Only White Contributions are Unique

Posted by Bob on March 3, 2010 at 6:41 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, Musings about Life | 8 Comments »

Someone once defined Leftism as “A constant screaming about how everyone should be above average.”

That is an insane attitude, but it is a very RATIONAL attitude, in the economic sense. Half of he population will always be below average and you will always have a clientele if you rant about it.

Attacks on whites always concentrate on what whites have, not what third worlders don’t have that we do. Yes, starvation happens nowhere. Starvation only happens where we are blocked from getting at it. But it will be cold day in Hell before an anti-white takes notice of this.

But a CAUTION. When we use the Mantra anti-whites’ only counter is condemning whites. PLEASE don’t argue that. With the reality I just mentioned. PLEASE always hit them with “So you are justifying genocide.”

We don’t have time or space to get into IQ scores, crime rates, or what the white man has actually done.

STICK TO GENOCIDE.

Someday we will have time to give the information we are aching to give out, BUT THAT TIME IS NOT NOW.

I think this subject may interest you, but it will be far worse than useless if it SIDETRACKS you.

The term “subsistence farming” gives me cold chills. If you actually see that someone is depending on his naked crops out in the field to give him enough food to survive on, it is different from a textbook term. Books always tell us how peasants resisted the new farming techniques, and historians dismiss it as superstition and ignorance.

Of course peasants were resistant. They were TOLD these new methods would produce more food, they may even have believed it, but no one seems to realize why they didn’t want to take the CHANCE. It was not an economic risk, it was life and death, watching their families starve to death because they had risked everything on a promise.

Subsistence farming is HORRIBLE. No wonder priests who promise to make the crops good this year by a sacrifice or praying to Saint Whoever got power and money for it. They were the only intellectuals the peasant had. They were usually caring and believed what they said. How was a peasant to know the experts in scientific agriculture were indifferent?

The fact is that a wise peasant would not have believed a ten thousand year succession of well-meaning experts. How would they know that this particular set had a point? Can you imagine how terrified they were even when this was tried on even a few acres, realizing that if this set of priests made it work, they would be forced to abandons methods that had fed their families since time out of mind?

This is not what historians write about or read about. They think only in The Big Picture, who against Progress and how those who were for Progress were the good guys. Their information is produced for each other and for well-fed students who think that subsistence is a credit card at the grocery.

That’s not fair but it makes my point.

In the real world, no Indian would go back to his forefathers’ world, and they had it good. Indians had thousands of acres for each of them. But they also died young. Almost everyone had pain they lived with that we would not tolerate.

But the rest of our third world had lives that were, in plain English, horrible. They starved routinely. That was the poor guy. Rich ones lost their teeth, for a start. Every single Pharaoh suffered from a malnutrition that would be intolerable today in Nicaragua.

Multiculture is big business, but what offends multiculturalists is that not one single culture the West went into has the slightest interest in dumping all that has come in and go back to their ”kinder and simpler” life.

White people had diseases, slavery, no respect for the native culture. But so does everybody else.

Not one single sin of the white man was unique to us. But the white IS unique in what it did FOR the world.

But please read this AGAIN:

When we use the Mantra anti-whites’ only counter is condemning whites. PLEASE don’t argue that. With the reality I just mentioned. PLEASE always hit them with “So you are justifying genocide.” We don’t have time or space to get into IQ scores, crime rates, or what the white man has actually done.

STICK TO GENOCIDE.

Someday we will have time to give the information we are aching to give out, BUT THAT TIME IS NOT NOW.

I think this subject may interest you, but it will be far worse than useless if it SIDETRACKS you.

Death Religion

Posted by Bob on February 28, 2010 at 9:28 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, Religion | 9 Comments »

Before Zoroastrianism became the Pure Death Cult inherited in its degenerate phase By St. Paul and other genuine intellectuals when Zoroastrianism was the other main religion, it was limited to Aryans, as in the name s Iran and Erin.

One person did a Google and said I was wrong. He pointed out that every single page that aims to be Modern Zoroastrian states flatly that anyone is welcome to be a Zoroastrian, regardless of race. So they couldn’t have said that.

I asked him if he had Ever seen any OTHER religion where the first thing they hammer on is how race is no barrier. I asked him WHY he thinks the Zoroastrians wannabes hit so HARD on that. He got it then. You don’t go to such huge lengths to deny something that never OCCURRED to you. They are rejecting their real history, confirming it IS their real history.

I was simply LISTENING closely. He stayed on the surface and repeated what they SAID without thinking about WHY they said it.

This was not unique to Zoroastrian Persia. At its height the original Olympic Games had the original Olympic Oath, which included the oath that “I am of pure Hellenic blood…”

Zoroastrianism went from being racist to becoming a Death and Sterility Creed. As we move away from racism, our psychology makes every crisis, from Soylent Green to Global Warming, an argument for not having children.

Lesson Two of Puritanism

Posted by Bob on February 16, 2010 at 7:08 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, Religion | 8 Comments »

The Plymouth church that traces itself back to 1620 has been Unitarian for a century or two. Most of the Puritans’ children also became Unitarian. Now they are largely atheists.

The history of the Pilgrims and the Puritan is completely different from age to age, so everything I say here has a question mark after it. Whether they came here for religious freedom or to impose their religion, the point is they ended up with a doctrine the original immigrants would not have stood for.

No one notices this, but I do. I think about it a lot.

As I understand it, the 1620 Pilgrims were a different lot from the Puritans who came later in vast numbers. Backbaygrouch will be able to fill us in on this. The Pilgrims’ Massachusetts Bay Colony fought long and hard to keep our of the Puritan’s control, but they lost.

I have READ that the Pilgrims were far more genuinely in favor of religious freedom than the Puritans. The Puritans make a bad joke of that “America was founded by people who came here for religious freedom” stuff. Again I defer to backbaygrouch on the actual facts. Why have an expert around if you aren’t going to use his expertise?

Actually I have nothing against the Puritans for imposing their own religion on a place they went to to have their own population on which to impose their own doctrine. We all wish we could do the same sort of thing for an all-white area. It is the HISTORY, the LESSON that needs correcting.

The Puritans came her to impose their own religion in an area four thousand miles away from England. There are TWO lessons here. Most literate people are aware of the first, that they did NOT come here for Religious Freedom. I want to emphasize the SECOND lesson, which is almost unknown.

The second lesson is that the Puritans FAILED to impose their religion. Why?

Naturally I look at this from a BUGS point of view. One of our points here s that when an institution takes over, the PURPOSE of the institution is lost.

