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.
Posted by Bob on January 6, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Has there ever been a book with this title?
According to all the “moral” teachers, there is no such thing as genetic morality.
There is a lot of disagreement on how much human life is influenced by our genes. Right after World War II the dream world of social science was science. That is, all human life was entirely a product of environment.
Hitler was for heredity so the World War II generation went to colleges that taught that the future was entirely a product of education, sociology, political science, historical determinism, in other words the social sciences.
Thirty years ago I pointed this out in detail in my first book in my own name.
Environment IS social science. Leaving heredity and environment to social scientists is exactly like leaving the price of steel up to the Steel Trust. So the Weakest Generation, fresh from obedience training, was trained that heredity was nothing.
To every church that I am aware of, the term “genetic morality” is an oxymoron. If you are intelligent, you should spend your time on theology, not on having or raising children.
Chilren are a byproduct. You are not responsible for helping better people pass their GENES on, genes future generations will desperately need.
The first rule of post-World War II thinking is that there is no moral dimension whatsoever to genetics.
The discussion begins and ends with “some Hitlerites would say one should have BETTER children, WHATEVER “BETTER” Means.”
This is supposed to get rid of the whole argument and get us back to social programs and adopting the third world into the United States.
But when it comes to social science, there is never the slightest doubt as to what “better” means.
Look at the person who tells you, “Looks don’t matter.” How much do their clothes cost? Are they only wearing a minimum regardless of fashion or how the clothes look. I had a woman once tell me looks don’t matter but she had to end the conversation because she had an appointment at the beauty salon.
You see, the social scientists HAS to know what is “better” or he will not be able to make a living teaching students how they can achieve that “better” by putting money into social programs.
I am sure the lady who running the beauty salon will tell you that looks don’t matter. I am sure the high-end clothing store owners are putting money into programs based on the premise that there is no such thing as “better” looking children.
O’Reilly demands that test scores and not race should be the determinant of who gets into school. But, since his degree is in education, he will also tell you that no child is innately smarter than any other child.
He SAYS that!
It isn’t true.
I am not speaking of theory here. I am speaking of MORALITY.
My morality is still Odinist. That which is not true is evil.
So Bob has a genetic morality.
That is why I object so strongly to the word “aristocracy” as used today. Aristocracy means rule by the best. It has nothing to do with naciocracy, which is rule by birth.
Even social scientists now have to admit that heredity is important. Anything that is important to humanity has a MORAL dimension.
We are perfectly willing to restrict any human freedom to improve human beings by ENVIRONMENTAL means.
Except for libertarians. They just say they have no responsibility for anything.
I do not respect what passes for morality today because it has one blind eye. Everyone except extreme libertarians agree that businessmen do not have the right to do anything they want to to increase profits and they are perfectly willing to back the restrictions that are needed by force.
But anyone who is too irresponsible or unintelligent to keep down their number of children has a right to dump them on the rest of us. If countries can’t control their population, they have every right to dump them into vacant space left by white people.
But the critical point is NOT that this is not RIGHT. The point here is one no conservative and very few others have the guts to make.
The critical point is that this is IMMORAL.
No one dares to face down the screaming priest or preacher with this IMMORALITY.
If you do not have a genetic morality, you are an immoral person.
You can whip yourself in a Trappist Monastery or hold revivals or hold a professorship in Ethics at Harvard University. But you an immoral person if you do not have a clear-cut GENETIC morality.
On Judgment Day, I doubt seriously whether you will only be asked about your morality on one aspect of life and never questioned on the other.
The hungry will have to be fed in future generations. The naked will have to be clothed in the future. Only a genetically healthy society can do that. You can sacrifice and whip your skin off in this generation, but it won’t do the future any good.
All they will have is their genes.
There are only two excuses for ignoring a genetic morality:
1) The future won’t happen or
2) Genes really don’t matter.
Joe, I don’t think ANYBODY believes either of those things except those who expect Judgment Day in the near future.
But the environmentalists, whose whole program is based on the future, have no genetic morality at all.
This is not just wrong. It is immoral.
