Archive for category Blasts from the Past
My nephew has just started medical school in Moscow. He was the only American in the class, not a new experience for a member of our family.
Other students asked him why American medical terms are in Latin. In Western Europe, prescriptions are still written in Latin. But the other students, most of whom are from the third world, said they did all their medical writing in English.
In the West, the traditional scholarly language was Latin. But Roman scholars did not write in Latin. The Roman upper class used Greek. The expression, “He has no Greek” is from old Rome, indicating a person of lower rank.
We look back to Rome. Rome looked back to Greece. The new world looks to America. An upper class Russian or Malaysian speaks English.
One instructor asked the students in my nephew’s class to introduce themselves and say where they were from. When my nephew said he was from the United States, she said, “We are honored.” If a student at a German university in 1200 AD had said he was from Rome, the instructor might have said, “We are honored.”
The Roman Empire has been gone from Western Europe for over 1500 years, but prescriptions are still written in the Roman vernacular (not in Greek). That is because in the end Rome was not known for being loved, but for accomplishing mighty deeds.
No one will ever have that kind of respect for post-World War II Europe. Europe knows that and hates us for it. All of Europe’s miserable little welfare politicians will be forgotten before they are buried. They do nothing anybody cares about.
No one is more critical of the misuse of American power than I am. But Old Europe makes me sick. Like most serious inferiority complexes, the European one is in a guise of feeling superior.
Nobody is fooled. These are little people doing little things who hate a giant for being a giant. It is accidental when I happen to agree with them, and they make me sick.
Right or wrong, we are the new Rome. We made the modern world.
In order for a case to reach the courts, a judge has to be willing to accept that it makes some sense.
In the 1970s a woman constantly referred to herself as a “Marxist-Leninist.” Someone called her a “Communist” and she sued him. I don’t know whether she won or not, but it went to court in a serious civil case.
Marx, author of “The Communist Manifesto,” would have been astonished to hear that he was not a Communist. Lenin would also have considered anyone who did not consider him to be a Communist to be a lunatic.
There was no doubt in anybody’s mind that a Marxist-Leninist was a Communist. The suit was about the right of a person to say so.
There was a TV movie some years ago about Robert Oppenheimer. Robert Oppenheimer was a leftist who was in on the development of the atomic bomb during World War II from the get-go. The whole point of the movie was to show that, while practically everybody Oppenheimer associated with was openly a Communist, Oppenheimer himself was not.
One scene showed a friend of Oppenheimer’s going to a picnic with his fellow Communists in a bus marked, “Communist Jewish League.” Some people stopped the bus and started shouting. Finally someone said something that started the fight. He called them “Commie Jews!”
This bigot was the villain of the piece.
Everybody watching the movie understood that a group of Communist Jews had the right to ride in a bus with the words “Communist-Jewish League” emblazoned on both sides, but no non-Communist gentile had any right calling them Communist Jews.
Those were fighting words. Please remember, EVERYBODY watching the movie was expected to understand that.
For many years it was considered extreme right-wing propaganda to call Fidel Castro a Communist. In 1957, while Castro was still a little-known guerilla in the Cuban hills, National Review announced he was an avowed Communist, from his own words.
The media, Republican moderates and many conservatives not only denied this statement, they ridiculed it.
In 1958, before Castro took power on January 1, 1959, the John Birch Society announced he was a Communist. For a couple of years after Castro took power in Cuba, saying he was a Communist was a strictly right-wing thing.
Then, in 1960, Castro announced that he was and always had been a Marxist-Leninist. Most of the media did what they always do. When the truth came out, they simply forgot that they had ever denied it and so did any conservative who ever wanted to be part of the national media.
But some in the liberal media held out. They insisted that when Castro said he had always been a “Marxist-Leninist” it did not mean they had been wrong. They argued at some length that a Marxist-Leninist was not necessarily a Communist.
Original run May 7th, 2000.
People in Littleton, Colorado say they are very upset about the release of tapes showing the shootings there. I saw one person after another in Littleton expressing disbelief about how their tragedy was being “used.”
Like vultures, liberals swoop in on every tragedy that involves a gun, and everybody seems to think they have a right to. Nobody argues that the same old gun control measures would have had any effect at all in preventing the Colorado tragedy. But those who act so outraged about the tape seem to agree that anything the left wants to use as grist for its mill is just fine.
So I am less than impressed by Littleton’s supposed outrage at those who made the tape. And the liberal media are right in their showing wild resentment at anyone ELSE who uses their tragedy for their own purposes.
Recently I read an editorial where a liberal was quoting a law enforcement veteran who opposed gun control. Then he said, “In fairness to him, he expressed these views before the Littleton incident.” In other words, one was to assume that everybody’s mind was changed on gun control by the fact that two kids went on a killing rampage in Littleton, Colorado.
Now let me ask you, is there anyone who can take the liberal crocodile tears about the incident at Littleton seriously? Are any liberals really concerned about the people killed there?
As the anniversary of the tragedy was marked by intense media attention, some people in Littleton were asking why. Why, they ask, don’t we put the tragedy behind us?
The reason is that liberals consider Littleton one of the finest occurrences of the decade, and they want to savor it.
Posted by Bob on April 4, 2006 at 2:53 pm
One of the basic premises of international relations is what I refer to as “The A-C Rule.”
Country A, let’s say France, has a country that borders on it, say Germany. France is A, Germany is B.
So since they share a border, it is for sure that A and B, Germany and France, will be most likely to go to war with each other and to be in competition with each other.
