• Home
• The Mantra
• HERESY
• Porch Talk
• RSS

The A-C Rule

Posted by Brian on December 19, 2009 at 1:16 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | 5 Comments »

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.

Thanksgiving Schizophrenia

Posted by Brian on November 25, 2009 at 10:34 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past | 1 Comment »

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?

Simmons and Pain

Posted by Brian on August 5, 2009 at 9:55 am  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past | 1 Comment »

Simmons asks,

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.

The Lesson of New Amsterdam

Posted by Brian on July 3, 2009 at 12:49 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, History | 1 Comment »

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.

Wordism Versus Morality

Posted by Brian on June 23, 2009 at 6:34 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, How Things Work | 8 Comments »

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,

“Manners, n,

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.

Genetic Morality

Posted by Brian on June 16, 2009 at 12:00 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | 5 Comments »

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.

What Only Amateurs Can Do

Posted by Brian on June 12, 2009 at 12:19 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | 5 Comments »

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.

A Secret of Real Power is NOT Getting “Credit”

Posted by Brian on June 12, 2009 at 12:05 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | No Comments »

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.

AND powerless.

Where Power Comes From II

Posted by Brian on June 11, 2009 at 11:08 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | No Comments »

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.

Where Power Comes From

Posted by Brian on June 9, 2009 at 9:07 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | 3 Comments »

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.

Power: How Pros Make Fools of Amateurs IV: Giving Money Back

Posted by Brian on June 4, 2009 at 9:38 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | 3 Comments »

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.

Power: How the Pros Make Fools of the Amateurs III

Posted by Brian on June 4, 2009 at 11:25 am  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | 1 Comment »

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.

POWER: How Pros Make Fools of Amateurs II

Posted by Brian on June 3, 2009 at 12:23 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | 1 Comment »

Posted by Bob on August 13, 2006 at 8:07 pm

In case you think what I said below is something new that Reagan couldn’t know about, I refer you to the BBC programs, “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister.” The latter is MUCH better thant he former, and I would start with that. It is also hilarious.

It has always been known that the Civil Service rules Britain by a very simple tactic. When a new Government is elected, the Prime Minister is only allowed to appoint the HEADS of departments. So the titular head of a department is single person, a member of parliament, who fills the office at the very top of hte departmental pyramid. Even his personal aide is a member of the permanent civil service, whom the Civil Service appoints.

Unless you have tendency to stare vacantly and drool, you know what the result is. Within a month, the so-called head of the department is an absolute robot in the hands of Britain’s real government, the Civil Service.

That happens to be the exact reason that America’s Civil Service system had to keep compromising with congressmen who had been there a long time and allow the president to appoint, not only cabinet members as department heads, but a thousand others. That was why I and others like me were up thereinthe office next to the head of hte civil service. In Britain it would have been a Permanent Civil Servant.

When a department head in Britain decides to do something silly, his aides decide whether they want to encourage him or not. There are no Wet Blankets like Ole Bob sitting right there in the next office.

If the permanent civil service can’t have one of their own sitting there, the next best thing is to have a group of total amateurs around the boss. Reagan gave them that.

As I say, the proof of the pudding is that this rank amateur managed to be almost unique in trying something so dumb that he failed Senate confirmation for exactly the same job in the second Reagan Administration.

Where was I? I had taken a career job as writer for the Voice of America. His only professional had left.

In fact, he had said earlier that if he had known my background as a government pro, he would never have taken me on in the first place. He would have made Reagan withdraw the nomination because I was one of the Evil Alligators.

He lost his Alligator and he lost his job.

Shrewd, man, Shrewd!

Power: How Pros Make Fools of Amateurs

Posted by Brian on June 2, 2009 at 9:34 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | 2 Comments »

Posted by Bob on August 13, 2006 at 7:48 pm

Since I am no longer, except in legal terms, a public figure, I want to give you some basic lessons in common sense applied to government.

Reagan had a lot of top-level appointmentees at the P.A.S. (See below) level. He took on a lot of the old Republican gang who had “experience” at the high level, i.e., mostly those who would sabotage his programs, because of their “experience.”

But Reagan had a Shrewd saying about the other thousand appointees BELOW P.A.S. level:

“We are here to clean out the swamp, not to join the alligators.”

For those who have forgotten, I use the capitalized word Shrewd to described the peak level of Dumb. It is mindless tupidity whichisnot just mentioned, but thundered out as Words of Wisdom. The Greatest Generation destroyed our world by beating its chest and screaming out Shrews statements that amounted to pure cowardice:

“I learned in the Service that anybodywho tries to take on the System is just being ridiculous.”

And ad nauseum.

So Reagan said he was going to clear out the entire Washington buraucracy without hiring one single professional.

What this Wise-sounding saying, “We are here to clean out the swamp, not join the alligators” meant, in practice, was that he was not going to leave the cadre in the civil service that every single president has left behind him since the Civil Service was created. He wanted NOBODY among his appointees who would stay on in the civil service after he left office.

Bush was a fool, but he had real experience in real Washington politics. Bush, who was elected as Reagan’s successor, got rid of EVERY SINGLE one of Reagan’s thousand appointees. Bush appointees bragged about which one of them was quickest in getting rid of ALL Reagan appointees.

This was a dirty trick, but normally it would not be a major blow.

You see, EVERY administration normally left a cadre of CAREER employees behind them they had left behind in four, God knows in eight, years in office. That means that if Republicans lost an election, they would still have a cadre of thousands of people INSIDE the Permanent Government they could call to find out what was going on.

