconservatives declares the Tea Party’s Worship Martin Luther King Day, while at the same time yelling about the borders not being protected. We kept telling conservatives that “a little bit of integration is like a little bit of pregnancy,” once you start along that road you can’t preserve ANYTHING.
I can tell you from personal experience that nobody, from open Marxist to pro-white, wants to hear plain political reality.
Those who won the media have a buyer’s market. There is a huge glut of turncoat Southerners and respectable conservatives to choose from, and it doesn’t take a Conspiracy to get them to select ex-school teachers like O’Reilly or pure wimps like Hannity. A Catholic with a Southern background like Buckley had an agonizing desire to be respected by his WASP Yale colleagues.
Underneath Buckley’s genuine dislike of leftism was his groveling need for approval from the John Galbraiths of the world.
When James Edwards polled his listeners about who THEY wanted him to interview again, they chose me. In fact, the last time he interviewed me he told me he had twice as many listeners as he did when he had Bay Buchanan on, back when the Buchanans were hot. But when his listeners chose me again, he was a bit embarrassed that he hadn’t invited me on for six years.
This is to be expected. Bay Buchanan is a name one can tell other leaders about and get admired and praised for such a catch.
Even National Public Radio had me for few shows and when they realized what I had to say they dropped me –no surprise.
No one interviews me more than twice.
Not a single person I interviewed with had the Mantra right or could even cite the key words.
I wrote a number of articles for National Review, too. They were widely quoted and were not even heresy. They were simply too common sense.
And that, not heresy, is why I am so unpopular.
And why YOU are so unpopular.
When I explain that obviously the left is going to choose to argue with conservatives they consider reasonable, and who admit that every conservative policy of a generation ago was evil, and lead the lynch mob against anyone who takes the same stand they did back then, it is not exposing any conspiracy.
Hannity’s boy Colmes was selected, and liberals were astonished to see that he was a complete wimp, just like the conservatives they choose.
Like the market system, the stable political system makes choices without any conspiracy to it. Just because something is predictable does NOT mean that it is a plot.
In fact, like the free market, the system organizes itself much more effectively than any conspirators could.
It goes like this: a liberal policy is introduced, tried, and fails. A generation later conservatives pick it up, and, no matter what a failure it is in practice, it becomes “the way America works,” adopted by BOTH sides.
In the meantime, instead of noticing the pattern, the paleoconservative screamers and the Conspiracy types yell.
So we get a Sara Palin declaring a worship MLK Day while leading the shouting about what happened to our keeping Mexicans out.
The more you fit into the system, the more publicity you can get. Anyone who fits at all into the system doesn’t want to hear from me. But that is not because they are not sincere. A violence-demanding extremist is far more welcome to the system than I am. Someone who demands that you read huge books and adopt more World Views in order to oppose obvious insanity is far more welcome than any BUGSter.
And that is in ALL parts of the system, the Bad Guys AND the Good Guys.
Both the white hats and the black guys have a role in the movie, but they are united in opposing anyone saying on screen that it IS a movie.
We have all heard of “judge-made law.”
But Mommy Professor is very silent on the subject of “jury-made law.”
And one lesson we must learn is that silence from Mommy Professor is as important as his outright blatherings.
Talking about liquor laws reminded me of jury-made law. When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, Charleston, SC opened its bars. When you went to Charleston, there were open bars and liquor by the drink.
Once in the 1940s, Governor Olin D. Johnston, “a personal and political dry,” called the Mayor of Charleston with the press watching and said, “I demand that you close those bars in Charleston.” The mayor replied, as Johnston knew he would, “Governor, YOU close them.”
Thus were two successful political careers advanced.
As I pointed out in the case of Mississippi’s prohibition laws, there was a huge difference between MAKING a law and ENFORCING a law.
Governor Johnston would have had to bring bar owners in Charleston before a Charleston jury.
Lots o’ luck there, Olin D.
The whole concept of jury-made law has been alien to Americans since the Greatest Generation took over.
Once again, I have to tell you that I am not exaggerating here: before the Greatest Generation, jurors were really not all that intimidated by a grown man sitting there in a black dress. The reverend stillness with which people called for jury duty today was alien to pre-WWII Americans.
In fact you already know about jury made law. You know that the death penalty for theft and other minor crimes was gotten rid of because juries, knowing the judge would follow the law blindly, simply refused to convict.
That, after all the arguments, was what happened to South Carolina’s ban on liquor by the drink: Juries simply refused to convict.
But the Greatest Generation was a wholly different matter. To them, the Judge was Authority. He wore a costume and his word was, to coin a phrase, law.
Some poor bastard who had had to shoot somebody in self-defense was convicted of manslaughter by a jury because the man in the costume had told them that, according to the law, he should have thought the whole thing out in the few seconds while he was being attacked and had a gun in his hand.
