Archive for April, 2011
I have explained why it is a disaster to have anyone in your team who could possibly have a tantrum and take his toys and go home because of an incident or an article. People who will go to pieces over something you write about religion or any other subject are time bombs waiting to go off, and you do NOT want them around any serious political team, even one as big as ours.
In the regular political arena, though, gratuitous insults to huge segments of votes that you have to get are signs that you need professional care. The Democratic Party did not even notice that when it accused George W of “Dodging the draft in the National Guard,” they grossly insulted millions of people who had served in the National Guard.
It never came up.
The National Guard is a service in which no one anywhere the media elite ever has anything to do with. It is a wok ring class thing, a local thing. So those who claim to represent “workers” by reading the New York Times would not know about anyone but George W who would take it personally.
When National Review did a COVER article against ME in 1976 — which made me so happy I was on air — one quote was that Bob Whitaker was “More comfortable with the kind of people who shop at Niemann-Marcus (The Texas version of Wal-Mart at the time)” than with intellectuals like themselves.
Even from that bunch of political fools, this astonished me. Like Democrats with the National Guard, it did not even occur to them that they were denouncing tens of millions of actual VOTERS, all they had in mind was getting to ME.
I WAS more comfortable with anyone shopping at Niemann-Marcus than with the political moron who wrote that article.
He was working at the Voice of America when I was there and I got to tell him so.
Like when, in the 2004 campaign, John Kerry warned college students in a campus speech that if they didn’t study they would end up in Iraq.
That went over well with the entire military forces and their families.
Yes, in your trusted political TEAM, you have to get rid of all the touchy political time bombs. But electoral politics is an entirely different matter.
The point being that you PICK your team. The voters you cannot choose.
There is not the slightest hope that America is going resolve its deficit problems.
Even if politicians cut out every single program which Congress CAN cut, discretionary programs, the Federal budget is now overwhelmingly entitlements.
Like my pension.
You could cut out the military entirely and the entitlements would fill up the hole.
Nowadays when I don’t want to hear the usual tale of woe some other old person has about the debt problem or other declining things about our system, I just say, “We’re becoming a third world country. Everything is coming apart like it does in the third world.”
Oddly enough, that ends the discussion. I get silence for the while I need it to get out.
In the rest of the world’s terms, what we have is what all non-White countries have.
You learn to live with it. Brazil had an annual inflation of forty to one hundred percent every year for decades. It tooled right along.
Some colored money systems got stabilized by the first world. I have not paid any attention to international money since I got paid to. I hear a number of third world countries, brown countries in other words, were “stabilized” monetarily by white countries and Japan. This may include Brazil.
But the stabilizers are turning into Brazils.
My Brazilian Point is that a third world policy does not “Make money worthless” or “Cause an economic collapse.”
It does lead to things like five dollars a gallon for gas, but that is not a “catastrophe.”
It would have been a generation ago.
You see, what all those people who expect the whole thing to come crashing down never take into account is that “catastrophe” is a relative term. They keep talking News and Jews and look forward to the day when “Things get so bad that people won’t take them any more.”
But, like the prospect of five dollar a gallon gasoline and an ever steeper drop in the value of money, a third world country gets used to them.
In my youth, the idea of searching students for weapons routinely and drug dealers on campus were only dreamed of in a society where revolution was right around the corner.
In the meantime I have lived in a LOT of third world countries and watched nothing happen. Then I came back to a United States where everything had happened that everybody agreed COULDN’T happen, and it goes on along.
Things will get a LOT worse, but those who make their livings complaining about it, from liberals to Tea Party types, or those who are going to EXPOSE THE POWERS, will have the same jobs until they go to their graves.
There is no automatic mechanism for “Things get so bad that people HAVE to do something about it.”
Increasing catastrophes, what we see TODAY as catastrophes, won’t do a single thing on their own. Increasing catastrophes, what we see TODAY as catastrophes, WILL make it easier or even inevitable for team like ours to win.
But things getting worse will do nothing if all you do is breathless news stories and denounce Conspiracies.