Reagan made it his busiess to leave NONE. So when Bush cleaned out his presidential appointees, conservatives did not have a SINGLE source of information INSIDE the government.

That’s what I mean by Shrewd. After 1989, Bus hmoderates and the Democrats had the whole government to themselves.

Now do you understand why, “We’re here to clean out the swamp, not join the alligators” was one of the prime examples of Shrewd?

I will say this for James Watt, one of Reagan’s few P.A.S. hard-core conservatives. He defied Reagan and announced openly that if any Reagan conservative waned a PERMANENT civil service job in his Interior Department, he would find one for them. So I overstated the case, there was a Reagan legacy there.

Reagan appointed my boss as head ofhte civil service. Bless his heart, what a hopeless amateur he was! When I first got there, he got his head yes-man to “show me the ropes.” When we sat down, he immediately pulled out the reorganization plan they had put in place.

I thought, “My Lord (thought the exact was not Lord), they fell for the old Reorganization crap!”

Let me explain. When a potentially radical administration like that of Reagan is elected, the bureaucracy wants to defang when it is in its first flush of revolution. When they first get there, the new administration appointees want to DO something. So when every new president comes in, professional bureaucrats do the same thing. They present the new guy with a Reorganization Plan. He gets to DO SOMETHING.

He gets to do something HARMLESS. He shuffles around the different departments. That is standard. That is something no professional would fall for. ALL the Reagan appointees did that instead of doing anything important.

So while this yes man gleefully described how they had rearranged he chairs onthe deck of hte Titanic, I sat there thinking that I could not possibly be talking to a grown man, much less the number 2 man in charge of the entire United States civil service under Reagan.

To give them their due, I am sure BUSH appointees laughed in their faces when they present this old Reorganization crap.

Progress Preserves

Posted by Brian on June 1, 2009 at 11:46 am  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, History, How Things Work | 1 Comment »

Posted by Bob on November 17, 2006 at 9:56 am

Whales were saved from extinction because whale oil became obsolete. Whale oil lamps were essential in the old days.

It is not the first world but the third world that destroys its native life forms and dumps pollution into the air. It is Brazil that is destroying its jungles, aka, rain forests. Brazil, brown country with an exploding population, can’t afford not to.

In the jungles of Central America are the ruins of gigantic temples, built by civilizations that rose, destroyed their environment, and fell. Elizabeth and I have discussed how American Indians destroyed the land and would have made the Shenandoah Valley into a desert if the white man had not come along.

As always, the recurrent theme of Political Correctness is complete silliness. They say that nature is being destroyed “in the name of progress.” Back on Planet Earth it is the stagnant society that uses the same resources until they are no more. If Coal had not been developed into coke and other means found to use it, Europe would have been totally deforested.

But, unlike other societies, Europe developed an increasing need as it grew, but it also developed new MEANS. Coal and brick replaced wood.

China is in desperate need for reforestation. The paddy culture, developed in India, dates back to Roman times. It is not nearly as “ancient” as legend tells it. But the paddy culture is a recycling culture. China ruined its forests, but it retains the beautiful, clean paddies, where human dung is a major ingredient of the recycling.

At the beginning of this century, books would say, “As in medieval Europe, in China you can smell a city five miles before you reach it.” And if it were not for Europe, they would be that way today. People who will live in a sty are not likely to be environmentalists.

No, progress does not destroy nature. Stagnation destroys it.

The Internet is Being There

Posted by Brian on May 30, 2009 at 11:57 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past | No Comments »

Posted by Bob on April 5, 2006 at 6:45 pm

“Stop HIDING behind the compter screen! Get out into the REAL WORLD!”

Since I am about the last person who can be accused of hiding anywhere, I am the perfect on to flush this nonsense down where it belongs.

I hate the telephone, relative to the internet, for a one reason: The person I am talking to is on a schedule. He calls me when I am thinking about something else, and he is on the way to something else, too.

A good deal of the time is spent trying to get get in what he needs to say to me when he can contact me personally.

On the internet, you are here when you feel like being here. I do not have to remember your telephone number or get ready to talk to you and intrduce you to the topic I am interested in at the moment, when your mind is somewhere else — otherwise you would be calling ME.

Phone call Stage One: Getting the number right and introducing the topic. Stage Two: Getting your input and my reaction to your input, all in the time allotted and at a time neither of us chose.

Personal visits are far, far worse t han the telephone. You have to GET there, which means that you have just been through a set of directions and little incidents.

Then comes all the “getting each comfortable.”

On the internet, you are here when you want to be here and I am here when I want to be here.

Onthe internet, the topic is already introduced when you sit and when I sit down.

I am mystified as to why this constitutes HIDING:

“I actually met so-and-so.”

My concern is not whether you physically sat down and saw the actual face of someone, but what did you SAY?

You can hide anything that was actually said in a talk about where he lives and how he looks.

Sight and smell are the province of a dog.

A dog can get nothing out of the Internet.

On the internet, if you tell someone you were talking to somebody on it, all you can discuss is WHAT YOU SAID.

I think the person who you of “hiding behind the computer screen” is the one who wants to hide. He wants to talk about where he was and how he was THERE, not about hwat was said, which is province of the human mind.

If anyone ever really reads and thinks about what I say, he will realize this is a repetition. The person who talks endlessly about “liars” is a liar. The person who talks endlessly about Hate is a hater. The person who talks endlessly about “hiding” is hiding.