I actually met one judge in my youth who was absolutely dumbfounded by the way his jury actually sent a man, for not having behaved in the manner the law says a lawyer with hours to ponder things would have behaved, to prison for the rest of his life.
He told me he had always said that a jury would NEVER convict a decent person.
But it was his first Greatest Generation jury.
No one called for jury duty today has the slightest concept of what a jury is all about.
They are there to obey.
I was in Mississippi many years ago, and stopped at a liquor store.
Mississippi was a dry state.
But as I said, the twenty-first amendment’s blanket declaration that state law is sovereign over Federal law puts terms like “dry state” into the Twilight Zone.
Mississippi law was straight Prohibition. It was officially listed as a dry state.
But who could ENFORCE that law? Mississippi declared that only county authorities could enforce state-wide Prohibition. So if you elected a sheriff who chose not to enforce the law, it could be a very wet county indeed.
Please note that I am not kidding you here.
The only problem with leaving enforcement to the local sheriff was that the state wanted the huge source of revenue represented by the liquor tax.
Once again, I kid you not the slightest: instead of a liquor tax, the state imposed a “Black Market Tax.”
When someone sold something, not specifying what it might be, in violation of state law, but state authorities were prohibited from preventing its sale, a tax must be paid to the state on this Black Market Item, whatever it may be.
And if the tax was not paid, the state could enforce it. There was a Black Market Commission for that.
Today the micro breweries for beer are a big thing. Every one of them is gigantic compared to some of the liquor sellers I saw in Mississippi. One half-pint bottle of clear liquid I found in a store had a white label stuck on it with the words, in ink, “…. Smith, Route 3, Hattiesburg, Mississippi.”
It had the Federal and Black Market Commission stamps on it, and was as legal as Budweiser.
Some counties were dry. Some were as wet as New Orleans. All in a state which officially had no change in its law since the Coolidge Administration.
A doctor acquaintance of mine had a girl friend from New Orleans. She had lived there all her life. One day when she was visiting him in North Carolina they went to a liquor store.
She had never seen a liquor before in her entire life.
In New Orleans you bought liquor off the shelf, the same way you bought Campbell’s Soup, Every Seven-Eleven had liquor on the shelf.
She had trouble with the concept of a liquor store the way you might have a problem with someone taking you to a Mustard Store.
One or more of you could break into the publishing biz by writing a book on liquor law.
They are a human comedy.
Because the twenty first amendment repealing Prohibition specifically put the control of alcoholic beverages into state hands, every state was thrown into a major battle.
In South Carolina, each liquor store has a red dot somewhere on its front.
In 1940, South Carolina legalized liquor stores, over enormous opposition. Since each state has absolutely no restrictions on its liquor law, every aspect of the law must be passed by compromise with hard shell Baptists and screaming Methodists who, at the time, made up over ninety percent of the state’s population.
So one compromise was that, though liquor stores could exist, they could not advertise.
One Prohibitionist took that to court before the law took effect and obtained a court ruling that that provision prohibited the liquor store having a sign that said “Liquor Store.”
As a result of that one person’s initiative, none of the new liquor stores could say they sold liquor.
So one new store owner had an idea. He proposed to all the other new store owners that they paint their stores a bright, eye-hurting orange with large red dots on it. Twenty years later it looked like someone on LSD had made it up.
When South Carolina liquor stores opened in 1940 there was no way anyone could fail to know what they were. Eye-hurting orange with three-foot-across red spots became the signal of every such business in the state.
“Sign? We don’t need no steenking SIGN!”
And even today every single liquor store in the state has at least a couple of red dots.
In fact, thinking about it, I don’t remember what the sign at the local liquor store actually says.
Somebody needs to write a book about liquor laws.
Liquor laws are what I call real history, not about Historical Inevitability or The Conspiracy, but about real compromises that are so human they are funny.
But never forget that every law on alcohol represents a compromise that was life and death to real, live, active people.
We know that the Eighteenth Amendment, enforced by the Volstead Act, established prohibition. The twenty-first amendment repealed the eighteenth.
In order to get the necessary two-thirds majority in congress for repealing Prohibition, a compromise was required. The twenty first amendment did repeal national prohibition, but it also included a clause almost no one today is really aware of, but which is still active.
National Prohibition was repealed, but local prohibition was specifically sanctioned,
It is specifically stated that, when it comes to alcoholic beverages, state law is sovereign over national law.
I used to ride in trains where this reservation made things VERY confusing. You are going along at sixty miles per hour and the Club Car is open or closed every few minutes or every few hours.
It was interstate transportation, where in all other things the Feds have always been sovereign, but a guy well on his way to a good drunk had the glass snatched out of his hand because they were passing through a dry county.
On absolutely nothing else could s state law override Federal law by declaring COUNTY law to take precedence over FEDERAL law.