Increasing catastrophes, what we see TODAY as catastrophes,
The old approach didn’t WORK and it WON’T WORK.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
The institutions based on the name of Christ started with a degenerate philosophy from the last stages of Zoroastrianism, then considered high sophistication by St. Paul and the Pharisees.
For a millennium and a half, this institution preached that one should select the most intelligent and, yes, the most beautiful of each generation and spay or neuter them, psychologically of course.
Origen was condemned for making the castration literal. Whatever quibble one wants to make about the history, that WAS banned by church law. All human sacrifice was to be done by psychological means, but it was as wholesale as that of the Aztecs, and far more selective.
Then came the Calvinists, who rejected the human sacrifice angle, but concentrated entirely on another aspect of degenerate Zoroastrian Christianity, the torture end.
You see, the other part of Catholic doctrine was self-torture.
I just stand there looking stunned when cowlike moos shape themselves into the following question:
How could a society that for most of its history regarded hunger, psychological self torture, and yes, whipping oneself and wearing hair shirts, which were worse, along with sterility as the highest value of all? How could such set of Traditional Values end up making its white people regard self-hatred and self-destruction as the highest possible good?
Well, gosh, gang, I don’t know.
But the Calvinists put even the Inquisitors in the shade. Calvin himself burned a classmate of his to burning and screaming slowly to death.
Then he declared, as Luther did, though that is less well known, that the essence of God was Hell. Most people were born, not just for self-torture, but for eternal damnation.
This, he stated, was for the Glory of God. There a tiny minority of the Saved would ENJOY watching the Sinners eternally tortured.
Goodness gracious, how could good, solid Traditional Values based on healthy foundations like those POSSIBLY end up, in what was once Western Christendom, fanatically dedicated to its own racial death?
If you wonder about that, one of us is insane.
My brother sent me an article from the respectable conservative Weekly Standard. It has a feature picture of David Horowitz being escorted to speak at a university forum with two bodyguards. Horowitz is demanding the Academic Bill Of Rights which, among other things, says that a student should have the right to appeal if he is downgraded purely for having a political opinion other than Mommy Professor’s.
The article cites numerous examples of students being flunked for having non-Marxist opinions.
President Cary Nelson of the American Association of University Professors, AAUP, fanatically opposes the measure and makes it plain that he is a Marxist. He says, as I keep pointing out to you here, that Marxists believe that “Everything is fundamentally political and there is no reason why the classroom shouldn’t enjoy the benefits of a being a stage for progressive activists attempting to win converts for their cause.” (Quote from article)
I wrote and published about this in 1976 which split the mainline respectable conservative publication down the middle, one side producing a review called “Read This One!” The Buckley side produced a front page article attacking me largely for my attack on “higher education.”
One very essential point the front page 1976 article made was that was that redneck like me whose specialty was being out on the streets with the Wallace Democratic working stiffs WAS uniquely able to speak for what they later called “social conservatives,” But not about academe.
That was up to the Buckleys of the world.
The Weekly Standard goes on to point out that “mainline conservatives” ceded higher education to the left a generation ago.”
Really? What a surprise!
Does this sound familiar to anybody?
Does it sound a bit like the difference between me and Jared Taylor today?
The Weekly Standard article begins it last paragraph with, “I am persuaded that the Academic Bill of Rights didn’t get a fair hearing. But I am less than certain about what to do next.”
Don’t blame yourself, old buddy, that “uncertainty” has been a job requirement of respectable conservatives for over forty years.
Dave pointed out that “Robert Whitaker nailed the political plumbing when he said, ‘The white race must become an empowered minority instead of a powerless majority.’”
When Lincoln became president in 1860, it was because the Democratic Party has split into three major divisions, so Lincoln’s forty percent of the vote was a complete rout in the electoral college.
Further, the three parts of the Democratic Party knew very well they didn’t stand a chance, so Republicans were guaranteed a landslide victory, something that brings out the vote.
In 1933 the National Socialists and the Communist Party elected a majority of the Reichstag between them. So the new government had to include either Hitler or Stalin’s puppets. Like Lincoln’s minority election, this is something you won’t read about elsewhere.