That is the kind of thinking an interrogator does. It is the kind of thinking an interrogator gets so good at that he is paid for it.

Being there physically is a substitute for being there mentally.

Preaching to the Choir

Posted by Brian on May 30, 2009 at 10:48 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session | No Comments »

Posted by Bob on December 27, 2005 at 9:00 pm

Don’t ever underestimate the importance of preaching to the choir.

Christianity, whatever you believe about it, was the most successful movement in history. Even an athiest who does not study the history of Christianity is a fool.

Those who spread Christianity did not say, “OK, you’re baptised, now I’ll go somewhere else and leave you to yourself.”

Christianity insisted that everybody, including the choir, show up at least once a week for a sermon. Every service began with a recitation of the Creed.

The entire congregation had to gather at least once a week and reassert its loyalty and be preached to.

Including the choir.

The Basics Don’t Change

Posted by Brian on May 26, 2009 at 1:18 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Comment Responses, Musings about Life | 5 Comments »

In the previous article I said that Bob has been repeating the same thing for roughly 30 years, I want to clarify that statement since it can be intrepreted as a slight. I didnt mean it as a slight. Bob has been hammering on the basics and the basics just don’t change!

The Basics Don’t Change

Posted by Bob on September 22, 2004 at 10:49 am

An old professor friend of mine was very enthusiastic about “Why Johnny Can’y Think: America’s Professor-Priesthood.” He was also amazed about how consistent my ideas have been since we met forty years ago.

With due apologies I pointed out to him that his ideas about arithmetic were also consistent. Since I met him he got his PhD and had a long academic career, but he still repeats “2+2=4″ today exactly the same way he did when he was eight years old.

I am still looking at the most basic facts of politics and economics. They are exactly like 2+2=4. They don’t change.

Rememer that there was a whole theory and university science of medicine before they accepted the existence of bacteria. There was a whole university study of economics, called political economy, long before anybody ever heard of supply and demand. Before they heard of bacteria or supply and demand, both medicine and economics were destructive.

I am still trying to introduce the idea of wordism and the professional biases of social scientists into the field of social science. Until that is done, they are still exactly where medicine was when doctors regularly bled people to death and economics was when it pushed the old Mercantile System. They are stupid and they are wrong.

I have spent a frustrating lifetime trying to talk real social science to the social science professors who sell bleeding and Mercantilism in the social sciences today. I will keep doing it.

I will also keep saying 2+2=4.

I am indeed very consistent.

What Your Psychology Professor Can’t Tell You

Posted by Brian on May 16, 2009 at 12:00 am  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past | 2 Comments »

December 30, 2006

In one of the Dr. Lekter movies, Lekter says the agent is not as smart as he is. The agent replies something like, “No, but I have a great advantage over you.

“What is that?” asks Lekter.

“You’re insane.”

It is a general believe that psychopaths are smart. Actually, the ones who GET AWAY with being psychopathic are intelligent. The average white trash ort non-white psychopath in the penitentiary will be there all his life, expect for periods when judges can get him back out to maim people.

It is important to make these distinctions. For example, I am caught between people who denigrate IQ tests and people who worship IQ tests. My big-time psychologist friend said to me that he knew IQ tests showed heredity to be the overwhelming factor, but, as a psychologist, he knew there were terrible flaws in those tests.

He then pointed out that, after all, it was psychologists who developed those tests in the first place, so he should know.

My reply was, “Yes, but even a dumbass psychologist can find out whether somebody is retarded or normal.”

My dream is that you will develop a talent for BASIC thinking that, after you read the simple sentence above, would make you think of everything I say about that.

Finding actual mental retardation is all IQ tests were developed to do. Idiot, moron, and imbecile are LEGAL, not medical, terms. IQ tests were developed to distinguish between those who required legal protection as retarded and normal people. An idiot has an IQ of 0 to 30, an imbecile from 30 to 50, a moron from 50 to 70.

But because IQ tests confirm their point, some people WORSHIP them.

But analogy tests are better at telling who is SMART, so Mensa uses IQ and gives one an Oriental result: problem-solving is intelligence. Mensa is, after all, a Yiddish word for a German Mensch.

IQ gets you off of race. If someone speaks French, uses deodorant, and has an adequate IQ, it is easy to ignore the color of his skin. But REALITY doesn’t. As one person put it beautifully, “Whites innovate, Orientals stagnate, blacks degenerate.”

That will never be allowed in a peer review session, but that is the truth.

The fact is that, if they use a stick of deodorant every single week, brown skinned people lack something basic. Like intelligent psychopaths, one naturally assumes that a smart, one who has learned to fit into our world, is just one more of US. Remember, even most PSYCHOPATHS don’t know they’re psychopaths.

Reality is not simple. Reality is not complicated. Reality doesn’t use big words and reality doesn’t use small words. Reality comes FIRST. A reality is a reality.

A single experiment is worth a hundred expert opinions.

Next Step

Posted by Brian on May 7, 2009 at 10:17 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past | 5 Comments »

April 6, 2007

I call this “Next Step” because we are developing a group that can continue without me. I pride myself above all on being a teacher. That is why I keep ranting about the fact that there is no Whitakerism.

Whitaker who has a Whitakerism is a Mommy Professor, not a teacher. The whole idea of teaching, AT THE SEMINAR LEVEL, is to produce NEW graduates, not talking doll repeaters. You are supposed to learning to do what I do.

