Stalin’s Constitution of 1936 declared more freedom than did any US constitution, state or Federal. But those announced freedoms were limited by one small problem: No one could exercise them if they would interfere with Purposes of the State.

We are told that “Hate is not free speech.” Throughout history the motto has been that “Heresy is not free speech.”

By that definition, everybody has free speech. Slaves were permitted to say anything they wished, so long as it did not interfere with the will of their masters.

It amuses me to hear someone refer to “the Constitution.”

We all know that “the Constitution” is the current opinion of five lawyers who had the political clout to get appointed and confirmed.

The “right to bear arms” means that five of these lawyers are currently of the opinion that statistical, not “constitutional” data, shows that this so-called “right” is good public policy. This “right” to bear arms is never considered a right. It is a temporary decision by five lawyers that people carrying guns is good or bad.

This has nothing to do with a Constitution. This has nothing to do with a “right.”

As with Stalin, the so-called “right” to free speech is now simply the right to speak if it doesn’t cause trouble.

Every established religion and tyranny in history had free speech according to those criteria. The Medieval Church, slaveholders and Mao-Tse Tung all agreed that they allowed free speech, with certain exceptions:

1) Heresy was not free speech;

2) Free speech was all right if it didn’t make trouble; or

3) Stand in the way of the purposes of society.

Those three exceptions are all accepted by America today, by the left and by the respectable right.

In the real world, people who get published and those who get grant money are determined, do so by satisfying those who give the grants. I have reviewed and helped make out grant applications.

The best research is basic research, grant money used to find out random things, things the average bovine voter thinks are silly and useless.

Nobody has any idea of what will come up a detailed study of some aspect of high speed physics, much less a study of exactly where a kind of bee goes and why. Senator Proxmire made a great reputation looking at the names of NSF grants and making fun of them as Golden Fleece.

As luck would have it, some of the studies he ridiculed most loudly were used in epoch-making discoveries.

By definition no one can guess what the practical potential of basic research is.

That’s why it’s called BASIC research.

So how do you sell the project if you can’t argue for it in practical terms? How do you sell basic research?

This is the kind of question which, when STATED, leads to heretical thinking. Fortunately no one but me would ever STATE it.

Yours is one of a hundred proposals stacked up for one grant. How do you compete?

Rule One: You don’t piss off the Ford Foundation.

Ford was a right winger. Today the Ford Foundation Board is hard left and has been for generations. The number of grant givers who are not ruled by leftists can be counted on the fingers of one hand, a hand that has been in a shark’s mouth.

The first thing any foundation or government agency will do is delete applications that are from people who have offended their “point of view.” This is so routine no one even brings it up.

In a case where no one can say what the practical effect of research will be, you must depend on approval.

This is obvious, but only if you STATE the question:

So how do you sell the project if you can’t argue for it in practical terms? How do you sell basic research?

And no one but me is going to state it.

Nothing is changing faster than history.

This is causing a real strain because history is not only what Horus calls a closed system, it is locked and barred.

And everything that has been built on this locked system is teetering.

What we have is called Mankind History where Everything was invented in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The everything became the Greeks, then the Romans took over. All this time what historians actually called “half-naked savages” inhabited Northern Europe.

Just as a matter of logic, no half naked person could survive in Northern Europe. But logic is precisely what is excluded from a closed system.

So Mankind History says that all mankind inherited what was done exclusively by the Egyptians — Mesopotamia is mentioned but not much — and all Mankind got everything from the same place.

As I have stated repeatedly, just STATING what Marxism or Mankind History says makes it a laughing stock. But taking it seriously is the way its opponents, like respectable conservatives, make their living.

A lot of noise came up on the publication of The Da Vinci Code. But what was really fascinating was what was NOT said. Nobody had any proof of what everybody had taken for granted: that Jesus was not married, and that he never had sex.

The entire Christian theology after Saint Paul put human sterility as the basis of the Church. One of the fundamental bases of Christian theology was that all sex is sinful. Even Protestants assumed that Christ was not only unmarried, but, as the Perfect Man, he never had sex or, even THOUGHT about sex.