All the churches disagree. But they will not avoid being judged on the Golden Rule.
You can go to Hell straight through the church door.
All the philosophies and pretences at Ethics in the world and all the incantations of “HITLER!” cannot protect you from your moral obligation in this world or in the next.
Posted by Bob on June 24, 2006 at 1:01 pm
We have all heard the term “a ship of the line” from the days when Britain was in absolute command of the seas. The man who invented the “line ahead” formation that was so instrumental in giving Britannia true control over the waves has one especially interesting attribute. Not only did he never leave Britain, but he was never on a ship in his entire life, even in port.
The famous British redcoats got their uniform from Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army. Cromwell was in his middle age when he developed the New Model Army, training his troops in the methods Gustavus Adolphus had been using in the Thirty Years’ War before he was killed at, I believe, Lützen. The New Model Army, from its first day in battle, swept every opponent from the field. Cromwell always beat everybody.
Cromwell’s New Model was the basis of all British ground combat for about two centuries.
As I said, Cromwell was a middle-aged man before he led his New Model Army to its first victory. Before that, he had never been in the army, he had never been in a battle, he had never even HEARD a hostile shot fired.
One thing you are NOT going to see emphasized in a military history is that, when the British Empire was at its height and Britannia rules the waves, it might not have ruled anything without the techniques developed by complete military amateurs.
So let’s ask a question. Please note that this is 1) a question with so obvious an answer one feels silly asking it, and 2) a question absolutely no one ever considers when they look at history or anything else that doesn’t have the word “Advertisement” written all over it. That question is, “Why wouldn’t a military academy textbook emphasize that the developer of the line ahead formation and the New Model Army were both amateurs?
The obvious answer, so obvious it seems silly to state it, is that those who buy books for military academies want to emphasize how PROFESSIONAL military men are the only ones who know how to run an army or a navy.
This is rather obvious, but no one seems to take it into account. For example, when I was young I always heard that absolutely everything was created in the Cradle of Civilization, the Middle East. Even as a teenager, when this belief was absolute, it struck me as unlikely. The Middle East was made up of absolute, top to-bottom, rigid tyrannies. All intellectual life was owned by the priests. How could such a rigid tyranny invent NEW things?
It took me a while to realize WHY this doctrine ruled. It was taught in schools where the ability to read and write and do arithmetic were also taught. So history said that the societies that read and wrote and followed rules were the places where everything began and the only means by which truth triumphed over a mankind that was not better than the apes.
This was not a conscious choice. But that was the history schools at the time would obviously want so that was the history they got.
Isaac Asimov wrote his whole Foundation Trilogy in the early 1950s based on the idea that only an Empire could produce original ideas. After the Fall of Egypt or the Fall of Rome, history said, everything became stagnant and brutal and filthy until a new Empire based on scribes and bureaucracy came again. That is the absolute basis of the Foundation Trilogy, and it is exactly what everybody took to be true history in 1950.
The idea was that only a totally centralized bureaucratic state could INVENT things. New ideas only came from a rigid, bureaucratized state. It was assumed that the only argument against Communism, with everybody reporting Soviet leaps and bounds in production with every Five-Year Plan, was that it took away too much freedom.
No one doubted Communism was as successful as it claimed to be. It was just too mean about it.
Of course, everybody was wrong on every single point.
But how could you PREDICT they were wrong, when every statistic and historical instance and Future Inevitability they all the professionals announced said they were right? The way to do it would be to analyze each and every piece of information, each Theory of History, each Future Inevitably by ONE criterion:
Does anybody have a reason to WANT this to be true?
Professional scholars wanted it to be true that only a society which had a huge army of bureaucrats and scribes could accomplish anything. Asimov took this to a laughable extreme, but only laughable TODAY. At the time it was a sober analysis.
Intellectual life is an infomercial.
Treat it accordingly.
Posted by Bob on June 19, 2006 at 11:22 am
1) At the Council of Conservative Citizens, one speaker did a truly brilliant piece on how today’s system is run by sociopaths.