You are supposed to make sure that my METHOD OF THINKING doesn’t end with me. I am trying to create something that BEGINS with Whitaker, not something that ENDS with me.

Which reminds me. The Masturbation Generation will tell you that only someone who has been in combat knows what war is about. This is crap. All I ever learned from being shot at was the interesting fact that, if the incoming was heavy enough, I could dig a hole in solid rock with my nose.

As a strategic principle, this observation had little value.

By contrast, the man who developed the “line ahead” formation that cemented British naval supremacy for a century never set foot on a ship. Those whose experience consisted of staying alive and looking brave in the storm of iron cannon balls, flying lethal shards of wood, and snipers demeaned him.

But while they were being Heroic, he looked UP. He saw the total picture.

In our life-and-death debate, the most important debate the world has ever seen, I look UP.

When an anti answered the Mantra by reciting the Sins of the White Race, I replied, “You are justifying genocide. There is no justification for genocide.”

If I had not said that, no one would have. But someone else on SF had the wits keep reminding him of what I had caught him at. After that combination he gave up.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of the person who would not let him off the hook.

I handed him the critical ammunition. But no one else had the dedication, the concentration, to USE it. Please try, TRY to see how critical that was.

How can I make this clear? The point is not to prove you are brave. The point is not to prove that you are no ignorant redneck. The point, the ONLY point, is to SAVE OUR RACE.

When some anti says he’s white, implying he is OBJECTIVE, I point out that it is amazing that someone would BRAG that he is a traitor.

NO ONE ELSE DOES THAT. I make the point that ALL traitors claim that they are merely being objective. NO ONE ELSE DOES THAT. I say that this Christian self-denial stuff does not make you some kind of saint for damning your own people.

NO ONE DOES THAT BUT ME. And I am SICK of repeating it alone.

And no one EVER backs me up when I say that. They want to look smart, not like they are repeating what somebody else said.

If you want to see how that kind of thinking works in real warfare, imagine everybody using a muzzle-loader instead of a machine gun.

Think about how long the Thin Red Line would have survived against the Zulus if everybody had decided he did not want to be just like the rest.

LIFT YOUR HEAD UP. Go back to the BASICS, what this fight is ABOUT.

And if someone else does it first, for God’s sake, don’t let the enemy off the hook! Anything else you say is A STRIKE AGAINST our racial survival!

God DAMN* it, gang, I want SOMEBODY ELSE to lift their head up out of the current argument and DO that!

REMEMBER what war this is ABOUT, not what the anti said last.

* Literally. Dante’s Tenth Circle of Hell is for TRAITORS.

What Political Warfare Looks Like

Posted by Brian on May 7, 2009 at 10:16 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past | 4 Comments »

I was thinking of Alan B all alone out there handing out the Mantra and being told by the university officials “This is OUR University. Have you gotten permission (from us) to do this? Have you paid us tuition to be a student so you can do this?”

When I wrote Why Johnny Can’t Think I wanted people to go into universities and put our stuff on the bulletin boards and face down the officials who told them they had to pay for the place but they had no right to express THEIR opinions there.

It didn’t happen. It takes a lot of years to build up the kind of confidence I have on a campus. The bottom line was FEAR. For all his or her chest beating about the universities, nobody was ABOUT to go in there and fight it out. I offered to go in there with them.

No takers.

Alan B is proposing more than he realizes, and he will probably come back the first time with his tail between his legs. I got slapped down more times than I can relate in the last fifty years.

But it is the tries, the defeats that are especially worth reporting back.

When I brought my Austrian wife, whom I met in South Africa, back to the States with me we were watching the first reports on an American election, at the very beginning of the primaries. It showed a lone man out at about 7 am in a deserted shopping mall with his campaign literature in hand.

“Now THAT,” I told her, “Is what REAL politics looks like. Look at that guy. I have been where he is many, many times.”

We keep reading stuff from Stormfront about people who dream of being in the march of tens of thousands of Storm Troopers who have just taken over the government. When we see campaigns talked about on television, we see the candidate marching in with thousands of ecstatic supporters cheering for him.

That is what politics looks like to almost everybody who hasn’t been in a campaign from the get-go.

Actually, when a campaign reaches the point where the candidate has gotten the nomination and it is a serious fight, the planning for that news event where the camera shows the candidate marching in greeted by the enthusiastic crowd, the planning for that news event began weeks before. The campaign calls the local drudge, like me, and says, “We’ll be there on September 8.”

Said drudge then begins calling, arranging. It’s scary because you are never SURE people will show up. And all that matters in a news event is that they SHOW UP.

“But I’ve got a LIFE. I have to do to a movie that night.”

But I’ve got a LIFE.

But I’ve got a LIFE.

The assumption is that Ole Bob has no life at all except to knock himself out, free of charge, to do this work.

So flash back to the candidate I was watching at the beginning of the primary with my new wife. That man was out there alone in what no chest-beater would call “real” politics, the mass marches and the mass demonstrations. REAL politics is mass demonstrations. REAL politics is fighting off the worshipping mob of supporters with a grin on your face.

Until that happens, people will tell you, “But I’ve got a LIFE.”

Compared to what people call REAL politics, this is nothing to interrupt your LIFE with.

A final note: My wife called me at work one evening in November, when I was tired and busy.

She said, “You remember the guy we saw on television when you said: “That’s what REAL politics looks like?”

I thought and then remembered the incident through my fog of election-day exhaustion and said, “Yes.”