Lenin took power in 1917 because he had a fractured opposition, from Czarists to all the different brands of non-Bolshevik socialists and conservatives and liberals in between. In fact, one major turning point occurred when the chairman of the Soviets asked the endless variety in the hall “Is there any party that would be willing to take full responsibility now?” and Lenin stood up and said, “There IS such a Party!”
The famous painting of Lenin standing and saying that was so popular that they later had Stalin standing up just behind him.
Talking about the 1860 election, Hitler’s appointment, and Lenin’s grabbing control in the midst of the complete division of his opponents, one is reminded of the old Chinese curse:
“May you live in interesting times.”
The period following Hitler’s appointment, the four years following Lincoln’s election, and the decades in the USSR after Lenin took power were not just interesting. they were fascinating.
For the survivors.
But there is another aspect of a situation where power goes, not to a majority but to an empowered minority, and it is critical.
In such situations, the result is total victory for the empowered minority.
After his Party won the plurality in the 1933, there was no doubt that Hitler was absolute Fuhrer.
After his Party won the election of 1860, the decades-old argument went from Fugitive Slave Laws enforcement in Northern States to black citizenship, suffrage and outright dictatorship of the South by the North.
As to the USSR, there weren’t a whole lot of groups out there compromising with Lenin and Stalin after the October Revolution.
I flatter myself that when the showdown comes, respectables won’t stand a chance against a team coached by Old Bob.
Dr. Bob’s dying advice to Bill W. on Alcoholics Anonymous, which they jointly founded, was “Keep it simple.”
Dr. Bob did not mean that the way a Marxist would, “Keep it simple because the drunks — or in the case of the Marxist — the workers, are simpletons.” In Marxism, the Intellectuals were supposed to keep their own thinking highly complex so they could be the “dictatorship of the proletariat” for the working retards.
No, the founding principle of AA was that everybody in it was a drunk. Dr. Bob was reminding Bill W to keep HIS thinking simple.
In fact, in later life Bill W started talking LSD and the like because he had an Insight that they were what HE needed, but the average drunk shouldn’t touch them.
The greatest single step forward in Western thinking was Occam’s Razor.
William of Occam said “Keep it simple.”
He was not telling the peasants to keep it simple. There wasn’t much of a peasant readership in his day.
He was telling the Intellectuals to stop arguing how, after combining the commentaries on Aristotle with pieces of theology, how many angels could stand on the point of a pin. This classical example may not be accurate, but it is no sillier than what the Scholastics DID discuss.
Occam said that a truth should contain as few assumptions as possible.
There is nothing new about our age. The Scholastics are trying desperately to discuss anything but the simple fact that brown countries are poor countries, Mongoloid countries are not original, immigration and assimilation to ALL white countries and ONLY white countries is genocide according to the Genocide Treaty.
This happens on every piece of information that is produced by any industry.
Jews, in general, are hostile to whites the same way that Poles are generally hostile to Germans. Under present rules this statement makes me anti-Polish as well as anti-Semitic. But this simple statement is as unpopular with anti-Semites as it is with the ADL.
It is simplistic. It ignores the deep scholarship one needs to expose the whole sweep of historic antipathy of Jews to the goyim, the people of the lands (around them), who, as every Jew hears every Saturday in synagogue, hates and persecutes Jews and wants to make the Jews, who are always absolutely innocent and are trying to do them good, suffer.
That’s too simple for Intellectuals on BOTH sides.
It is incredible that Occam’s Razor was ever adopted as a rule by Western science.
I like to think it was adopted because of people like me who were not embarrassed by a simple truth.
I was reading a comment where a person was quoting his answer to the usual line that white people deserve to have their countries taken over by non-whites because whites invaded colored lands.
The answer to this is, as usual to get back to the Mantra point. The answer is:
“So you’re admitting to the genocide and you’re justifying genocide.”
Don’t hit them where they expect to be hit.
But when I say, I am being a coach, not a Leader or a guru, this is definitely NOT a quibble.
When a coach first meets a freshman for pre-season training, his dream is that that same complete novice will, ten years from now, be a professional player whose advice the coach would love to have.
Ninety percent of Coaches’ ambition is the same as the Leader’s: He must have DISCIPLINE.
The reason I can demand discipline here is because I had to learn that discipline over so many battles.
