Archive for January, 2012
One commenter asked if anyone had looked into disappearing plots in BUGS.
Let me repeat this the hundredth time: BUGS is not a site where “someone” or “anyone” does anything.
“Anyone” is for general purpose bitching, and we don’t need that here.
If you have a proposal, DO it. Stormfront has had at least ten thousand no-question-this-will-conquer-the-world-if-SOMEONE-does-its.
If you will need help, GET IT STARTED and THEN ask for help, telling them what you have accomplished.
We got mixed up and took out a subject a few days ago about 9 AM, along with several comments on it, including White Rabbits.
This not a Jewish Plot. It was a screw up.
I wonder if the people who talk about “someone” have ever done anything themselves
Summer in South Carolina in 1952 was hot. So we listened to the Republican Convention outside on our car radio. Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, who would die the following year of cancer, was neck and neck with Dwight Eisenhower.
Have you ever noticed how the establishment always wins the close ones? In 1976 President Ford won a very similar squeaker against Reagan. Taft had been the conservative candidate in 1040, 1944, and 1948, and each time the establishment beat him and put in a semi-Democratic candidate.
Taft represented a point of view which disappeared altogether with his death. He had opposed extreme interventionism in the European War, and he opposed extended American commitments against Communism.
Actually, what he opposed was what I repeatedly called “military welfarism,” a term which is now for the first time being used.
You should y now take it for granted that the same Eisenhower who used the term “military-industrial establishment” was its greatest architect. He wanted American troops on European soil supplied by American taxpayers using weapons made by American industry .
In 1959, when Europe was on its feet industrially, Eisenhower renewed the old post-War contract that drafted American troops at American expense to go to Europe and protect them. By then Western Europe’s economy and its population outstripped the Soviet Union.
But by 1959, with Taft’s death, the Republicans Party upheld military welfarism as part of its Potemkin Patriotic policy.
Ron Paul is considered a real kook for saying that country which is collapsing under debt should not get into war after war.
Paul is throwback, but a very legitimate throwback.
I am reading War Through the Ages AGAIN. It was the basic textbook on military history at West Point back when military history was considered relevant for cadets. Nowadays it probably would get in the way of today’s Relevant Reading about Human Relations and how to turn down a queer without hurting his feelings.
There is an explanation of the difference between the strategy of the Roman Empire compared the last comparable Empire, that of Alexander and his father Phillip. The Roman Legion did not, like those short-lived strategies of Phillip and Alexander, begin with a string of uninterrupted victories:
“The system went on, steadily keeping abreast of changing conditions, and each defeat they learned what they had done wrong that time.” The strategy of Alexander, the book points out, ended almost immediately upon his death, and Greeks went back to the old phalanx. It was created and disappeared in a period of half a century.
The Roman system lasted at least five hundred years.
A lot of people know about the short sword. The pilum is seldom recognized by laymen. We have a pilum, the Mantra. We throw that spear and disorganize the enemy ranks. It is vital, but it is not part of the complicated strategy that occurs next, when the Legions go in in their patented formation and gut the enemy individually with short swords.
I am sure those years of development of the Roman Legion saw endless numbers of people saying exactly what we hear on BUGS, “This shoulder to shoulder, same weapons crap is SLAVISH. I want to step out of formation, scream my battle cry, and take on the enemy the way my forefathers did.”
“You know, back when they were losing.”
The Legion was not really slavish. In fact slaves, punished the way Roman citizen-soldiers were, would have died.
No, those who slowly evolved the Legions were not slaves. In fact, the first time citizen-soldiers crossed Rome’s border to go on attack, the soldiers sat down and refused to move until the leaders told them what it was all about.
We can compare our Mantra to the pilum. As I have said, THEN we use the short sword, and we STAY IN FORMATION.
Citizen-soldiers who were ruled by two elected consuls, each ruling on alternative days, formed this “slavelike” strategy.
They were rigidly trained and consistent:
“The Romans are successful …for their exercises are battles without bloodshed and their battles bloody exercises.”
One thing everybody knew about Napoleon was that he was a midget.
As usual the lesson I want to point out to you about this has nothing to do with Napoleon.
The man was actually dug up and autopsied!
But the story that he was about 4’10” tall made it into a quote from his autopsy report I once saw.
The word is now that they quoted a British length that made him 5’2” instead of the actual over 5’6”, which was actually slightly above average in his age.
You will probably find all of these somewhere in Google, each of which could be quoted to make your point.
It’s not as if nobody ever SAW Napoleon. Half of the British aristocracy went over and met him personally during the one year of peace under the Treaty of Amiens.
Simply the complete disagreement and movie after movie showing Napoleon as short — especially Time Bandits — makes it clear that somebody is DEAD wrong.
Once you ask “Why is information produced?” you have the answer: A midget Bonaparte is more INTERESTING than one of average height.
But what most people don’t ever understand is the POWER of “Why was this information produced?”