Jesus had no lessons about how a group of theologues should justify their absolute rule. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” would have gotten someone hanged as a heretic. So they naturally went to the Old Testament to organize their society under theocratic rule.

As time passed, even before they came to America, Puritanism became more and more about how to impose their will on THIS world. The institution talked more and more about its right to rule. The same thing happened to the Catholic Church as it put whole countries under the Interdict to collect money for the Pope.

They were both institutions USING the name of Christ. I wonder how different history might have been if we had lost at Tours and the ruling institutions called themselves Moslem. It may be that we would have had much the same history and the West would have been just as different and independent, but in the name of schism between the Moslem Branch in Northern Europe and the Moslem Branch that was based in the Middle East.

The Catholic Church was every bit as separate from and hostile to Constantinople. The name Christianity certainly did not unite them. Today Iranian Islam has the same attitude to the Sunnites. My point is that no matter what the NAME institutions appeal to, history itself goes its way and institutions are part of history, not of theology.

China’s version of Marxism versus the old Russian version has little to do with Marx. Marx considered cities to be the natural development of a proletarian society rather than peasants. Pol Pot used Marxism to DESTROY his country’s cities. Before long neither version had anything to do with Marx.

The same thing would have happened if they had all called themselves True Snake Worshippers.

The New Deal and the Dillinger Phenomenon

Posted by Bob on February 10, 2010 at 6:51 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | 3 Comments »

History has nothing to do with what actually happened in the past. Historian are people who get their reputation by being published and quoted TODAY.

When today was 1938 John Maynard Keynes wrote his General Theory and became the number one economist on earth and progressive historians hailed his work as detailing the true historical causes of business cycles.

Keynes’s explanation was enormously complicated and it was based on a flat-out lie. A fellow doctoral candidate of mine did his dissertation on what Keynes called “classical economists” he said completely misdiagnosed the whole thing. Keynes said, over and over and over, that these “classical economists” advised a balanced budget while the country needed a stimulus.

It turns out that not one of these “classical economists” actually existed in the real world of the 1930s. Every professional economist, every single on, demanded deficit spending AT THAT TIME. In fact, Adolf Hitler had ALREADY used the stimulus by building the Autobahn and other huge public projects and the German Depression, worse than ours, was OVER by 1938.

But no one in 1938 wanted to hear these two facts. They wanted a complicated explanation for what was to them the overwhelming disaster of the age.

When the 1950s was NOW the debate was for or against Big Government. Conservatives took KEYNES’ explanation of what he called “classical” economics as their own doctrine! So conservatives were “anti-Keynesian and liberals were pro-Keynesian. But conservatives were talking about balancing the budget as an eternal principle, the way Keynes said they should.

New Deal history had nothing to do with what actually happened. Readers wanted to read about Big Government versus Small Government.

When NOW was 1970, President Nixon said “We are all Keynesians now,” by which he meant that nobody advocated balancing the budget in the face of depression. He had no idea that everybody intelligent was a Keynesian — in his sense — in the 1930s .

Except the Democrats who nominated Roosevelt. Their 1932 platform denounced the huge national debt Hoover was piling up in an attempt at recovery.

When NOW was 1985 the debate was over REAGAN’S deficits. He cut taxes to stimulate the economy and the Democrats were once again raising hell about his huge deficits.

When NOW was 2000 pretty well all liberals agreed that Reagan’s tax cuts had worked, and their only argument against them was that they were too MUCH. But by 2000 everybody agreed that tax cuts were a true method of reducing recession. Democrats simply preferred keeping taxes as they were and using SPENDING to do the stimulating.

In other words, by the time NOW was 2000, everybody had gone back to REAL economists’ thinking in the 1930s. But before that it was not accepted politically that raising taxes was a way of keeping a depression going.

When NOW is 2010, all the obvious facts about the New Deal are easy to state.

The New Deal consisted of two parts. One part was stimulus, which was deficit spending and major stimulus programs. The other part was a backbreaking regulatory and tax burden on the private sector, including income taxes up to the 91% bracket and putative action against business in general, out of the Marxist textbook, which was aimed at leftist ideology and punishing the villains of the day, businessmen. Which I like to all the Dillinger Phenomenon. John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde and the rest were heroes because they robbed banks, the villains of the day.

But it was the Dillinger Phenomenon used by the far left which kept the Depression going. But one can only say this simple fact today. When NOW is 2010 and everybody now recognized that raising taxes depresses the economy.

And it is now accepted that shrinking the money supply, which was done in the 1930s to the extent of cutting it by a third, is a sure way to cause a depression. That was done by the banking industry and the Federal Reserve.

That was not a Conspiracy. It was same blind, drooling stupidity by Experts that caused the collapse of 2008. He who does not learn from history repeats it.

Those who think history is the real past will pay for it.

Ancient Wisdom, Mantra Style

Posted by Bob on January 11, 2010 at 8:03 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | 5 Comments »

Brian sent me a link about another South American ancient civilization that has been found by flyover photos.

I am not sure I can define mantra thinking, but what occurred to me was another example of it. We keep finding dead civilizations. We keep studying each one in detail to find out What It Has To Teach Us. We never do the Mantra-like thing: We don’t step back, look at all those discoveries as trees, and see the forest.

And the forest, the big idea, the Occam’s Razor, is this:

How do we PREVENT ourselves from BECOMING a civilization whose CORPSE must be found by a uniquely advanced one in some indefinite and unlikely future? That is what dead “civilizations” have to teach us first of all.

We are actually digging around in the ruins of an old “civilization’s” corpse to find predictions of what will happen to US in 2012 A.D. It has not occurred to ONE PERSON fascinated by this to wonder why this Great Wisdom had not one word to say about the period of that civilization’s OWN TOTAL DESTRUCTION, which happened long ago.

Before he drools in awe over the Ancient Wisdom of dead societies, the Mantra Thinker asks first WHY THEY ARE DEAD.

All dead civilizations have brown skins. That is what is called an observation. Observation is he basis of Western thought.

I want to know WHY this is. Those who study the Great Dead Wisdom talk exclusively about the Wisdom, never about the Dead part.

Hitler’s Pills

Posted by Bob on January 9, 2010 at 12:04 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | 8 Comments »

Everything that can be said about Hitler, true or false has been said repeatedly.

Except one thing.

The use of speed, amphetamines and then Ritalin, in huge amounts drives down your tested IQ score. This is not well known. I know because it happened to me. When I stopped using speed and went into recovery, my IQ was down to 100. My visual memory was almost gone completely.

People don’t know about this, one medical student I know of failed a term found that his IQ was average and QUIT his entire medical career. He did not know that the IQ goes back up when you quit. He asked at his MED SCHOOL, and no one knew that!