But it comes out at last that when that premise was actually STATED, it turned out to be nonsense. St. Paul was a sophisticated intellectual, so he put his degenerate Zoroastrianism into the creed.

But when that premise was STATED, it quite simply disappeared.

So would Marxism, if we stopped trying to impress people with our complications and simply STATED what it actually says.

Mantra Thinking states what anyone can see.

All closed systems produce more and more absurd errors. Each published theory of history, leftist or respectable rightist, argues over the same set of assumptions without which no one is allowed in the argument. Then someone builds on that theory Then someone stacks his theory on top of that theory, and society accepts only theories based on the closed system, in this case Mankind History,

It is a tower that all comes from Egypt as its base. State the basic assumptions and you destroy All of the complicated philosophical systems that are teetering on top of those first erroneous assumptions.

If you just STATE what all those professional philosophers and commentators make their living on, as the Da Vinci Code in one case actually did, every single philosophy and political theory now current is threatened.

seapea points out:

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=a/res/260(III)

The above link use to have the full text of the General Assembly resolution 260 (III) of 9 December 1948 (where we get the geNOcide definition) but now

it spits out a “NO AUTHORIZATION” error page. It’s been a few months since I’ve pulled that page up but I find it curious that we can’t view it any

longer and still there other pages on the UN’s site that link back to that document which is now being blocked.

Is it getting dumped into the memory hole too?

UL says:

I actually thought this was going to happen a while ago. I noticed we brought up international law alot and figured they would try to change/get rid of

the law so we would have no grounds.

Shear stupidity. The law is out there for anyone to look up. We already have everything we need from the law too. We have the law itself and the man who

wrote it.

Any attempt to change/forget the law could be interpreted UNDER THE LAW as them trying to commit genocide.

Even if they were able to succeed in changing the law, the original law is still all over the internet and them changing “genocide’s” meaning is a

violation of genocide’s meaning. Only someone who wanted to commit genocide a certain way would want to alter it.

This is just more proof that we truely are dealing with a bunch of genocidal freaks.

I actually thought this was going to happen a while ago. I noticed we brought up international law alot and figured they would try to change/get rid of

the law so we would have no grounds.

Shear stupidity. The law is out there for anyone to look up. We already have everything we need from the law too. We have the law itself and the man who

wrote it.

Any attempt to change/forget the law could be interpreted UNDER THE LAW as them trying to commit genocide.

Even if they were able to succeed in changing the law, the original law is still all over the internet and them changing “genocide’s” meaning is a

violation of genocide’s meaning. Only someone who wanted to commit genocide a certian way would want to alter it.

This is just more proof that we truely are dealing with a bunch of genocidal freaks

Old Blighty adds:

I have used that quote for around 2 years and revisited that page often. I also told many anti-whites to search for that quote under Genocide.

The first time I noticed something was up, they added an awkward explanation at the top saying, Don’t be confused, genocide really is just about killing

lots of people…

Then I returned this week and the non-violent definition was removed and now it is only found among violent definitions to muddy the waters.

***

When they react to something you are doing, they are telling you, that you are hurting them.

What do you do when they react to something? You push harder at that precise point.

@Epiphany

“Wow, sounds exactly like what is happening to Whites today!”

Yes it is creepy isn’t it? It is a carbon copy of the so called multiculturalism policy, they demand for all white countries and only white countries.

It was meant to be a warning against genocide and they have been using it as a how to manual.

But our Professionals keep explaining to us that anti-whites are not concerned about the Mantra and can knock it over with a sentence.

But then again they have no more taken a look at reality than any of them has ever actually LOOKED at a Mantra debate.

I can’t find which commenter wrote this, I have an awful time when I try to look something back up:

From Article 2- definitions of genocide

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

“Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out.”

Malcolm Fraser (Prime Minister of Australia 1975-1983)

I’ve been reading in Der Spiegel about Tibet… a good example, people will claim there is some violence there, but it’s basically an influx of non-Tibetans. The Dalai Lama considers it to be genocide and monks are immolating themselves to draw attention. China did try to call the Dalai Lama a “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews” but it was pretty much laughed off by the mainstream media (probably because he’s not White).