A sociopath is a person who is incapable of true feelings of guilt. He has no loyalties.
Later this speaker told me he had read about that somewhere and it had gotten him to thinking on this point.
I remember that he was reading whitakeronline almost from the day I started it in 1998.
If you will look at Whitakeronline, I talked about this at enormous length starting about 1999, and every year I spoke about it at length in different contexts.
But the speech he made, the thinking he had done about this, taught me an enormous amount. He gave an example about an employer he knew whose business was going through a hard time. But that employee is NOT a sociopath. He says that he simply cannot fire his friends, workers who have made the business what it is over the years.
This employer, like so many before him, will eventually be destroyed by his conscience. A sociopath will out compete him by simply throwing out all his old employees and giving his company to Mexico or bringing the Mexicans here.
He made a number of excellent observations and deductions about sociopathy which I will be telling you about later.
2) But let me proceed to the points that will be of use to you in this sequence.
Another person there is having his first experience in being a staffer. That is, the ideas be had been talking about to his chief went straight into his chief’s speeches. When you are new to that, you have an experience which is so normal, and happened to me so long ago, that it was quite an experience to hear it about to fresh from a person who has just had it.
By nature, staffing is an invisible business and unromantic. You will hear endless talk from The Greatest Generation about their first combat experience or from people about their first love affair, but everybody I talk to who is staff has been a professional staffer for a long time, so I believe this is the first time I ever heard anyone who made me nostalgic about staff work.
He said that when his boss hit on HIS points, he was very happy,but he wanted to jump up and say, “That’s MY point!”
Now back to point 1), this truly brilliant speech on the fact that racial treason is part and partial of the whole disease of a sociopathic society. Was I upset that the speaker got started with my ideas, which I had repeated and analyzed so many times so long ago?
The fact is that if I worried about people “stealing” my ideas I would have been sitting and drooling in a rubber room before many of you were born.
3) one of our Blog commenters was talking about my discussion of the drawback our present system of selecting political “commentators.”
The search for professional political commenters makes sure none of them are interesting. We have a professional political discussion community which is made up of liberals talking to each other and only allowing in conservatives who are “respectable.”
In other words, one cannot get PUBLIC exposure unless his every word can be predicted beforehand. They have no ideas, none at all. That is how you become a liberal or a respectable conservative.
But they have to find SOMETHING to say. So they have to “exploit” ideas from those of us outside the circle.
Which, with people like me around, can be made to destroy the whole PURPOSE for which this tight little circle was created in the first place.
I realized point 3) before 1960. But whereas the usual reaction to this is to bemoan it, I was not analyzing reality in order to complain about it.
In my teens I already had plenty of foreknowledge of how bad things would be.
I needed no new moaning material.
So I looked at this reality and decided to USE it. So I became an expert at reducing ideas down to the level where even conservatives could use them. My ideas had to be “stolen” to be used and made mainstream.
In other words I was a political staffer before I ever saw a professional staffer.
What I found was not the road to fame. This is the road to POWER.
Almost by definition, a political commentator has no power at all. If he isn’t saying the predictable there is a line waiting around the block to say it. He is famous because he has no power.
By the same token, the president has lots of fame but almost no power. If that particular man does not get his political position right to win office, someone else will. But the position has long since been mapped out.
By people like me.
People are always using political positioning as Moaning Material.
But where does this “positioning” come from? There is one “position” and another “position,” both too extreme for him to take. So he navigates in the exact right place between these “positions” before somebody else does.
That is the key to election. But there is no POWER in it at all.
Obviously no famous politician or political writer ever MAKES the political positions he is navigating between.
The Professional Moaners act as if this “positioning” was done between “positions” that came from nowhere. Like everything else, these positions were created.
By people like me.
If I become traceable I become famous.
Posted by Bob on August 17, 2006 at 3:29 pm
I bragged that, if I had been on staff, I, alone, would have stopped the “assault rifles” ban.
Remember I just said John hired me as a man who would have ideas and carry them out. I would have brought in the film I was talking about, written out the testimony about the REAL Swiss assault weapons, and handed it all to him.