My wife said, “He just got elected.”

Alan B, Pain, and DISCIPLINED Initiative:

Pain has developed what he calls “Mantra parties.” He reported back here to headquarters in a comment that he had handed out the Mantra, but taken off the title BOB’S off the Mantra. Pain knows very well that that is no problem, but he reported it back because we are using a style of warfare that made the West so devastating from ancient times.

The reason our approach is so devastating is precisely the same reason the Roman legions conquered the old world. And for centuries no one could explain it to Easterners. To a Middle Easterner, the difference between what Roman and what they had was simple too subtle to explain.

Roman legions wheeled in formation. They were a solid block. We use the same one-two punch, Mantra and HERESY, over and over. To an ancient Middle Easterner or a modern Political Correctness freak, that is just blind obedience.

But blind, slavish obedience was the specialty of the East that faced the Romans and it is the foundation of the Politically Correct establishment today. So why were a hundred thousand of their troops cut to ribbons by a thousand Romans then and a single Blog practitioner today?

Well, I added the word “initiative” to it. But the hordes of Eastern potentates then and PC freaks today show plenty of what THEY call initiative. In fact, the reason Romans ripped them apart was because each of the members of their howling horde was fighting his OWN fight. They came roaring down in hordes, or being wildly offended in the case of today’s PC freaks, and the Romans wheeled in formation.

Our enemies had initiative and they the discipline of slavery, i.e., blind obedience.

We form a block, but that is not BLIND obedience. It WORKS.

Alan B reports back to HQ that he GOING to distribute a hundred copies of the Mantra at his old university. That is a GREAT idea. I am anxious to see how it comes out, so the word GOING is in caps as a challenge.

But, one could ask, what is the difference between Alan B handing out stuff and the billions of pieces or paper PC freaks have handed out? Nobody is better at going into a mental coma and repeating the same things over and over than they are.

You and I know the difference, but this Blog is all basics, so let’s spell it out.

No Eastern potentate ever said, “OK, you men go out there and find a way to use our disciplined formations. The Roman model was developed when the Roman army was made up of citizen-farmers. Their WEAPON was their formation, their discipline. But in each battle they had to wheel and move together in the bewildering confusion of real battle.

All the Tough Guys will tell you that the whole plan of a battle falls apart in the first minute of real shooting. If that had happened to the Romans they would have been dead half an hour later. The magic of the while thing was that the Romans stayed in formation and, at the same time, adapted that weapon of discipline into the wild confusion of an actual battle.

Now let me give you an example of how OUR formation can so easily break down. A year or so ago, when I was trying desperately to get some people like you, one person decided my discussion was a parlor game and not a means of warfare.

He didn’t want to sound like he was just being a follower, so he said, “You say Political Correctness is a religion, and I agree it is a lot like one. But (what us true intellectuals know is that) it is not a religion. It is rigid system of beliefs.”

This is the break in discipline that gets you slaughtered. It made me tired all over. No, I explained for the hundredth time, PC is not a “rigid system of beliefs.” The Bill of Rights does not say the United States Government cannot establish a rigid system of beliefs. The whole public school system cannot be defunded for teaching a “rigid system of beliefs.” A professor cannot be fired for teaching “a rigid system of beliefs.”

The whole point is that this is a religious, something, ILLEGAL for one to use public funds to promote. The point is, this guy thought he was showing intellectual discipline when what he was doing was fatally breaking up our ranks, our line of battle.

Like the Roman legion, the Mantra and HERESY were the products of YEARS of costly trial and error.

Both the legion and the Mantra look like common sense. But any professional writer, especially in politics, will tell you that when something looks like it is obvious and just fell out of the typewriter, there’s BLOOD on the typewriter keys. You SLAVE to write 1) something that just flows; 2) contains ALL the point AND 3) quits, dead stops, when it has done and makes it SHORTER.

Once I have hammered my points down, once I have figured out exactly what the truth of what I am trying to say is, each rewrite is SHORTER, not longer.

I have given you some weapons that are the best fifty years of using a powerful mind can produce. I demand that you not PLAY with our rigid formation. But at the same time the LAST thing I want is a bunch of Oriental hordes or PC Zombies who keep repeating The Master’s Words.

So Pain is having a little fun. He is finding ways to hit people with the message and then reporting back to us about the wasps’ nest he stirs up. But he NEVER breaks formation. He is NEVER lured into running out and chasing down one particular slave of the enemy he has got cornered.

Pain STAYS ON MESSAGE.

That is why one of us can destroy the solid front a whole university has spent millions of dollars building.

Sic ‘em, Alan B.

And report back

BROWN SOCIETIES AND BROWN INDIVIDUALS

Posted by Brian on April 28, 2009 at 10:43 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past | 5 Comments »

March 2, 2002

“The Visigoths have crossed the Alps into Italy, and the Roman Senate is debating an economic stimulus package.”
- Pat Buchanan

I am appealing the death sentence that Political Correctness has pronounced on the white race.

It is true that INDIVIDUAL blacks, Asians, Indians and Chinese and Japanese do very, very well IN A WHITE SOCIETY.

Everybody does better in a white society.

Libertarians and liberals want all the presently white majority countries to mix into a uniformly brown group. My problem is that everywhere that has happened, people are stagnant and poor. Liberals and libertarians say that that will not happen if white majority countries all mix into a uniform brown this time.

They prove it by arresting or ruining anyone who disagrees.