Except for that clause on that amendment.
This made for a lot of confusion in the days of propeller aircraft.
Today it is still legally true that serving a drink on board a jet aircraft flying over a dry country is illegal.
And, in fact, if a real person in a real dry county pressed it in court, he would win.
In 1915 the Supreme Court had to knock down the very obvious violation of the fifteenth amendment that was the Grandfather Clause.
Brian was giving me some particulars about which states allowed women to vote in 1915.
There is a connection here that relates to real history. The problem is that we ignore real history to concentrate on Marxist Historical Inevitability or other nonsense.
In 1920 women were given the vote by constitutional amendment.
So why did the NAACP win its first big legal battle on the Grandfather Clause?
Because no one else at the time was interested in it.
So how did a number of states allow women to vote with a bewildering set of restrictions?
Because, in each state, somebody was INTERESTED.
This is important to BUGS.
While so many others say it’s all about Exposing Them, the Conspirators, and the entire commentary class talks about Historical Inevitability, we say that what matters is that WE, we few, are going to get the message manageable, and then we are going to get our message out.
That concept is absolutely alien to the Marxist and the Conspiracy Theorist. They see a world in which Geniuses and Capitalists have taken control.
There is a story in each state which allowed the vote. There is a story in the restrictions in each state.
Brian tells me that a lot of states only allowed women to vote in school-related issues. Every state that allowed women to vote unconditionally was a state that needed to attract female immigrants.
And in a lot of cases, when you look at the state and the exact restrictions, your reaction is “What the hell?”
By which question you are cheating yourself. Behind every single case and every single restriction is a story, a story of someone and of a society and exactly what that person was balancing and thinking about.
In other words, real history.
“Could a Mantra-thinker please help with some tips to address the “only White countries” argument when the anti-Whites point out Singapore and UAE etc, as seen in this thread.”
There’s always detailed arguments you can make
- most of those small Arab states have lots of guest workers because of the oil money but they’re basically paid semi-slaves and aren’t allowed to become citizens
- Israel has an explicitly ethno-centric immigration policy and most of those immigrants are jews
- Hong Kong immigration was mostly other ethnic Chinese from the mainland after British rule ended in 1990-something
- Jordan’s “immigrants” are actually Palestinian refugees
There are a few exceptions like Singapore but once you’ve knocked down most of the list then it becomes obvious they are an exception and exceptions prove the rule.
However if i’m arguing with someone as slippery as the guy in the linked thread i usually just cheat by looking out for any little mistake they make and jumping on it and not letting go until they concede the point.
In the thread you linked i’d have picked on his use of Israel in his list of examples and asked him if he supported their ethno-centric immigration
policy and i’d keep on it until he explicitly stated he didn’t believe Israel had the right to an ethno-centric immigration policy either. This would only work if he was jewish as he’d either wriggle around not wanting to say it or he would say it but be tetchy afterwards and easier to needle into
losing his temper.
Sometimes the truth works:
Nobody cares whether a non-white country opens its gates or blocks immigration. But the world would object if Iceland closed its borders. Every white country is supposed to be “a melting pot,” but nobody outside DEMANDS that of any non-white country, black, brown or yellow.
The “race problem” means a Final Solution to the White Problem.
Also do not spend time on any one determined anti-white unless you have an audience. You are speaking to the audience, not to the nut job who hates his own kind.
To be frank with you, Wandrin, you are still on the Stormfront wave-length. Mixing up our message with Israel shows this.
1) Aim at the AUDIENCE;
2) Stop letting them get off the subject. The point is not what non-whites do, the point is that there is a DEMAND on ALL white countries and ONLY on white countries for immigration and assimilation;
3) Don’t screw up the Mantra with some other agenda.
You have heard of a grandfather clause and of “grandfathering” some privilege when it is abolished for younger folks.
The NAACP’s first court victory was in 1915, when the Supreme Court struck down the original ”grandfather clause.”
After Reconstruction, the whole business of championing of blacks became an embarrassment for Northern politicians. In 1908, the Republican demand for black suffrage, which had been in the platform since 1868, was removed.
Southern states, to contravene the fifteenth amendment, made laws that said that a person could vote if his grandfather could vote. Since it was brought to them, the Supreme Court could hardly refuse to face the fact that the only purpose of such a law was to allow only whites to vote.
What is remarkable is not that the NAACP won the case, but how few politicians by 1915 had any interest in blacks.
One major reason Reconstruction ended was because it was so expensive. Military occupation of the South gave all its representatives to the Republicans Party, but the cost, in terms of the government of the time, was backbreaking.
The cost of Reconstruction was so high that even with all the electoral votes of the Southern States Republicans were in danger of losing so much of the North they could lose the national elections.
And, astonishing as it may seem, the moment the last troops pulled out of the South, where ninety percent of the blacks were, political interest the black vote began to fall fast.