Hitler used speed heavily till the day he died. By reading this blog, you have discovered a critical fact about the deterioration of his performance from the brilliant politician of his earlier years that the encyclopedic works about him did not, as far as I know, mention.

By the way, do not let the fact that Adolf was an energetic man fool you. Oddly enough, it is highly energetic people who tend to use amphetamine and coke. This is not the only contradiction represented by speed. Remember that it is used to treat children who are already hyperactive.

Despite all the screams against Ritalin for such children, it is the ONLY drug that WORKS. It is a Schedule 2 drug, and doctors, who want total control of any drug that has any effect, would not use it if they had any other.

There is a legion of urban myths about hyperactivity, as there are with race. Every year someone would come up with absolute proof that hyperactivity is cured by taking children off sugar, hug therapy, talk therapy, and on and on. The list is endless, and I lived through at least a dozen of them.

These answers to hyperactivity were endorsed one year and if you mentioned it the next, the same people would laugh at you and deny ANYONE ever believed that. They were another piece of accepted crap that proved that Ritalin was a Plot this time. This is the kind of recurrent dumbness that gives conservative groups their cuckoo reputation.

The difference of course, is that liberals can all agree on another explanation of why race isn’t there every year and deny it the next, but media conservatives NEVER remind them of it. Things like cutting for sugar to and hyperactivity are remembered by liberals and they CALL the kooks on the right “kooks.”

Why January 1?

Posted by Bob on December 31, 2009 at 6:28 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | 2 Comments »

Does anybody know why January 1 is New Year’s Day?

We know a lot more about Christmas, though we never think about it. It was the birthday of Mithras established by Constantine. No one ever THINKS about that, they just recite it, as they do all history Mommy Professor didn’t hammer in. They get classes dedicated to the birthday of Saint Martin Luther the King, but Mithras is mentioned in case they play Trivial Pursuits.

The beginning of the New Year was probably the first major piece of real knowledge the shamans actually possessed. Every year the Northern world got colder and colder and death surrounded them. Only when information passed from one generation to another did those who did that discover that the sun came back every year.

Then they discovered the DATE at which the sun began to come back. This was not as obvious as one may at first think.

After all, while the northern hemisphere does indeed reach its maximum distance from the sun at Winter Solstice, the weather keep getting colder right into February. So it was quite an intellectual achievement when, looking forward to an even deader January and February, our forefathers CELEBRATED December 21 or 22.

In fact, dates were something ancient Wise Men took very seriously, because it was about the only solid information they had. This makes it mysterious, at least to the two or three people on earth who actually THINK about, that the Magi would have changed the date to December 25.

In fact, there is probably an even simpler explanation as why January 1 was set as New Year’s Day. I just have no idea what it was.

Have you ever noticed how January 1 is ONLY traditional date that no one ever celebrated. Even the Jews dug around in their history and found the Festival of Lights at Christmas. Thanksgiving was celebrated in England regularly before the Pilgrims were the first settlement and invented it.

Jamestown had Thanksgiving, but Jamestown didn’t exist. THINKING about history can make one what the PCs and blacks call Ignunt. May Day was pagan and I am willing to bet every Semitic religion had its own version of Passover.

All dates have predecessors.

Except New Year’s.

I Told You So

Posted by Bob on December 30, 2009 at 3:21 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | 2 Comments »

In the late fifties I could see what was coming.

This leads to several observations. Back then the Mantra would have been laughed at. Back then race was considered a problem confined to the Southern States of the USA. For everybody else it was a chance to be self-righteous.

Back then everything they denied would happen is now justified. If you challenge what would have been a nightmare to people 50 years ago, you are ruined in America or imprisoned in Europe.

There was an old WWII type at our club who had repeated all the integration lines so long he reacted automatically. Once we were all talking about the mixed couples at Wal-Mart. I said I had predicted that would come with integration, and he repeated “Integration is not about intermarriage” before he realized where he was, WHEN he was, and what we had just been talking about.

I remember when we laughed at the idea of LOCKING one’s car when it was parked on Main Street: “if we were up North we’d LOCK it.”

I was watching a reality show where a big black beat a white guy in the middle of white crowd, knocking one of his eyes out of the socket. There were at least ten male whites, but they just cowered in the corner like a Distressed Heroine or member of the Obedient Generation.

We are living in several things that would have caused sophisticated laughter when I mentioned them in the early 60s. But I could clearly see where white weakness was leading. No one dares protect their borders. In fact, it is illegal in Europe to think of them as “our” borders.

The bitch about how they would defy America, but they are now all “nations of immigrants.”

Without race, borders are nonsense. What does a multiracial and multicultural “nation,” a real oxymoron, have a right to protect? One minute we are “a nation of immigrants” and the next we are supposed to worry about the living standard of so-called “American workers.”

WHY?

Who are these so-called “Americans?” Any other time calling them “Americans” would be bigotry. An American is anyone who agrees that all men are not only equal but the SAME.

If a respectable conservative wants to lose his livelihood, the quickest way would be to put these propositions together. He must say there is no such things as an “American” but most conservatives keep their audience by demanding “we” close “our” borders. But none of them will make any anti-immigration type square this with the idea that everybody is an American.

They used to deny that integration was about intermarriage. Now a conservative will say immigration isn’t good because the Mexicans won’t marry his daughter, they refuse to “assimilate.”

The Day

Posted by Bob on December 25, 2009 at 1:16 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | 1 Comment »

It would be interesting to see how an Imam on Ramadan would react to everybody saying “Season’s Greetings.” “Season’s Greetings” would be an interesting thing for all Christians to say to Jews on High Holy Days.

Hell, we could even use it on Martin Luther King Day.

Calvinism outlawed Christmas. What really offended them about it was not its pagan origins. In fact the Mithraists were not pagan, which referred to the wild country side, but very much a religion of the cities and of civilization, and December 25 was chosen for Christmas by Constantine because it was the birthday of Mithras.

EVERY pagan religion had its equivalent of Yule on December 21 or 22, Winter Solstice. Constantine was a Mithraian before he became a Christian, so there is no other explanation for that particular date.

To me, things were not as simple as historians, Constantine’s apologists, made it. My field of expertise is not religion, but politics, and this sounds familiar to me. Just as the Church gave the pagans their statues, as backbaygrouch points out, since withdrawn, it gave things to the huge Mithraian constituent.

The real politics of adopting the NAME Christianity to the expanded Helenist Jewish population which had so little Israeli blood in it, used ONLY Greek, and numbered about a tenth of the entire Roman Empire at the time of Christ, is over three hundred years long. The entire Helenic Jewish population disappeared from the historical record, without the slightest note from historians, as Christianity grew.