Brown people do very well in a society built by whites. Everybody does better in a society built by whites.

THIS IS USED AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF WHITE SOCIETIES!

People insist that if non-whites do well in a white society, a society made up of brown people will lead the world just as well as a white society does. So, they say, whites need to disappear into a melting pot.

And with our present mode of thought, no one but me would notice that this is total self-contradiction. That scares me.

ANOTHER EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT KIDNAPS A FOREIGN RIGHTIST

Posted by Brian on April 24, 2009 at 5:45 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past | 5 Comments »

November 13, 1999

An 87-year-old British woman who spied for Stalin says she would do it again. She will never be prosecuted. She is a media heroine in Britain.

General Pinochet was the Chilean ruler who overthrew Communist rule in his country. He is now being extradited from Britain to Spain. A British court has ruled that the 83-year-old Pinochet must be sent to Spain for trial. He is to be tried there for actions that occurred under his rule IN CHILE.

Unlike Stalin, Pinochet ended his rule by turning Chile over to an elected government. Unlike Stalin, Pinochet had no agents trying to subvert the governments of other countries around the world. None of that matters. All that matters is that Pinochet was a rightist, and the old lady who spied for Stalin in Britain was a leftist. No former Communist has ever been tried for what happened under their regime. No Leftist will ever be tried for this sort of thing (See December 5, 1998, article, “Only the Right Can Incite“).

Margaret Thatcher denounced Pinochet’s extradition as a “judicial kidnapping… which would do credit to a police state.”

Some years ago, an American who put Nazi propaganda on the Internet FROM HIS HOME IN THE UNITED STATES was seized in Denmark and sent to Germany for trial. German law prohibits Americans from putting pro-Nazi propaganda on the Internet in America, since it can be read in Germany. So this American is in prison there for four years.

American publications, of course, backed this kidnapping of an American. You see, they said, this guy was “hiding behind the first amendment” in the United States. Those were the words they all used.

Interesting. None of these publications ever says that repeat felons are “hiding behind the Bill of Rights” when they are let off. In
those cases, the criminals are just “exercising their civil rights.”

In the 1950s, witness after witness went before the House Committee on UnAmerican activities and refused to answer the question, “Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?” They claimed their right to refuse to testify against themselves under the Fifth Amendment. No one in the liberal media said they were “hiding behind” the Fifth Amendment.

Documents found in KGB files now make it clear that Soviet penetration into the highest levels of the United States Government existed at a level liberals denied hotly until very, very recently. But they would be the first to insist that this did not justify taking constitutional protection away from American citizens.

Liberals insist that the protections of the United States Constitution should not be denied to Americans even to protect real United States security interests. But they are all for allowing foreign countries to kidnap an American to protect Germany. It is necessary to protect Germany from a revival of the Third Reich, a revival which will be caused by the propaganda of one American.

And that is the least of it. Would we praise an action that takes a leftist American away from the protection of the United States
Constitution and kidnaps them into countries where those protections do not exist?

What do you think liberals would have said if one of those Americans suspected of being Communists had been extradited to Spain or South Africa, where they could not claim the protection of the Fifth Amendment? Would liberals have approved of that?

Liberals would have gone ballistic. So would respectable conservatives.

Every respectable conservative publication in America either backed this kidnapping of an American or stayed silent.

Conservatives were too cowardly to say anything when the American Nazi was kidnapped. But even some of these cowardly morons are beginning to see a pattern developing with the seizure of Pinochet.

Obviously, what happened to Pinochet is entirely a result of the fact that he was an anti-Communist, while those who helped Stalin are heroic. Many conservatives are upset about Pinochet. Now they are feeling a little bit threatened. The threat is beginning to dawn even on these cowardly numbskulls.

I keep sounding this warning: anything that can be done to anyone by the left not only CAN be done to you, it WILL be done to you (See September 11, 1999 article, “Waco: Conservative Cowardice and Stupidity Helped It Happen”).

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: WHITES REALIZE THEY ARE A THREATENED MINORITY

Posted by Brian on April 20, 2009 at 10:16 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past | No Comments »

January 1, 2000

I had difficulty deciding what to write for the millennium WOL, because I write every piece for the new century. The reason I write here is because I am a veteran of over four decades of real political warfare, and the war, not yesterday’s battle, is my area of expertise.

The issue that will be the most important in the future is invariably the one today’s establishment is most desperate to avoid talking about. Today, that issue is race.

For a short time during the integration battle in the 1950s, liberals kept saying that we had to integrate because whites were outnumbered. They pointed out that colored children were being born in ratios of at least five to one to whites throughout the world. That line of argument stopped abruptly. Liberals suddenly realized that if they kept it up, some whites might realize the real position they were in in the world.

Though few people are aware of it, this is the effect the shrinking of the world through technology is having on a lot of people. Most people are more tolerant racially, but at the same time the idea that whites have a right to feel threatened is growing.

In the long run, a victorious political strategy is one that takes what everybody knows is true and sticks to it, letting the other side discredit itself. The ruling establishment, such as that which enforces Political Correctness today, can always be counted on to rely more and more on brute power and intimidation. That is what destroys it.

One aspect of the leadership that wins in the Western world will be that it will simply talk rationally about race, as about everything else.

I have no trouble discussing white fears with real, flesh-and-blood members of minority groups. In the future, whites with normal concerns will want to be represented, and, once they are, it will become part of the routine political landscape.