But the basic difference between a coach and a Leader or Mommy Professor is that saying what I say is not THE END IN ITSELF.
For example it would be a great triumph for me if you were to say to yourself, “By gum, THAT is a major reason Bob keeps slamming at the Weakest Generation! They weren’t coached, they were beaten down into butt kissers for their sergeant and later for Mommy Professor!”
I can’t train you to see the more basic points and how they relate. That is, after all, the problem you face every day fighting the Mantra War. What you are doing is forcing people to see the world picture, not just to repeat what Mommy Professor programmed into them.
When they start back into their audio track about how whites deserve it, you do not want to go into it WITH them. You drag their heads out and point to the Genocide they are justifying.
This is harder discipline than any Mommy Professor imposes on any of his kiddies. But even that harder discipline is not the only end.
Nobody insists more on your saying what I have found effective. But my hope is for more in the long run.
I want you to end up with a world view that has nothing to say about Communism except that every Red State had — and has — to keep its people prisoners. I want you to look for the world view basics on questions. For example, economics will be bullshit until someone faces the one critical economic indicator: All brown skinned countries are poor.
I know of no exceptions to this rule except where white people found oil under brown peoples’ feet. Even if I could find exceptions, you don’t abandon supply and demand because of the FACT that in a number of cases, raising the price has made a low-sale product into a luxury product that is much more in demand.
Stay on the rule.
Leaders will usually be glad to have you as long as you pay your dues and add a number to their roster.
What I want from you is a hell of a lot harder.
Harder for you and harder for me.
General Comments VII, Comment #51 by Coniglio Bianco on 4/14/2011 – 5:52 pm
Here’s someone who needs to be straightened out for ridiculing the White Genocide Evidence Project.
I looked at the site and it was BLANKETED with the Mantra!
One of these days you will look back on those shining days when you were banned and banned and banned and BANNED!
After this time, if we get mainstream you are going to get bored out of your SKULL!
I tell people, “I resent being called a lunatic extremist. I like to think I’m right in the MIDDLE of the lunatics!”
Very few people get the real chance to get around the authorities and the general fanaticism the way we do.
It’s a tough experience, but it really makes life worth while.
In the 1950s, every student had to learn the difference between “socialism” and “communism.” Every college student could parrot that, while socialist GOALS could be the same, professors who were socialists did not advocate violent MEANS to that end
One high State Department official said he had a problem with this back in the late 40s when he filled out his Federal job application. A question on it was, “Have you or any member of your family ever advocated the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence?”
He had a little trouble when he replied, “Yes.”
His grandfather was still alive and his grandfather was a Confederate veteran.
But note the question was not, “Are you a Communist?” There was a LOT of legal maneuvering then. The Federal Courts ruled that a person could be fired from his job for being a member of the Klan or other “hate” organizations accused of violent intent, but no one could be fired for being a Communist who openly advocated the violent overthrow of the government and the violent seizure of all property.
As we all know, this court law is the one that governs our society.
On the left, one simply has to make it impossible to prove that one is ENGAGED in promoting actual and specific violence. On the left, the ENDS make no difference at all.
On the right, the MEANS make no difference at all. The GOAL of preserving the white race opens the door to any action anyone wants to take.
This policy is, as usual, most fanatically supported by respectable conservatives. William Buckley kept whining to liberals that he wouldn’t hire anyone they called a racist. So why were Major New York Times writers openly not only pro-Communist, but pro-Stalinist?
The simple answer, of course, would be, “Largely because of prostitutes like you.”
#6 by Frank on 4/9/2011 – 11:10 am
Dave, I live in a university town, so have a lot of Mommy Profs here both in the U and throughout the local political establishment. I comment in the local newsblogs, and get a word in wherever I smell anti-white, which is everywhere.
I actually use the phrase “mommy professor” in some posts, and usually with anti-white in the same sentence. The intent is to make the MPs look both silly and evil.
The question I have for you is: do you (or any other bugsters) use “mommy professor” outside of “our Thing” here? Do you recommend it? Do you see a problem with it?
Thanks for all your coach-talks!