By 1940 anyone who looked to history as Inevitable would have seen the future as bleak for the black vote. Its importance had been steadily going down since 1877.
Nothing changes as fast as history. This has become really obvious in our day of carbon dating and the finding that dinosaurs not only had feathers, but WERE birds.
But this fact has only become OBVIOUS even to some Mommy Professors because of recent technology. The fact is that if you gave me a history book I could almost certainly tell you the decade it was written in.
But those who denounce religion the most loudly as superstition are the ones who maintain this superstitious, Marxist faith that there is a Tide of history, an Inevitable History which occupies the exact same space that God does in other religions.
C.S. Lewis was upset at people who were so obsessed with the Future that they used it as an excuse to be cruel today. As Lenin put it, “It does not matter whether the world contains half a billion people or two billion people, so long as that the half billion is Communist.”
One thing that makes C.S. Lewis’ theological ideas seem so logical is his common sense approach to things. He points out that, “The only Historical Inevitably is that today will be succeeded by tomorrow, and there will be a day after that…”
Part I explained how Democrat Senator gave up his Senate seat in 2004 because he spent years getting more extremely liberal in an attempt to get the Vice Presidential nomination.
I decided to write on this subject because it is so neat and probably unnoticed by anyone else: in the same general period exactly the same thing happened to another popular politician on the Republican side.
David Beasley won the governorship in 1994. His margin of victory was provided by those who were in favor of keeping the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina State House.
But everybody knew that he, like Hollings, dreamed of a vice presidential nomination. South Carolina politics is like a small town, everybody knows this kind of thing.
But the next convention was in 1996. Beasley, who had won the governorship on the strength of the pro-Confederate flag vote, needed to become part of the New South fast.
Beasley was elected governor in November of 1994. He needed every day he could get to switch sides. So in December, before even taking office, he turned on the pro-Flag voters.
Why? Because, as Beasley said, the Lord came to him and told him, at the ideal political moment, that the Lord wanted him to change sides. He announced this at the Baptist Convention in Columbia that month.
SC voters are often stupid, but they aren’t actually unconscious.
It is interesting that not one single public figure denounced t his move. They all depend on that I Have Found God crap to excuse them when THEY get caught.
In fact, only one semi-semi-semi-public figure in SC called Beasley’s action by its dictionary definition: Blasphemy. But the Columbia newspaper has quit publishing my letters since then.
Bob Jones IV, who had switched sides on the flag in time to keep his family business afloat, had also quoted scripture for it. The scripture he quoted was almost two thousand years old, but when you need to switch to the money side, any excuse will do as well as any other.
Again, Beasley tried to sell in a buyer’s market. There are a thousand sellouts for every slot.
Poor Fritz Hollings, perpetual junior senator from South Carolina! While Strom Thurmond spent almost half a century as senator from 1954, Hollings was elected to the Senate after Senator Johnston, Strom’s senior senator, died a decade or so later.
Hollings had been one of South Carolina’s youngest governors. He tried to unseat Johnston in the 1962 primary, but he didn’t have chance those days against a seated senator. He had to wait for Johnston to die, the traditional way a seat opened in the South.
So Senator Hollings was finally elected to the Senate in 1967, and was Strom’s junior senator from his relative youth to his very old age when he finally resigned in 2005. Poor old Hollings! Not only was he always the “junior senator,” but his home office in Columbia was for a long time in the Strom Thurmond Federal Building!
Strom left office in 2003. So Hollings had only two years as senior senator. All of Hollings’ life, with almost no exceptions, Southern senators went straight from their congressional seats to their graves.
But Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, a relatively youthful — compared to Strom — 77 years of age, had to resign in 2005 because he stood no chance of reelection.
He was never even considered for the second place on the national ticket. But in going for it he became, as the media said happily, “a surprisingly liberal senator for the Deep South.”
So “surprisingly liberal” that by 2004, all his years of favors and seniority didn’t give him a chance of reelection.
Hollings had been extremely popular as one of the youngest governors in our history. You have to know the old Deep South politics to realize how hard it is for a popular senator to get his constituency down there so disgusted that he didn’t even try for reelection.
What happened was that Fritz had tried to sell out in a buyer’s market. He became a more and more militant turncoat, hoping for the vice presidential slot on the national ticket.
But what he and so many other “shrew” Southern politicos didn’t realize was that Southern turncoats are a nickel a thousand.
Hollings was so furious at being given nothing in the years he was sacrificing his seat in 2004 that he did the most offensive thing he could imagine to those who didn‘t buy him. His last year, he denounced the puppet like support of Israel in congress!
He did that about the time, spring of 2004, when he saw that the polls demonstrated his cause was hopeless.
In Part II, we will watch another popular SC governor destroy himself by trying to sell out in the buyers’ market for Southern traitors on the Republicans side.