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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

“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.

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 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.

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.

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.