I don’t think you can imagine how it would cripple leftism if we were to simply make the point that white concerns are real and legitimate, and leave it at that. Right now, every conservative allows liberals to make them prove that they have no racial thoughts whatsoever. In short, they let the other side subject everybody to a Thought Crime accusation from the word “Go.”

I have spent four decades as an expert on political warfare.

I tell you the right is doomed if they do not deal with this Thought Crime business. As long as the left has this “racism” weapon UNCHALLENGED in their hands, the right can only retreat.

THE ONLY INEVITABLE LEFT FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM

Posted by Brian on April 20, 2009 at 10:15 pm  
Filed Under Blasts from the Past | No Comments »

January 1, 2000

Before we discuss what will happen in the twenty-first century, it would be useful to talk about what didn’t happen in the twentieth. In 1976, I began my first book with the following words:

“Our most trusted ‘inevitables’ are collapsing around our ears today. We used to hear that integration would make mankind one, inevitably. It was said that socialism was the most efficient economic system, and would be universally adopted. Bigger, more interfering government was not long ago an inevitable. The United Nations was to lead on a rocky but inevitable road to a united world. Rehabilitation, not punishment, would end crime.”

“Public confidence in these certainties has collapsed.”

Socialism, Thomas Dewey’s New Education, the criminals-as-victims theory, all these things have been obvious disasters.

As you can see, if we had entered the millennium forty years ago, trendy media opinion would have listed a number of things that would “inevitably” develop in the coming decades. Now we are reduced to one.

Today all the “inevitables” are gone but one. That is the inevitable “solution to the race problem” by immigration and integration. This “race problem” exists only in white majority countries.

A white country is said to have a race problem if there is racial friction. But there is also a “racial problem” if there is an area where there is no minority population, no “diversity.”

Over a hundred and twenty million Japanese, with a population more racially uniform than in any European country, has no “race problem.”

Red China, with ten times as many people and far more racial uniformity, has no “race problem.”

Sub-Saharan Africa, with a racial uniformity that would drive the integrators insane if it were white, has no race problem at all. A “race problem” exists only where whites predominate.

“Race problem” means “white problem.” The “solution to the race problem” always means “the solution to the white problem.”

Respectable conservatives never mention it, but the left uses code words. One of these is “the race problem.” This so-called “race problem” only exists in white-majority countries. When Australia limited immigration to whites only, it was a “race problem.” Any area which has an all-white population has a “race problem,” and needs to be integrated.

The one inevitable that every person who is allowed to speak out in our society is required to agree with is that, in the next millennium, “the race problem” will be solved.

Analog Magazine is the most prestigious publication in science fiction. Analog had always featured its cover art, beautiful representations of bold warriors and their women in ancient garb or in futuristic space uniforms doing heroic battle. They were all Nordics.

In the 1970s a liberal editor, Ben Bova, took Analog over for a short time. As a good liberal, Bova saw a future where there would be no Nordics. All white majority populations would, by then, be brown.

But Bova could not replace the Nordic features on his covers with pictures of random racial mixes. He did not want to put ugly people on the cover that was to sell his magazine. So throughout Bova’s short reign as editor, the uniforms or other clothes on the warriors covered their faces. You could never see what race they were.

Except once.

That one time during Bova’s editorship the race of the person on the cover was clearly shown. He was a pure black man, driving what appeared to be an anti-gravity tractor.

Several things were interesting about that one cover, but the one that is important here is something Bova did not even think about.

He insisted there would be no Nordics in the future, but he took it for granted there would be blacks. Africa would always have plenty of them, as would many Caribbean islands and the other solidly black countries of the world.

I am sure that it never occurred to any reader of the magazine that this was a totally racist, totally genocidal attitude. It is, after all, the only acceptable attitude of anyone who dares say a word in public in today’s society.

In many countries, you can go to prison for expressing any other attitude.

As we go into the third millennium, only one inevitable is left on which all allowable opinion agrees. That is that the new millennium will see the end of what liberals and moderates and respectable conservatives and the leaders who call themselves “Christian” conservatives all agree to refer to as “the race problem.”

All of our liberal, moderate, respectable conservative and so-called “Christian” leaders shout in unison that we must have “a final solution” to “the race problem.”

They shout about the dangers of “white racism” when we all know that we are targeted to disappear from the face of the earth. But anyone who even mentions this is declared anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. And who is shouting the loudest? Respectable conservatives, of course, the people who call themselves the “conservers” of Western society!

Outside the United States, they don’t stop opposition to the last “inevitable” just by shouting and oppressing opponents economically. They use straight police state tactics. If you mention your concern with the disappearance of the white race from the earth in Canada, you are subject to criminal penalties. In Britain, under the race hate laws, a judge officially declared that “The truth is no excuse.”

In the cause of the code words “ending racism,” freedom of speech has simply ceased to exist throughout the Western world. In Canada, this jailing of people for expressing any white racial concern at all is already expanding to include sexism, criticizing gays and all other categories of Political Correctness.

And when it comes to racism, sexism, and more and more forms of Political Correctness, the Canadian courts are following the British judge’s dictum that “The truth is no excuse.”

There is already a tiny but growing reaction to this. This sort of criminalizing of Thought Crimes will be hard to sustain in the age of the Internet. But today’s conservatives will have no part in leading or taking advantage of this reaction.

So the so-called opposition in America shouts even louder that the only real problem in our society is that old code word, “racism.” The last thing you can depend on our so-called conservative opposition to the left to point to is the REAL problem.