“The Greeks” appear regularly in the New Testament.

Peter and Paul, both strict Jews, went at it as to whether to baptize “gentiles.” Who were these “gentiles?” Did they include the Helenized Jews who might have been regarded by the relatively few Hebrew Jews as gentiles? For some other reason, presumably, Jesus was condemned as being from “Nazareth of the Gentiles” and the Samaritans did not regard others as real Jews, and Jesus told the Samaritan at the well that she was wrong and salvations was with the Jews.

But any evidence relating to this has been burned out and suppressed for many, many centuries, so historians don’t bother with it. Had the Moslems not burned every shred of Persian literature, there would be whole schools of history dedicated to Persia’s obvious influence on all out institutions. But it was burned so it is ignored.

Like every other faith, Political Correctness says it reveres knowledge and condemns book-burning. But history never questions the decisions of the book-burners.

Historically there was a constantly renewed alliance between the Hebrew Jews and the zealots in Israel which went on for some five hundred years. The last such alliance exploded against the Roman Empire in the century before Islam conquered Persia. According to both Testaments, the Persians were the only other religion the Jews considered Godly. “Cyrus” the only non-Jew who ”did the work of God” in the Old and the Magi recognized Christ thirty years before the Jews crucified him.

In one book of the Old Testament, after the Resurrection, someone asked, “Has he gone to the Greeks?”

Along with the date of Mithras’s birth, these are VERY heavy hints.

The Roman Church allowed a smoother transition with the statues in the West and the joy we peasants were allowed on December 25. The Calvinists outlawed celebration on that day.

The constant attacks on this particular day are a result of the fact that Wordism of any kind HATES joy. Even CS Lewis explains in “Surprised by Joy” that Joy, in HIS sense, “is NOT a pleasant sensation.”

It is Screwtape who accuses God of liking human pleasure.

Wordism, be it Calvinism or any other, exists in institutions and the food of religious institutions is guilt and sacrifice. During life, you only GIVE. That is not what the religious leaders THINK of, Lewis certainly praised some pleasures, but it is what institutions LIVE off of.

Guilt, from global warming to racism to having sex, is what powerful institutions are BUILT on.

Our idea of Christmas, from the old Yule celebration, turns the stomach of our present established religion on a level they are not aware of.

It is interesting, though, that the New Testament put the birth of Christ in the winter, as the Zoroastrians did. And, with their discussion of the Magi, they certainly knew. For some reason it was important that the MAGI recognize Christ. Considering how the Persian Empire loomed over all powers outside Rome at that time, this is not surprising to someone who knows history.

But historians of our new established, no less than those of our previous established faiths, also ignore all this.

Yule is the day the sun begins to come back. At the Solstice the Northern Hemisphere is tipped at its maximum angle away from the sun. The Yule may have often been a time of despair. The dead of winter. When the sun threatens to go away completely and, in very northerly climates, it does.

Some time long ago it was realized that the sun would return. Men who had lived long knew this. But then the wise men, those who carried knowledge from generation to generation and kept records of such things, found the day when the sun was furthest away but began to come back to us. Untold thousands of years ago, this became a day of celebration.

Then came the Wordists.

When we rid ourselves of the Wordists, every day will indeed be Christmas.

The Institution Called Justice

Posted by Bob on December 3, 2009 at 6:11 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | 2 Comments »

There are two parts to the Common Law: First, “Treat equals equally” and 2) Treat “unequals unequally.” All new law students learn both, but the second is seldom mentioned. If you are having a trial, you are determining whether there is an “inequity.”

Anglo-Saxon Law recognized that delay means injustice. There are TWO parts to court decisions, justice is the SECOND. The FIRST is to have a place where things get DECIDED. The second is JUSTICE. The second is a matter of endless dispute. The first can be seen on a calendar.

After the Norman Conquest, everybody was subject to what was erroneously referred to as Roman Law from France. Anglo-Saxon Law was quicker. But unlike so-called Roman Law, Anglo-Saxon made no claim to Perfect Justice. It was developed largely to solve a problem.

The problem was feuds. With Nordics, feuds get totally out of hand. I don’t need to explain that to an American. But in every Aryan society feuds were far more of a problem than almost anything decided in a court.

Like lawyers today, the Normans looked on Anglo-Saxon justice as crude. With the Norman Conquest English justice started on the road to Justice instead of Expediency. Law ceased to be something that had to dealt with as an adjunct to running the general society and became an Institution on its own.

This is an example of a critical rule: Wordism breeds institutions and ALL institutions follow an evolution, straight survival of the fittest, of their own, no matter what Words they quote. The first reaction we all have when told of earlier societies’ trials is to see them as absurd. But what would an Anglo-Saxon have made of a court deciding to let a man off for child murder if “the chain of evidence is broken?”

Anglo-Saxon justice was based on “Who sez?” You lined up those testifying for one side and those for the other and weighed them. A thane would outweigh a certain number of average men. There were no hermaphrodites in black dresses and mascara. There was no paperwork except recording the two sides and the “Who sez.”

Those who laugh at this have never lived in a community. In our society you have to find out who the person is at the trial. In those days, a person lived there all his life. In our society, the Judge is God in the courtroom. In those days, everybody in the courtroom played the same role he did in the community. This meant that the inequity of the society was reflected in the courtroom.

So is a man was a thane, he had more influence in his society than the average man. If his influence was greater and he was a bad man, it showed in the courtroom, but no differently than it showed in society at large. The courtroom was just a part of an unjust society and it reflected that.

In a society, the higher ranked people have to be careful which side they take. If they let a felon go free and he commits another crime, they cannot just ignore the way a judge who is Quoting the Words can.

With the Institution of Law in England, courts became a separate Institution, based on books that said that in the world of the court there was no room for the outside world. The Institution of Law developed a priesthood that looked a lot like that of the Church and for the same reasons, which had nothing to do with God or Justice.

Anglo-Saxon Law provided law. It solved two problems, one of making a final judgment without a feud, and the second of doing it QUICKLY. These are objective realities. So-called Roman Law turned into an institution with its own enormous priesthood. Its only justification was that it SAID it delivered JUSTICE, which is an absolutely debatable question. You will find precious few lawyers who claim that today’s law brings justice. But we all know that the legal Institution delays endlessly and allowed feuds to go on in feudal- note the name — times.

“Justice” was the only thing the institution ever claimed to deliver IN PLACE of the two objective things pre-Wordist Law delivered on, speed and preventing feuds. But once the institution was in place, the lawyers told us that law is not justice, and in fact real law has nothing to do with justice.