#7 by Dave on 4/10/2011 – 2:28 am
I use “Mommy Professor” all the time and I use it in any venue I happen to be in without restraint (I regularly use the term in informal conversations with elected officials, in speaking before groups, and also at work) It is perfect because it is an underhanded way of expressing disrespect while having “cover” for being called on it.
You know the organizational game when it comes to behavioral standards: You have to keep your commentary within the bounds of “being directed toward an organizational purpose” or face discipline for having a personal agenda. You can stay within those bounds and successfully use the term “Mommy Professor”. I have never been called on it for violating organizational behavioral norms.
It is very difficult to be called on using “Mommy Professor” because you just say that you are reminding everyone, Mommy Professor’s credentials notwithstanding, that you are just dealing with opinion. The question is whether it is “informed opinion” and informed opinion adheres to people regardless of credentials. People are sick and tired of the costume of credentials anyway. Increasingly, reciting one’s credentials just makes people groan. In today’s world credentials are actually a hindrance to your credibility (outside of medicine and other technical areas where formal ratings actually matter), but kids don’t know this.
Everybody knows it is “Mommy Professor’s” tendency to hide behind her status, even though it is not uncommon for her to claim to be a renegade. (This is another thing I think people are increasingly sick of – the standard claim of Establishment people that they are anti-Establishment).
Think of Elizabeth Warren (Harvard Law Professor and Special Counsel to the President) and her pretense that she is a feared enemy of Wall Street and friend of THE CONSUMER.
I wish I had a nickel for every anti-Establishment “rebel” in the Establishment. I would be a rich man indeed. Mommy Professor LOVES to posture. Pretending she is a “rebel” is one of her most standard forms of posturing.
Believe me, Elizabeth Warren would be offended by being called “Mommy Professor” and she would have a terrible time responding. “Mommy Professor” is a great insult. It is durable, memorable, and it works.
We are Samizdat. No one imagined how soon after samizdat got legalized the Great Soviet Empire would simply disintegrate.
So we are in fact the only real Dissidents today.
Samizdat means “self-publication.” The production of information by anyone but the State under Communism, like another form of production, was illegal. The term would not translate so easily or automatically in English, where approved forms of production are allowed to be private, or done by a yourself.
But we are all perfectly aware that jail time for any production of information not approved by the Authorities is standard practice in every country except the United States. In East Germany, the Stalinist government even had a state-subsidized Social Democratic Party, just as the atheist Soviet State had its own Orthodox Church.
And we have respectable conservatives, supported by our establishment.
It is legitimate for us to claim our status as the only real dissidents. But I would suggest that NOBODY use the term “Dissident” by itself. It should at least be “pro-white Dissident.”
If you want to see the kind of experience that leads to this insistence, take a look at the Tea Party. When I signed on with the conservative movement it was insistent that the Federal enforcement of school integration was unconstitutional.
Now the Tea Party is holding special worship of Saint Martin Luther the King.
NEVER ALLY WITH ANYBODY. The establishment’s sine qua non is the end of the white race. Good National Review conservatives will sell you out as fast as a Catholic bishop would refuse to reveal child molestation.
NEVER GET OFF OF OUR SUBJECT. When you are debating it’s nice to have somebody on your side on things like states’ rights or free expression, but the same person will sell you out to the Thought Police so fast your head will swim, all in the name of True Religion or True Americanism or True Free Speech.
No more alliances.
ALL Wordists are anti-white.
To a Marxist, History takes the place of Allah for Islam and Jehovah for Jews. I was raised in the Bible Belt, so a majority of the people I was raised around considered any doubt about Jonah being swallowed by a big fish (not a whale) was on a par with outright atheism.
The last thing a Marxist would want to know is that I detect exactly the same hysteria from Marxists as history changes daily. Marxism is totally dependent on the history Marx grew up with.
You are mostly not old enough to remember the picture of Natural History I grew up with. You BELIEVE me when I describe it, but you don’t UNDERSTAND me when I am describing it.
You simply cannot really empathize with the mind set of a whole WORLD, especially Intellectuals, who thought that man was the only territorial animal, that only men and ants fought border battles, that in a herd of natural animals, Freedom, Equality and Fraternity were part of the Natural Order.