I do not know of anohter staffer who was given as much absolute free reign as I was. I would have laid, at blog length, the purpose of all this and asked John to handle it from there on. John would find a way to get it in front of the committee and he would have enjoyed every minute of it. He would find other congressment o get in on it.
John had his own little coterie of trouble-makers, including Bob Dornan. They all loved raising hell.
They were NOT love by the go-along-get-along conservatives.
We would have crushed that crap before it ever got out of committee.
I did that for a long list of stinkers.
That is what John Ashbrook HIRED me to do.
So there was no Secret Plot by Staffers to rule the congressman.
Never tell anybody this in a barroom or in a stump speech. They’ll go to sleep on you.
Posted by Bob on August 17, 2006 at 3:22 pm
William Rusher recommended me to John Ashbrook as a have-an-idea-and-do-it man.
When John hired me, he said, “Bob, I spend a hundred hours a week dealing with my constituent’s troubles, working out deals, answering roll calls, sitting in committee, all the things you know about. I don’t have time to THINK enough.”
“What I want you to do is get out there and think and give me the information and go for it.”
Now at this point the “POWER COMES FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN!” types are going to stop listening and say, “You SEE, I TOLD you congressmen were just puppets of their staff!”
I get so TIRED of crap like that. It’s great for a barroom, but not if you’re dealing in real POWER. What it is impossible to explain to people, the same electorate that MADE the mess in Washington, is that we are talking about the big leagues.
There is a substantial difference between the big leagues and a barroom. The mess in Washington is a result of people listening to the barroom because it’s more fun.
I chose to work for John Ashbrook, and on Capitol Hill there is no substitute for loyalty. You would be ASTONISHED how many staff members simply will not go along with something and resign rather than do it.
I know, I know, only the screaming old drunk in the barroom has any real principles, and all the drunks and voters agree with that.
Meanwhile, back on earth, a man who has been elected and reelected to congress can SMELL disloyalty. I did what I did by reading over what John had written to the point where I did his writing for him. But never once did I EVER try to manipulate him.
Once, when the bill to outlaw in vitro, which LATER resulted in over 20,000 healthy births to families who desperately wanted children, I told John face-to-face that if he, a committed prolifer, required me to work in favor of abolishing in vitro, I would have to resign. He told he was not ABOUT to.
John pointed out to me that, as usual, we thought just alike: we were PRO-LIFE, not just anti-abortion.
So maybe now you can understand why I never believe a WORD that the anti-abortion movement says about embryonic stem cells. You may not agree but you can see why I assume that they lie and that they are NOT pro-life. I assume that they are just theocratic nutcases.
All of this would bore a barroom crowd or a bunch of voters to death. But the big leagues operate on loyalty and, as I have said before, on KEEPING PROMISES.
No, I don’t mean keeping promises to VOTERS. You can do anything you want and a year later, unless the media really hate you, it will all be forgotten by the voters or drunks.
Let me repeat, this is the big leagues. You don’t keep promises to some clown who will forget everything he is shouting about tonight a week from now.
But even a repeatedly reelected congressman can be frozen out and lose everything if he is repeatedly dishonest with the other PROS. They REMEMBER. Their staff REMEMBERS.
You can lie to the kiddies, you SHOULD lie to the kiddies.
But NEVER lie to the grown-ups.
Power comes from HONESTY with those who expect it and will back it up.
Posted by Bob on August 13, 2006 at 9:43 pm
I knew Senator Helms. I cannot say Senator Helms was a friend if mine because, as I have explained below, I do not say that anybody is a friend of mine. I was a friend of HIS.
Back in my day, there was a practice in congress called “Giving money BACK.”
National Review worshiped Senator Proxmire, a hard-core leftist, for “giving money BACK.”
Senator Helms also bragged about “giving money back.”
Let me explain this to you.
“Giving money back” meant that a congressman or senator would not spend the funds provided for him by the Senate or the House of Representatives. He would cut his own staff, the people who served his constituency, and spend less than his budget.
The first word is “HOO.”