In fact, we no longer have any concept of what justice IS. One standard statement that is almost as stupid as Edison’s “inspiration versus perspiration” crap is that “only the rich can afford justice.” A rational person knows that the rich can afford ACQUITTAL. That is 180 degrees different from JUSTICE. But the difference occurs to no one, because the idea that law is justice no longer occurs to anyone.

But it does tell us what our legal institution has taught us that Justice IS. Justice is lots of lawyers. Religion becomes lots of priests or television evangelists. The man who said salvation is “free and without price” would have been burned for heresy.

But I mean this literally: To an institution which survives, the definition of what it produces will mean lots of money for them. Look around you, do you see any churches that don’t pay their ministers? Almost by definition, an institution depends on size, full-timers, MONEY.

We say that a person is deprived of JUSTICE of he doesn’t have enough lawyers and procedures.

The Church of Rome banned translations of the Bible and banned lay people from owning a Bible.

In the end, the Church found that banning the Bible was unnecessary. They did their own translation and only demanded that the Church’s Commentaries were seen as Biblical. As I said, institutions end up doing the same thing no matter what Book they claim.

The American Constitution was written down so that everybody could read it.

But in the end, the Institution of Law did exactly what the old Church did. The only Commentary that MATTERS is that of the guys in black dresses. They learned from the Institution at Rome’s experience that it makes no difference who can read it as long as only one Authority can INTERPRET it.

In the end ruling institutions look just alike. They can claim the Word of Hamilton or the Words of Moses, but the Words ends up meaning nothing. Only the Interpretation, only the Commentary, is enforced. And that is every bit as effective as banning the document itself.

History Makes All the Difference

Posted by Bob on December 2, 2009 at 6:00 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, Religion | 2 Comments »

There is a passage in the New Testament about when the Jews become Christians. This led to Luther’s error in trying to convert the Jews and to many errors before. Luther was ignorant of the fact that “Jews” at the time the New Testament was written constituted about a TENTH of the ENTIRE Roman population, and they had nothing to do with what Luther thought of as “Jews.”

Luther also took out six hundred years of Jewish Biblical text because it was written in GREEK. “Jews” in the first century consisted almost entirely of Hellenized Jews, who did not use Hebrew AT ALL. So Luther thought the “Jews” as he defined them, Hebrew-users, were the Jews discussed in the New Testament.

In fact, Luther was the least of these gross misjudgments that the gross ignorance of history caused in the Church. Everybody is so obsessed with feeling guilty about the persecution of Jews that it never occurs to them that the Jews had a unique privilege.

Jews were the ONLY group allowed to practice anything but Christianity and stay alive. They became the ONLY group allowed to practice the local version Christianity and survive. Catholics were burned in Protestant lands and vive-versa.

Routinely.

When the New Testament predicted the conversion of the Jews it was, in fact, a correct prediction. The six million Hellenic Jews in the Empire became Christian. In couple of centuries later were no more Hellenic Jews. In short, I am denying the Roman Holocaust in which six million Roman Jews died.

But in a sense there WAS a Holocaust. Obviously as Hellenic Jews converted to the new faith, there was no tolerance of Hellenic Jews remaining Jews. They disappeared as totally as did the Jews in Europe during Hitler’s rule.

Nobody insists all the Hellenic Jews were killed because there’s no money in it. Someone could make a mint enforcing the Roman Holocaust.

But the point is that Church officials and Luther were ignoramuses. Their definition of “Jews” was as accurate as someone saying that the Privy Council met in an outhouse.

White Racial Suicide is NOT Affirmative Action or Immigration or Just Birthrates

Posted by Bob on November 5, 2009 at 5:46 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, Musings about Life | 2 Comments »

Just as my ideas seemed absurd in my youth and are commonplace reality now, there is another that is in the same category, starting now. This is that the Mongoloid race will be dying out soon.

This is for the same reason that almost all Ancient Oriental Wisdom was a an Aryan had once. Buddhism was invented by the blue-eyed Buddha, though almost everybody thinks if him as Oriental. Kung Fu, that epitome of Oriental Wisdom, was brought from India by a man who the Chinese say drilled a hole in a hole with his BLUE eyes.

Aquatic rice was developed in India. But it was the Orientals who were capable of enough regimentation to produce the paddy culture, where ten metric tons, 22,000 pounds, of rice can be produced on a single acre, plus another small crop of other vegetables each year.

I would imagine white people brought the wheel to Asia. A usable wheel is unique to Eurasia, and it came from outside the Middle East. The Hyksos brought the wheel to Egypt. If that were not part of written history, Egypt would be said to be where the wheel was invented, just as the weave of the cloth on the white mummies in China was declared to have been invented in the Middle East a thousand years after those white people died.

I doubt seriously that the Hyksos invented the wheel.

They got it from that vague to the northeast of the Middle East, just as the Chinese almost certainly did, or from white India.

All this, like Zoroastrianism, are points I have mentioned, before but one must THINK about them to get extensions like the coming extinction of the Mongoloids.

Orientals take what we develop and go with it. But it is not theirs, and they cannot control it. Japan is now in a birthrate bust worse than any European country. China’s one-child-per-couple law is enforced on a Stalinist basis.

It was the rice they got from white India which made Orientals multiply so much. Now they have hold of the birth control mania.

I have also pointed out that Orientals are much more aware of what I have said than we are. Twice Japanese Prime Ministers got into trouble by worrying publicly about the drop of US IQ due to Hispanic immigration. It seems rather obvious to the Japanese that if you bring in lower IQs your average goes down so they didn’t know they couldn’t say that until the Western media exploded over it.

Twice.

In the next decade or the next generation Orientals are going to suddenly realize their population is plummeting, especially relative to the darks and blacks. About that time, our own geometrically increasing percentage of people who show this concern will be hitting proportions that cannot be ignored.

But that concern must be channeled in directions that is NOT harmless to THE present Politically Correct goal. As long as it is just a matter of numbers, whites will go and Orientals salvaged if it is just a matter of numbers.

White countries already have enough nonwhites, especially with their rate of natural increase, to do away with us by INTERMARRIAGE. If our attention can be riveted to POPULATION, no alliance for survival will be made with Orientals. They don’t have non-whites pouring in, so all they need is to increase their birthrate.

So yelling about affirmative action and immigration makes plenty of good yelling on Stormfront, hell even National Review is getting in on that stuff. The issue is interracial breeding.

Period.

An Individual Point of View

Posted by Bob on October 9, 2009 at 7:34 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, Political Correctness | 3 Comments »

One reason I see things clearly is because I see them from what Aleksander Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago called “an individual point of view.” Few readers and no intellectuals understood what he meant by this.