One of the major blocks to conservatives trying to take on Marxists was that conservatives had exactly the same world view Marxists did. The only serious difference was that for conservatives all knowledge started in Israel while for Marxists all knowledge started a hundred miles or so west, in Egypt.
What you could easily miss here is that, while a factual error is a matter of Googling, an entire mentality BUILT on a historical error is an entirely different thing. For decades I watched as two sides fought it out over a history that never existed, a history that was being undermined every day with new scientific advances.
And neither side noticed.
I remember in the old Inspector Clousseau movies when the straight man was George Sanders playing a respectable English-type gentleman who knew the Inspector was a retard. That gentleman did some of the best acting I have ever seen, because he did no acting at all.
He just stood there, but he stood there RIGHT. His expression never changed as he watched Clousseau try to act like a past-master at billiards, which he had obviously never played in his life, doing the usual Peter Sellers bit of ending up trying to shoot with the cue between his legs, breaking it, and so forth.
The English gentleman just stood there, watching, with a perfectly straight face. It was funnier than any “reaction” shots might have been.
This is an old tradition. In Buster Keaton movies poor Buster would Drop his sandwich, get it tangled in his tie, have a building fall around him, his most dangerous stunt, but Keaton’s dignity never faltered. He never looked embarrassed, in fact, what was hilarious was that his face never changed the slightest.
Keaton, in other words, was doing Inspector Clousseau and the English gentleman himself, with his reactions to himself.
The English gentleman made use of his seeing the reality. He had done the murder so he asked for Clousseau to be in charge of the case.
My entire life I have watched Great Intellectual hosts who were flattered to have Great Spokesmen sit with them and seriously discuss nonsense that had been out of date for decades.
I try hard to take a George Sanders attitude to it.
The New Age of “I’m Here, Pay Me,” IHPM, is now unquestioned.
Nobody knows who the rebels against Kaddafi are.
But what sets this aside in history is that nobody is saying they will find out.
It never occurs to anybody that the tens of thousands of Professional Journalists and Intelligence Agencies should actually DO anything for their money.
This is the kind of thing for which, back when they had to at least PRETEND to try for results, they bit the bullet and sent me in. Actually there is some relationship between what I did in active politics and what I did in that other world.
There were a lot of classy guys like Kevin Phillips, Bill Rusher, Paul Weyrich and Pat Buchanan that Jared Taylor would have LOVED to have buddied up to — just look at the cover of my 1982 book — who TALKED about an alliance with Wallace voters and other social conservatives.
But they had as little real contact with those working stiffs as Jane Fonda or Lenin did when they talked about their love for The Working Class. I got into the homes and onto the streets with them, writing their press releases and setting up their publicity until we were overwhelmed with requests, every one of them from grassroots farmers, miners, electricians independent truckers — a list of real working people who get things done, the ones both sides were theorizing about.
I was the same way in Intelligence. Finding out “who they are” was one of my major jobs.
But the real money was, of course, a matter of fitting in, as elsewhere. I am not uncomfortable with not fitting in with the pro-white leadership.
Nobody claimed I worked for them. They hid my funding sources from each other.
In short, nothing has changed for me in my whole life time.
But the OPEN statement, as a matter of routine, that nobody knows who these people are, and, more important, the clear indication that nobody is going to find out, sort of passes a threshold nobody but me seems to have noticed.
Nobody for a long, long time has ever required any Professionals to perform, but now it is absolutely out in the open and no one cares. We have known for at least two generations that one gets paid and promoted for wearing fashionable clothes and kissing the right ….uh, playing up to the right people.
For decades, who you have lunch with is a lot more important than what you do at your desk. This is the first time we have agreed to say it in public.
The very idea that an investment counselor is supposed to show a better record than, and I mean this literally, a chimpanzee throwing darts at a board, a regular feature in the Wall Street Journal, is now openly absurd.
You get your desk or your spot as a Celebrity, not by doing anything, but by whatever the fast track is these days. Then it’s IHPM all the way.
Now we are finally SAYING so.
Nobody has any trouble believing that human being’s political preferences are, at the base, simple.