Then there is a Country C. Country C is on the OTHER side of Country B. In 1939, it was Poland that bordered on Germany on the opposite side from France. France is A, Germany on its border is B and the country on Germany’s OTHER border is C.
The enemy of my enemy is my natural ally. So France and Poland were likely to beunited bymutual hostility to Germany, Country B.
Graduate professors in International Relations love to point out that the oldest treaty of alliance in existence was ona clay tablet in cunieform script.
That clay tablet recorded an alliance of Countries A and C against the country which bordered on them both, Country C.
Which explains why his British cousins left Czar Nicholas to die at the hands of the Bolshevike. They were LITERALLY his cousins.
But by the time the Czar fell in 1917 Britain and France had made the war into a crusade “to make the world safe for democracy.”
The reason France and Britain made common cause with Russia was because, in 1914 when the war began, France was on one side of Germany and Russia, which held the half of Poland Germany did not hold, was GEOGRAPHICALLY in position C, bordering Germany on the other side from France.
Britain, due to power of the British Fleet and English Channel in 1914, did not feel that it bordered on anybody.
But Russia was also on the other side from Britain and France POLITICALLY. It was an unapologetic Czarist despotism.
POLITICALLY as well as geographically, Germany was between the Western Allies and Russia. It had a despotism, but nowhere near the despotism Russia had.
This often happens. Country C is often further away from Country A politically than each is from Country B.
The Allies, in their “War to save democracy” with their new American ally, could not afford to accept the Czar as a refugee from the Bolshevik Revolution which threatened his life in Novermber of 1917.
So the A-C Rule is very, very, VERY practical. More often than not, it is a matter of life and death.
Posted by Bob on November 25, 2004 at 7:50 pm
On Thanksgiving I am stuck between people who deny history and people who get history wrong.
According to the Thanksgiving theory, the Pilgrim Fathers founded America in November of 1620. Each November we celebrate that piece of pure unmitigated hunk of equine fecal output.
Then there are those who say Thanksgiving has nothing to do with thanking God.
These are two groups of driveling morons. It is exactly like today’s political “debate.” We have arguments between idiotic liberals and moronic respectable conservatives. How am I to choose between two groups of people who are not even within a country mile of anything resembling reality?
A question for you, What happens when the Mantra
exposes an explicit White Genocide group of Whites, Jews and Faithful Colored Companions? White genocide has been implied for the most part but once we expose it it will be left to the hard core white haters and then what do we say and do?
Pain happened to have the exact answer to this in his comment today:
“When we do argue with creeps, it is for the anyone that may overhear us.”
When open anti-whites, especially if they are white, say so out loud, encourage them. They will agree with the Mantra. Repeat it, and be sure as many people as possible HEAR them agreeing with you. Remember it for when the next person says, “But nobody is anti-white” or “How can a white person be anti-white?”
Much as they may cheer him in public, everybody despises a self-hater. As Pain points out, you are not there to win an argument, you are there to make OUR point.
Posted by Bob on June 10, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Historians love to talk about the extreme tolerance of New Amsterdam.
Governor Peter Stuyvesant of New Amsterdam was astonished when the first shipload of Jews arrived there about 1640. He immediately informed the Dutch company that owned the colony the he had told them to leave, without the slightest doubt that they would agree.
Stuyvesant was astonished when the company instructions arrived from Holland telling him to let them stay. New Amsterdam was for EVERYBODY, they said.
The Dutch on the island were merely a large minority.
Historians love to talk about this incident. They never mention what happened afterward.
When the British fleet came in to take New Amsterdam from the tolerant Dutch AND the tolerant company that owned it, Stuyvesant tried to organize a defense. He was met by a delegation of citizens of New Amsterdam which was led by his own son.
This delegation reflected the exact sentiments of the Dutch who had founded the place and the company that owned it. They told the Governor that they were not about to fight the British. They said that, as far as they were concerned, it made not the slightest difference who governed the place, as long as it was a stable power, like England, that would allow business to go on as usual.
So the Dutch lost their profitable colony and the company lost every guilder it had put into the place, all without a shot fired.
A melting pot has no loyalty.
Posted by Bob on December 1, 2005 at 5:51 pm
In my old “Partisan Dictionary” which I wrote in the Southern Partisan in the early 1980s, the following definiton appeared,
A formalized substitute for courtesy.”
Manners if doing whatever is fashionable and written down. Courtesy is concern for the other person.
By the same token, “ethics” is written down. Honesty, like courtesy, needs no explanation.
I have pointed out that the moment someone said something to me that sounded like they were getting around to “something you would like to have,” I would quote to them the Draconian penalties for bribing a staffer.
This was often unfair. I had honestly misinterpreted where they were leading. But it also gave me a certain reputation as a person who could not be trusted with even a hint of a bribe.
Why, exactly, was I so nasty about such hints of offers?
“well, Bob, it’s because you were raised in the Bible Belt. The Book taught you that ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor’ even if they pay you.”
And that is what really worries me about Wordists. My ancestors were proud to die to a man around the leader they had sworn fealty to long before the Gospel, much less the Old Testament, ever got to them.
I don’t lie, I don’t cheat, I don’t steal, and I honor my word not because some Book told me to be that way, but because I AM that way.
If you want to know about someone, let them talk. When a person justifies honesty by quoting a Book, you had better put your wallet in a safe place.
His Book can change tomorrow. His INTERPRETATION of his Book can change tomorrow.
Honesty is what an honest man takes for granted.
Wordism is for psychopaths.