Up until his time in the Gulag, Solzhenitsyn adhered to the established religion of his country, Marxism-Leninism. He thought Stalin was a thug and said so, which is what got him into the Gulag. But he considered Lenin the greatest man in history and it was his life’s work to write the definitive biography of that Saint.

What Solzhenitsyn meant by an “individual point of view” was what he later became: a Russian, not a Marxist. He saw himself as an individual with a, repeat A, meaning ONE, personal point of view: “an individual point of view.” Only then was he able to observe THE REST of the world accurately.

If you are part of the established religion, regardless of what that institution may be, you are not a part of the world or the people you are analyzing. You look down on others in the light of your own Final Truth.

Everybody is a provincial, but you cannot understand anything about real people unless you face the fact that you are a hick, too. The people who cannot understand reality at all are those who THINK the INSTITUTION they are part of does not have a “point of view.”

Those who have an institutional view analyze everything as a step up or down toward their Final Truth. They are the most extreme form of provincial. They possess a hickdom no real hick could even imagine.

And, unlike a normal hick, the institutional hick cannot imagine that he IS a provincial.

Give ‘Em That New Time Religion

Posted by Bob on October 2, 2009 at 2:23 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, Political Correctness | 2 Comments »

People in historic times did not live in the same universe we do. In fact, most of them did not live in the UNIVERSE.

This is a concept Lawrence Brown developed in his 1963 book “The Might of the West.” I read it at least once a year and each time I feel a hunger for more. This is REAL history, this is trying to look at the world from the point of the people who lived it, rather than our present “It all leads to Marx and social progress” theme of Political Correctness.

Today historians all write as if everybody in history was just trying to reach our present state of Enlightenment. Every established religion looks at the world this way. The old shaman and the old priest and the “new” Politically Correct professor have the same attitude, “All history has been a search for the Truth, it was searching for the Truth I, at long last, preach.”

It is as old as the hills and the same thing will be fashionable, in another form, when the hills wear down to flatlands.

“Have the COURAGE to Support Comrade Stalin”

Posted by Bob on September 7, 2009 at 9:29 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, Political Correctness | 7 Comments »

During the Stalin Era, there was a public meeting in a small city in Russia. One speech ended on the usual note of how all the wonderful that had been accomplished were “under the Leadership of Comrade Stalin.”

The usual standing ovation occurred.

Stalin was a couple of thousand miles away, but when the ovation had gone on for even longer than usual, no one dared sit down. The realization dawned on the thousand or so attendees that the Secret Police were there, as they were everywhere, and the first person to sit down would be arrested in the morning. So the standing ovation went on and on and on and on and on and on…

And, yes, the first couple of people who sat down DID get arrested in the morning.

If you know anything about the Stalin Era, you get the same laugh I do out of one of the slogans they used, “Have the courage to support Comrade Stalin.” That is like telling a sheep “Have the COURAGE not to get eaten by a lion.”

But we have exactly the same thing today. If you hear that someone “has the COURAGE to SPEAK OUT” you know very well which side they are taking.

No one who openly fights for white survival “has the courage to speak out.” Only anti-whites are ever described as “having the courage to speak out.”

In fact, this is one sure sign of a despotic society. It used to be the height of courage in America for someone to say, “I do not agree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death for your right to express it.” You don’t hear that since the WWII Generation learned that Goodspeak is the only way to go.

The media only praised McCain for Courage when he agreed with them on policy. No one in authority today does anything but denounce anyone who disagrees with The Party Line.

In totalitarian environments the only “spontaneous demonstrations” are those that have been prepared by professionals for reasons everybody can predict. In America, there are no exceptions to day at all.

Browning Out

Posted by Bob on August 13, 2009 at 2:05 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses, History | 1 Comment »

Dave keeps making the point that non-whites enjoy what they could not create.

If you look at every single society that has fallen, you will see that it turned brown. Northern Europe stayed white and continued the process from Roman organization to modern Western society. But the areas of the Roman Empire that turned brown in skin color stayed at the bottom.

I know a lot of geography and most people don’t. Scientific observation consists of looking at a fact which does not fit the pattern, and NOT explaining it away for the sake of your present beliefs.

There is a fact here. Regardless of their totally different histories, brown-skinned people are universally poor and stagnant. Anyone who points this out is a modern Galileo. This CANNOT be true, so it is not true.

But it IS true. Like the child in The Emperor’s Clothes or Galileo, we see reality.

Near Misses

Posted by Bob on July 24, 2009 at 2:56 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | 2 Comments »

I tried to Google the name of the Roman Senator who at the end of EVERY speech, said, “and let me add that Carthage is a danger to Rome and must be destroyed.”

And it came to pass that Rome destroyed Carthage.

And salted the ground it stood on.

Shoving their faces in the Mantra is a direct hit. Anything else is a near miss. Near misses aren’t just bad, they are the basis of the entire respectable conservative industry.

Respectable conservative is the salvation of the enemy.

The entire respectable conservative industry — and it IS an industry bigger, than most national economies — is based on making the opponents of Political Correctness BELIEVE their points are being addressed when they are not. Respectable conservatism IS near-misses.

I made my living for many, many years in the respectable conservative industry. I got my money and my retirement by knowing exactly what a near-miss looks like. I was high in the ranks of those who knew exactly how to make YOUR contributors an voters THINK you have made the very point they can’t express, but at the same time firing just a little bit off the target, so the other side can continue the argument.

I am like a knife-thrower who has spend many years learning to miss the target by a hair’s breadth. If that expert knife thrower decides to practice HITTING the target, he is deadly accurate.

Cronkite and McCain, Moles

Posted by Bob on July 18, 2009 at 10:20 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | 2 Comments »

Walter Cronkite finally died.

In the 1980 election a lot of hard-leftists in the Democratic Party didn’t want to elect the first Southerner on their ticket since 1844. That was not bigotry like being against Obama. Liberal Republicans didn’t want Reagan. So John Anderson ran on his own far-left ticket.

Cronkite offered to be his vice-presidential candidate. Near the end of his career, Cronkite even told journalism classes about what conservative stories he specifically suppressed. That was the end, which you won’t hear mentioned, of his time as “The Most Trusted Man in America.”

Before that, Cronkite’s image was that of the Middle American.

In the intelligence business, as you know, such people are called “moles.” They are traitors, but they are more despicable than open traitors. A Cronkite or a McCain is far more useful to the enemy than a Ted Kennedy. While Kennedy stands openly for the left, a McCain does not back leftists except when the vote is close.