The second word is “RAY.”
What did “BACK mean?
Each year, Proxmire and Helms and all the others would announce to the retards that they were “giving money back to the taxpayers.”
Their constituents, being retards, cheered wildly.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the money they were “giving back” went back into the congressional budget. That meant that others got to spend it. Senator Kennedy had a complete Office of Technology on Capitol Hill that was financed entirely from the money conservatives announced they “gave back to the taxpayers.”
My boss, John Ashbrook, always said, “There is no way I’m giving money back. Every dime I get is going into fighting for our side. ”
But John was an outsider and apparently his constituents were not retards.
I remember once I brought a giant march to Washington. Thousands of supporters, mountains of publicity. But Helms’s staff simply was too overworked to deal with us. There were no extra staffer because he was “giving money back.”
Kennedy was using the money.
Helms knew that this giving money back was insane. Would even his retard constituents have sung his praises if he had said, “I am not going to use half my Senate VOTES. I am going to GIVE THEM BACK.”
If he had said that, he would have been put on disability.
But the voters thought that “giving money back” was really Shrewd.
And it WAS the epitome of being Dumb.
National Review thought it was great.
Posted by Bob on August 13, 2006 at 8:33 pm
I am going to hear Joe’s, “God you’re BORING me!” Nobody comments on my inside-the-beltway discussion and it is probably too far from the latest news from Syria to interest anybody, but if you choose to listen to a senile old man, ramble, you have to expect this.
I have never understand why somebody who can read without moving his lips denounces a thousand words of boredom. It takes a reasonably literate person about thirty seconds to skim over a thousand words and decide it is drivel. The time required to READ it all and THEN write that it is boring runs into an actual waste of attention.
And when Joe says I am boring he never suggests what he WANTS to read from me. That is just plain bad manners.
If we are actually planning on taking POWER it might be useful to hear from somebody what power is LIKE. If Reagan had listened to me he might have actually had more of a revolution.
Let me repeat, the Reagan Revolution wsno revolution, as people keep pointing out. But Reagan did things that were so fundamentally important that they are forgotten as a part of history.
As the media keep explaining, the Soviet Union HAPPENED to collapse during the eight years of the Reagan presidency. This blog and my book discussed how the BBC, PBS and the entire Politically Correct establishment keeps trying to explain that every large species in America, from the mammoth to the Giant Sloth, just HAPPENED to drop dead at the same time Nature-Loving Native Americans came across the land bridge from Asia.
You see, Native American lived WITH Nature, not AGAINST Nature as we Evil Whites do. So it is a bit embarrassing that, after a million years and several Ice Ages, all those large animals suddenly died out just as the Native Americans got here. Hence the endless rationalizations about how they just just dropped dead in that particular Ice Age.
Lord, it is tiresome explaining this over and over!
OK. Back to the tiresome explanation AGAIN. All the media and fanatics in our movement keep explaining that Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Then there are those who whisper to us that Reagan did get rid of the Soviet Empire, but that was all a ruse Reagan and Soviets were in on.
Arranged by the Jews or the Bilderbergers.
Come on, gang! I am willing to repeat the obvious over and over and over and over, ad nauseum, but there are some scenarios where I just have to say this sounds to me like the guy who says, “I am tired of people whispering behind my back that I’m PARANOID!”
Give me a friggin’ BREAK!
When Reagan went into office, there was a saying, “20-20.” It meant that the interest rate was approaching 20% and the UNEMPLOYMENT rate was approaching 20%.
Reagan ads in 1980 showed shrieking sirens in California when Reagan took office. They said Reagan had dealt with an unprecedented disaster in California when he became governor and he could deal with the Crisis of 1980.
By 1982, all the media, and therefore everybody else, had forgotten that there WAS a Crisis of 1982.
And our fanatics are, as always, firm allies of the media. They forget that we dealt with any crisis in 1980.
For some reason, I find that offensive. Maybe it is because, in 1981, I was nearing my first nervous breakdown by working a hundred hours a week to solve that nonexistent crisis.
Sorry to bore you, Joe.