Most people before the Internet could not have imagined that leading experts and witnesses produced AUTHORITATIVE statement that he was midget or above average height.
People laugh at us when we explain HOW mistaken information is. And our entire world view is determined by information a lot harder to get hold of Nappy’s vertical.
I think the word is smarmy, somebody who is always smiling and not quite saying anything.
If Romney says anything, it will be after he has assured everybody how handsome Obama is and bring out the endless string of clichés required of respectable conservatism.
Gingrich is often stupid and wrong, but he gets it OVER with. He just says the required horseshit and then goes on to the subject.
Romney is the perfect image of the Republicans who runs as a non-Democrat. He smiles and he smiles and he smiles.
There may be an undercurrent of the Internet Age here. One of the great innovations of this age is TLDR — Too Long, Didn’t Read. This attitude may be getting to politics. In the 1850′s Lincoln or Douglas would have an audience that brought a couple of meals and expected a short speech to give hem at least two hours’ entertainment.
Now the standard respectability ritual, which varies about as reciting the Creed does in church, causes the audience to cough and get restless.
One can see Gingrich with a wrinkle in his suit and one does not associate him with a smile. The media emphasizes this because it has always demanded smarmy conservatives who repeat the Creed carefully and in full.
I wonder what Romney would be like with a single wrinkle in his jacket or with no hint of an apologetic smile on his face?
There is nothing to choose between a Gingrich or a Romney, or an Obama as president.
So maybe, just maybe, people are getting tired of sitting through the Creed and waiting the apologetic smile.
We use the Roman Legion as an illustration of our approach. One part of this is the short sword, which Romans used in their tight formations, up close and personal, to gut their enemies who could not get through the wall shield.
I see long essays –by OUR standards — on the “race does not exist” or “is a social construct”. The short sword version of a reply would be “So Hitler did not commit genocide?” or, better, “You are saying there is no such thing as genocide.”
This happens a lot. Commenters get wrapped up in making simple issues that could be handled by short sword into just what the other side wants.
This is a HARD discipline to learn. After years of debating, you are now learning a discipline.
It is like one we HAVE generally learned. Instead of talking about the evils of the white race, we simply point out that “You are JUSTIFYING genocide.” He is in the position of verifying what you said. That’s a short sword jab.
If you do not use the short sword jabs I have tried and found true in years of experience, you’re re exactly like a Legionnaire who gets pissed, steps out of the line, and tries to fight the man opposite him alone in the old style.
It is STUPID and it leaves me frustrated.
So LOOK for the short answers. If you don’t use them I don’t regard you as mistaken, I think you are a damned fool.
Faced with the Mantra, anti-whites pull their ultimate knife: the Crazy Nigger.
On SWARM you will see commenter after commenter quote an anti-white falling back on their one resource, their screaming nigger. The Mantra is exactly the kind of thing Mommy Professor appeals to his screaming niggers, or Hispanics, or whoever, to suppress.
So naturally one Mommy Professor yuppie after another goes into his Nigger Mode. He screams M–Fucka and sh** and all the other things we would be condemned for, such as “screaming nigger” language,
This brings a reaction from BUGSERS which astonishes these pseudo-black militants: “You’re not black“.
In the girly girl world of anti-whites, the only really MASCULINE figures are screaming niggers.
That scream works just fine on campus with respectable conservatives.
Not with us.
The major point this makes it CLEAR is that anti-whites base their whole power on threats from their pet minorities. But these recent shrieks also make it clear that we have dealt with real hostile minorities, and Mommy Professor’s are not the real thing.
So Mommy Professor’s little anti-whites invent them to provide the Ultimate Scare.
Which, one by one, Bugsers laugh at.
Gee, Mommy Professor doesn’t really know the real world!
How exactly would racial survival be effected?
That depends totally on how each new generation is produced. No one seems to have recognized that that is one of the most undecided issues of the next century,
The fact is that absolutely nobody can be elected if he has the slightest interest in future generations.
The official line in Public Choice is that, if ghostly spirits of Future Generations COULD appear to us, naturally they would WANT the better looks and higher intelligence and the emphasis of breeding for creativity.
But what could they OFFER in return?
Since Public Choice is based on bargaining between real interests, the whole concept of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is, in the case of genetics, nothing.,
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you has a personal element. I would rather be competent than incompetent, intelligent rather than mentally weak, look better rather than worse.
But the Golden Rule does not apply to a future generation in religion.
Public Choice Theory explains this perfectly: a future generation has no POWER,
Jesus insisted that there would be no future generations
But had he understood we would still be here two millennia later, do you think he would have said that the new reality should also be dealt with on the basis of the Golden Rule?
The Church agrees with Political Correctness that, when it comes to genetics, the Golden Rule is repealed.
Jesus specifically stated that the Golden Rule is not just a nice rule. He said that it is the Law and of the Prophets. It is even more beyond question that a person wants to look better and be an integral part of more creative and better looking people.
The Pauline insistence that everybody was going to be made sterile in his generation is now strictly for really sick puppies.