We would be astonished if the paper hats at the VFW Convention demanded a cut in veterans’ benefits.
We would be more astonished if they simply said they want all the government money they can get.
But we never apply the same human standards to occupations that conservatives are taught to worship.
The regular cops have a very broad range of opinions on gun control. But the brass hats have only one: the more the right to bear arms is regulated, the happier they are. But no one ever mentions the obvious fact that, being human beings, they do the regulating, so the more regs, the happier they are.
It would have been hard to run sheriffs’ campaigns in South Carolina without the funds brought in by making sure that a big donor got a Special Sheriff’s badge and the right to tote a gun anywhere inside the county.
I think the permit system we now have is the reason there has been such an expansion of those “Friends of the Sheriff” bumper stickers that they sell now.
The Yankee-owned “local” paper in Columbia had an article about a new bill to expand the rights of permit holders AND of citizens in general to carry weapons. The sympathy for this bill was so great that even The State paper had to report that there was really no opposition to the right to bear arms in SC.
Actually, there IS a major anti-gun lobby, and it is financed by those it lobbies. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has opposed EVERY expansion of the right to bear arms.
SLED opposed permits being handed out to people by anybody but the police. Each year, SLED demands that there be no more expansion of gun rights.
Like Mommy Professor, no one ever mentions the obvious any human being would have for his political stand that would be the first to be discussed if it were any other business but law enforcement: Under the old permit system, it was the police brass hats who gave their friends, and sold their supporters, those permits that they lost control of.
No, SLED never complains about THAT. A good lobby NEVER shows that its reaction is predictable and knee-jerk. So No one says that SLED is an anti-gun lobby.
Like Mommy Professor, they’re Objective Experts.
Much of my time and strength have been wasted over the decades by personal conflicts in groups, I have helped get many an organization on its feet at some effort to see it torn apart this way.
Such conflict is hard on the nerves and has blighted my whole time in the struggle.
You will note that no leader of a major group in our coalition has attacked me. Jared Taylor’s group, for example, has not actually attacked us.
Jared ignores me. All through my political career, those who genuinely believed they might get a good point of view into the mainstream have disclaimed me. When I was out on the streets with the populist Wallace Democrat-type movements even Stan Evans kept his distance from me.
National Review split into two camps: One side, led by their publisher, Bill Rusher, declared I was the champion of the only way to win, hence Jeffrey Hart’s review of my book which he titled, “Read This One!”
At the SAME TIME, in 1976, there was a cover article in National Review attacking me and all who sided with me. This came from the Buckley side.
Buckley and Rusher had twin offices opposite each other on the top floor of the NR Building. On Whitaker NR was split right down the middle.
Jared Taylor is working on the pro-white side. David Duke is a good friend of his.
I do not edit comments from genuine BUGS people, but I would very much appreciate it if commenters would refrain from personal insults or questioning personal motivations of people who are out there trying their own approaches.
The National Alliance used to have its big meetings in New Orleans. The year New Orleans disappeared all of us went to the American Renaissance Convention. Dr. Duke was very upset when a Jewish couple were invited by Jared and David denounced what they said as the Solid and Standard Neoconservative Line in the meeting where they spoke.
But David, who worries about damned few people’s opinions of him, was genuinely concerned that he had proved a bad guest at Taylor’s convention. We spoke at length after that meeting and David Duke made it clear to me that 1) He was absolutely appalled at Taylor for allowing this, and 2) He was a friend and admirer of Taylor’s, with whom he had worked for many years.
David is a pro. He can be terribly and deeply upset with someone without going to pieces over it. He can be furious about a person’s actions and still judge the person fairly.
BUGS is a seminar. This is where we learn to act like pros. Jared Taylor is taking an approach which could not be more different from that of BUGS and, for that matter, very divergent from that of David Duke. Mr. Taylor has his neck stuck out like the rest of us do.
There are anti-whites and there are pro-whites. Jared Taylor is pro-white. Jared Taylor is vouched for by the one professional on our side whom I know well and respect.
I am sick to death of squabbles and calling each other names.
Lord knows, we have so few people on Planet Earth with whom we can RESPECTFULLY disagree.
Let’s keep it respectful.