And that, of course, is the only time it really matters. McCain ran on an anti-gun control platform and voted against Kennedy-type gun issues when it was clear they stood no chance. But when a move against guns stood a chance, he was always there with liberals.

On every other liberal issue, McCain always tipped the balance by being “reasonable.” He ran on his being tortured in Vietnam, but he was generally recognized as being the best friend Vietnam had in Congress.

In South Carolina, the most effective anti-gun lobby is called The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). Like the rest of SLED its anti-gun lobbying is paid for by the state. They delayed concealed carry laws so that SC, though one of the most pro-gun electorates in America, was one of the last to pass one.

Then SLED demanded every restriction on CCW it could find. CCW permit holders have far fewer rights than with the permits SLED and other law enforcement used to give to their buddies.

SLED manages its mole status because South Carolinians are turned off by open gun ban advocates, but worship costumes. We have the highest percentage of veterans of all the states, and we grovel before Law and Order. So SLED, in its police costumes, is the perfect anti-gun lobby.

We are all aware of the role respectable conservative moles play in making liberalism advance, and without them liberalism would not SURVIVE.

But the Stormfront types don’t look at the moles. They have pictures of Jews in yarmulkes. I have pointed out that the Jews who hate us LEAST are the Orthodox ones. The ones whose Judaism has become nothing but hate are the totally Reformed one such as the new junior senator from Minnesota. But he is at least an open hater.

Our worst enemies are the ones like McCain, who wore a costume and sold us where it counted.

New Ages

Posted by Bob on July 12, 2009 at 4:18 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, Politics | 2 Comments »

One age of history does not progress from today’s headlines to The Future.

The overwhelming force in the headlines is inertia. It is inertia from the last great explosion that made the news commentary of the last period of history pointless.

Let’s get specific. The 1920s were a reaction to the enormous movements just before. World War I had destroyed much of the Old Order that had existed since the monarchies of Europe defeated France in 1914. A revolutionary reaction to liquor had gotten a national ban on alcohol. Communism, due to that same war, was on the march leading to what is now called the Red Scare everywhere.

By 1920, everybody was TIRED. It was summed up in the words, “Return to Normalcy.”

Prohibition was here to stay. The policy of war between nations was outlawed. Anti-Communism was national policy. Harding and then Coolidge were elected to get us back to normal in the New Age.

In this New Age there was a Republicans Ascendancy so complete that the Democratic candidate in 1924 was simply ignored.

The New Age lasted exactly one decade. All of the old certainties collapsed in the world wide Depression. Economics was the issue on all minds, trying to get out of that collapse. The New Age of Democratic Ascendancy in America and radical politics abroad had arrived.

Political commentary in the New Age of the 1930s dealt with economic theory and the rising Industrial Class. Each country had its own unique conditions, its own fascist and Communist movements or, in the case of the US and Britain, the lack of them. That was political commentary in the New Age of the 1930s.

That New Age again lasted ten years. World War II blew it away. Everything became the New Order of the post-War.

I could go on, but this is the easiest period for everyone to see each New Age come and go.

In each New Age, or inertial period, practical people are impatient with anyone who does not understand the Inevitable Future. Political Commentators consider themselves and are considered by their readers to be talking about Reality, things as they really ARE. If you are an old magazine fan as I am, these Practical Men look silly.

Some Actual History

Posted by Bob on July 11, 2009 at 6:31 pm  
Filed Under History | 2 Comments »

The greatest victory ever won was indeed World War II. But it has little do with people in uniforms. It was fought in the world of propaganda and intelligence. As usual, by the time the shooting began the real war was over. It can be told today as it could not be before.

As the 1930s progressed, the Soviet Union and the whole world of intellectual supporters of the Marxist revolution were in desperate straits. After the October Revolution in 1918, Communists took over no more countries for a quarter of a century.

From the Marxist point of view, things were disastrous by the 1930s. The world was terrified by the successful revolutions in Europe in the 1920s and every one of the Marxist revolutionary governments was taken down by internal forces within a year.

In fact, by the 1930s, there had not only been no more successful Bolshevik revolutions, but every one of them that succeeded briefly had been tossed out of power by the very people Lenin and Trotsky had thought would rise against the capitalists.

Let us now stop for a moment and state that this disastrous situation was recognized only by the Marxist left. They were in the business of real power. To the commentators then and historians now, the whole situation was just a jumble of competing ideologies and personalities But for the tens of thousands of revolutionary Marxists there was only one bottom line: We are losing.

In fact, since the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1918, there had been only two successful national revolutions, one in Italy and one in Germany. By 1935 anti-Communism was growing on all strategic fronts, and the whole world had been immunized against Bolshevism by the actual short-term takeovers of revolutionaries in a few state and a counterrevolution.

By 1945, half of Europe was handed over to the Communists and anti-Communism had been discredited or, in the case of fascism, crushed. The Red Scare which had beaten Communism during the 20s and 30s was now discredited.

But unless you know what Wordism is, what a REAL war is about and other basics you are living in a different world from REAL power.

First of all, we are all aware that each major religion has a number of opposing parts. We also know that each part is very far from the actual teachings of its original prophets They are institutions, each one developed in an environment of institutional survival.

But it hard for people to think of Karl Marx as anything but The One Successful Prophet. So when I talk about Communists and anti-Communists, Stormfronters see anti-Communists in the plural, but the Bolsheviks as one, unbroken plot by Jews or Trotskyites versus Stalinists or Illuminati or socialists.

Nothing is more likely to be denounced by every branch of anti-Communists than the idea that Communism also evolved, that it is no more pure Marxism than the Eastern Orthodox Church is Perfect Christianity. Stormfronters feel that there is the True Church Versus the Devil, and anyone who humanizes the Devil or sees Marxism as an institution is on the side of Satan.

This is not the way one plays the adult game of power politics.

2008 in Historical Context

Posted by Bob on July 6, 2009 at 4:30 pm  
Filed Under History, Musings about Life | 6 Comments »

I knew a whole cadre of young people who loved Reagan because he ended the political exhaustion of the 1970s. They are never mentioned in the press or by conservatives.

A person coming of age in the 1970s was raised on the idea that his world would see no growth. The Environmental Protection Agency and conservation were the focus of attention. No one but me seems to know where this left a young person.

He had nothing to look forward to. He was superfluous, particularly if he was a white male looking for a job.

In other words, it was just like today.

Back then the big political buzz on the right was that conservatives and conservationists should make common cause.

And, of course, the conservative buzz was also the old “to go after the minority vote.”

I have been this way before.

By definition, the buzz is set up by the establishment and its conservative tagalongs.