This conservative dedication to genocide fits the pattern of what the Christian writer C. S. Lewis had in mind when he had Satan’s Senior Demon Screwtape give his formula for tricking men into eternal damnation. Screwtape explains to his nephew Wormwood how this sort of fashionable toadying is used to destroy humanity:

“The use of Fashion in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers…The game is to have them all running around with fire extinguishers when there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm…Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality…”

So today’s conservatives are helping liberals pursue this Screwtape approach. The real danger of the new century centers around the program to eliminate whites — or “the race problem.” Along with this program goes the War On Thought Crimes that is destroying freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

Meanwhile the right, which claims to be so Christian and so moral, is devoted only to being part of Fashionable Opinion on these issues.

Next Page →

• Bob’s Underground Graduate Seminar

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

• Introduction to Bob

  National Salvation

• From the Commenters

  Prometheus Speaks

  General Comments

  General Comments II

  General Comments III

  Truck Roy Radio

  White Rabbit Radio

• Copyright Policies

  Robert Whitaker grants full and free use of his ideas and writings as they pertain to aiding others in stating the facts about white race genocide and its agenda of forced non-white immigration and integration into ALL white countries and ONLY white countries.

• Recent Comments

  Wandrin on Only White Contributions are Unique Wandrin on Fourteen Words Wolf on All Ancient History Happened in Caves and Deserts BGLass on All Ancient History Happened in Caves and Deserts Simmons on All Ancient History Happened in Caves and Deserts Simmons on The First Factor of Production shari on All Ancient History Happened in Caves and Deserts backbaygrouch4 on All Ancient History Happened in Caves and Deserts Gator61 on General Comments 3 Scrivener on The First Factor of Production Dave on The First Factor of Production Wolf on The First Factor of Production Creator on Fourteen Words warweaver on The First Factor of Production Simmons on The First Factor of Production

• Recent Posts

  • All Ancient History Happened in Caves and Deserts
  • The First Factor of Production
  • When Will America Run Out of Credit Abroad?
  • Laughing at Baby Teeth
  • BUGS and the Forbidden Zone
  • You Cannot Have Freedom Without Mantra Thinking
  • We’re in a Fix
  • Gator on the Fourteen Words
  • Sic ‘Em!
  • Fourteen Words
• Search for:

• All Bob

  • About Bob’s Blog
  • Blog Home
  • Bob’s Old WOL Blog
  • Bob’s WebRadio Archive
  • Whitaker Online

• FOB (Friends of Bob)

  • Altermedia.info
  • American Renaissance
  • Breaking All the Rules
  • James Edwards Blog
  • Joe Sobran
  • LIVE AUDIO Webcasts
  • Old Right
  • PCRP James Edwards Blog
  • POLITICAL CESSPOOL
  • Scriptures for America
  • Stormfront
  • White News Now Forums
  • WHITESPEECH

• Immigration

  • VDare

• Categories

  • About Bob
  • Blasts from the Past
  • Bob
  • Bob's Book
  • Coaching Session
  • Comment Responses
  • General
  • History
  • How Things Work
  • Insider Letter Archive
  • Law and Order
  • Links
  • Mantra
  • Musings about Life
  • Political Correctness
  • Politics
  • Project Wiki
  • Race Matters
  • Radio Shows
  • Religion
  • SF Townhall
  • Truck Roy Radio
  • WOL Weekly Articles

• Tech Stuff

  Akismet SAVED Bob's Blog!
  He was clearing between
  700 to 1,000 per day!
  Killed since 4/10/07:

  Running now concurrently,
  taking much of the load, is
  Simple Trackback Validation

• Spam Blocked

  96,934 spam comments

  blocked by
  Akismet

•  

  March 2010

  S	M	T	W	T	F	S
  « Feb
  	1	2	3	4	5	6
  7	8	9	10	11	12	13
  14	15	16	17	18	19	20
  21	22	23	24	25	26	27
  28	29	30	31

• Archives

  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004

• Bob’s Books

  
  Bob's first book - 1976 A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES
  
  
  Bob's second book - 1982 THE NEW RIGHT PAPERS
  
  
  Bob's deadliest book - 2004 Why Johnny Can't Think
  America's
  Professor-Priesthood
  
  
• 
  
  

• In A Few Words

  
  

  Bob Whitaker has "been there and done that" in the world of politics. His unique perspective is insightful and vital. You may not agree with everything he says, but I guarantee that he will make you think.
  
  Robert W. Whitaker was born and raised in South Carolina and attended the University of South Carolina and the University of Virginia Graduate School. He has been a college professor, international aviation negotiator, Capitol Hill senior staffer, Reagan Administration appointee, and writer for the Voice of America. He has written numerous articles and two books. Bob now lives in Columbia, SC. He has asked me to inform female readers that he is divorced and "wildly attractive." I agree that he is divorced. Bob welcomes your comments.

• Categories

  • About Bob
  • Blasts from the Past
  • Bob
  • Bob's Book
  • Coaching Session
  • Comment Responses
  • General
  • History
  • How Things Work
  • Insider Letter Archive
  • Law and Order
  • Links
  • Mantra
  • Musings about Life
  • Political Correctness
  • Politics
  • Project Wiki
  • Race Matters
  • Radio Shows
  • Religion
  • SF Townhall
  • Truck Roy Radio
  • WOL Weekly Articles

Credits

Vertigo Blue Theme by Brian Gardner.
Powered by WordPress.