One of the most critical signs of 1980 end of the old buzz is, AS ALWAYS, the least remembered. Reporters were climbing all over Washington trying to find conservative contacts.

They didn’t **KNOW** any of us, and they said so. PBS even had ME do a couple of shows for them in the process of trying to find tame conservatives. What if the press in 1932 simply did not KNOW any liberal Democrats?

They would have been laughed at. The 1932 media was conservative, but they were also professionals. The 1980 failure was a professional humiliation, so no one mentions it now.

The 1980 media had been trapped in its own buzz, and “Republican spokesmen,” right up to Election Day, meant moderates.

The reality of the 2008 election is totally opaque to anyone who keeps up with the political buzz, which means anyone who makes his living commenting on today’s politics. If he worried about anything else he wouldn’t be published. This is not a conspiracy. It is just that every editor knows what people want to read about, and that is things like criticism or praise of Obama. They are publishing for today’s
audience, not for accuracy about the future.

Political reality is that the Democratic rank and file, which is hard left, almost always chooses someone who is too far left for political practicality. Nixon was very unpopular in 1972, but they chose MCGOVERN to oppose him.

It was HILARIOUS to watch Democrats nominate one MASSACHUSETTS lefty after another and get crushed at the polls. In 1988 Bush Sr. was so far behind Dukakis in the polls that National Review declared Dukakis’ election absolutely inevitable.

I said, “He’s a Massachusetts liberal. He’ll lose.”

Whitaker Basics again. Simplism.

The Democrats who do the nominating did not like Carter’s image and they did not Clinton’s image. They wanted a New England liberal. This time they hit jackpot.

McCain, like Obama, was incidental to the BUZZ Process. McCain was the Republican who had made himself beloved by the Buzzers. What astonished me during the campaign was that the media actually REMEMBERED they had once loved McCain.

Usually that sort of thing is simply forgotten by everybody, but a number of commentators actually DID mention that the McCain the entire media was damning had recently been beloved of them as the perfect liberal’s conservative.

The present administration is a return to the 1970’s abandonment of any real future. I came up with the certainty that space exploration and new technology would lead into an unimaginably exciting future. Older people were jealous of the great things in store for the young. Precious few older people are jealous of the young ones now.

The buzz has replaced the old time future of a Heaven of Progress and space colonization has been completely displaced by a lifetime dedicated to avoiding the Hell of the Moment. You are now a Carbon Emitter, an Earth Destroyer. If you are young, your life must be devoted to sacrifices to make up for your Original Sin of being human.

We are back in the 1970s.

So Where do we go from here?

When the 70s came, I had spent a lot of years getting ready for it. I had my fifteen minutes of fame getting Reagan elected.

I am more ready for today than anybody else, so I will START addressing that next.

A hint: the 70s malaise came from the politics of self-hatred. We’re back to that.

Political Reality

Posted by Bob on July 6, 2009 at 4:15 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | No Comments »

Herbert Hoover went from overwhelming victory in 1928 to total defeat in 1932 because there was an economic collapse on his watch. The Democrats went from one of modern history’s most crushing defeats because they had gotten America stuck in an unsinkable war.

By 2008 George W had accomplished BOTH. What is astonishing is that, having done what Hoover did in 1932 and Democrats did in Vietnam, Bush’s defeat was not even close to the drubbing his two predecessors got for half the reason.

Political logic says that a Vegetarian Party ticket with an Australian bushman on the ticket could have beat Bush in 2008.

What is astounding is not the new black president, but the fact that Bush got a single electoral vote.

And the blacks are perfectly correct. If Obama had not been black, he would wiped Republicans off the map.

Wordism Won’t Work

Posted by Bob on July 3, 2009 at 12:50 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, Political Correctness | 4 Comments »

There is a giant revival of Ayn Rand going on.

Ayn Rand is the perfect focus for today’s frustration. She has brilliant criticisms of the liberal mentality. You get to object to your heart’s content. But in the end she is harmless. She demands an and to all of a bugaboo called “government.

I was here when they had the last big Rand, “Objectivism,” boom, in the 60s. No one was allowed to take on the assumptions behind the New Frontier, Great Society, hippy liberalism of the 60s, so Rand was perfect.

There was a group called Preform. It was to get or build an island for a group of people who would live according to the Book of Rand. There was to be no government, only contracts between individuals.

The world would leave them alone, because they were a sovereign area. Preform Island would have no military. Any attack would presumably defend itself by a spontaneous posse of individuals. Here is one of the obvious cracks in the religion of Objectivism.

The idea was that this army of total individuals would contract with each other to fight. Remember this is a Wordism based entirely on personal advantage. It is made up of people who are not just totally self-interested, but whose ONLY motivation is self-interest. Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, a number of strong characters opposing the universally milk sops leftists. But not one of them had or planned to have any children.

Rand’s husband had himself sterilized.

I haven’t been in a lot of combat. The WWII Generation says my little firefights were not REAL combat. They tell each other that Korean War vets were in “the police action,” not in a Real War. But I can’t imagine, in the fights I was in, that a Completely Self-Interested Individual would honor an impersonal CONTRACT in those crucial minutes when he could just get off the firing line. How could Randian Wordism justify someone in going right into the fire to make it possible for an isolated buddy to fall back?

They can’t even justify LOYALTY to their own children, much less a stranger they made a contract with.

Similar to Randianism, and my own field of special study in my doctoral work in economics, was the field of Public Choice, in which two of my professors got Nobel Prizes. It comes to many brilliant and accurate conclusions, as Rand does. It sees voting as the outcome of self-interest on the part of voters.

But its first failure is similar to the one I just cited for Objectivism, it is so simple and fundamental that, for people like so many BUGS commenters, they instantly get away from it and go on to less simplistic subjects.

This is that failure: under the assumptions of Public Choice, it is not rational for an individual voter to vote AT ALL. It costs time and effort to vote. If your vote is entirely for your own self-interest, there is no way in the world to justify your standing in the voter line for one minute.

People vote be because they want a say in how THEIR SOCIETY will go. The idea of getting some INDIVIDUAL to go to the polls on the basis of his own personal self-interest is absurd. The idea that the world would ignore Preform Island is absurd, and the idea that a group of totally self-interested vigilantes would hold together under fire without LOYALTY is a concept only a hypnotic Wordist can take seriously.

That is why the establishment allows Rand to be published in massive editions in the new craze. That is why Public Choice is allowed to get Nobel Prizes. Both of them deny racism or nativism or any other loyalty. And the priesthood of Political Correctness has no fear of anything but LOYALTY.

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.

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.

Next Page →

Switch to our mobile site