Archive for category How Things Work
The paycheck right is looking into an abyss.
But that word “paycheck” ensures it will hang on until some people’s retirement.
There will hundreds of articles saying that. But the 2014 surge is perfectly predictable. The party
out of power almost always gains in the second term.
More important, the potential election of 2012 was for the second term of a black president. The Democrats’ real base overwhelmingly turned out.
It is likely that in 2014 there will be return of the limited old people, white people vote.
In 2012 we just got a clear look at the abyss paycheck conservatives have been denying existed.
Demographics IS Destiny, but those who have insisted otherwise for so long and so profitably are not going to give it up because of one giant shock of reality.
Reality will be back in 2016, but that will give the respectables four more years of paychecks.
There was a fairly unknown military strategist in the Pentagon during the 70‘s and 80’s named John Boyd. He is best known for creating the idea of the OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) loop for military operations, which I suggest reading about if you have the time (1). My point in writing about him here at BUGS relates to something he said that is relevant to the times that are approaching us as pro-White activists. The following bold text was a retelling of a conversation that a junior officer had with John Boyd.
“One day you will come to a fork in the road,” he said. “And you’re going to have to make a decision about which direction you want to go.” He raised his hand and pointed. “If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments.”
Then Boyd raised his other hand and pointed another direction. “Or you can go that way and you can do something – something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide you want to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won’t have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference.”
He paused and stared into the officer’s eyes and heart. “To be somebody or to do something.” In life there is often a roll call. That’s when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do. Which way will you go?” (2)
I think that most BUGSters would agree that we want to DO SOMETHING (end the program of White genocide) instead of BEING SOMEBODY.
We’re entering a time when people out of what we loosely call “the movement” are going to start getting opportunities to BE SOMEBODY.
When you see this, please remember something very important. Getting to BE SOMEBODY within the current anti-White system will very likely come at the cost of DOING SOMETHING (such as spreading our message and opposing White genocide). A White Nationalist could be made President of the United States and he/she may be allowed to pass some immigration restriction legislation and put an end to some anti-White affirmative action policies. But if this individual refuses to address White genocide (by force-mixing Whites with non-Whites) then it doesn’t matter if all three branches of the American government are filled so called “White Nationalists.”
The acid test (3) for any supposed pro-White individual or pro-White group is the Mantra.
To be or to do. Which way will you go?
I first read the mantra in 2010. I was still new to the consistent message thing but when I came across one line of the mantra, I knew I had to put it in every post I wrote. That line was:
“Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white.
But at the time I thought it sounded funny. The thing that sounded funny to me was the “-ist” part.
I was in a wordist mentality. I wanted to attack the word “Anti-racISM” so my “White nationalISM” could prevail. I quickly adopted that phrase and changed just ONE letter;
“Anti-racism” is a codeword for anti-white.
This is the one that sounds funny to me now.
I was in a wordist mentality. I believed that an “-ism” meant it was objective and true.
I know better now.
An “-ism” means whatever an “-ist” wants it to mean.
It doesn’t matter if one “-ist” says this about this “-ism” and another “-ist” says something completely different about that same “-ism.”
An “-ism” means whatever an “-ist” wants it to mean.
That is how the “anti-racists” were able to be so anti-white for so long and get away with it. We believed the “-ism” meant they were objective and true.
I now try to avoid using any “-ism” online or in any conversation.
And in almost every post I do, the last line I write is:
“Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white.
I just wrote BoardAd that “Provigil is officially only a narcolepsy pill. Ritalin is the ADD pill, and it has been a Schedule 2, meaning it is addictive, for forty years. But Provigil is more closely regulated because it works too well.”
If this had been written to him by anybody but me, he would naturally have asked if I didn’t need some medication myself. But this is simply how the world works.
Regulation of drugs or guns or anything else, in the real world, is a power struggle.
It is true that the average doctor or brass hat policeman is fully and honestly convinced that his ideas about controlling guns or drugs is entirely objective. He has, after all, devoted his life to the public good.
Which is why you have them as specialists in things like law enforcement and medicine, but you pay people like me to deal with reality.
As committee staff, I was perfectly aware that both sides on each issue believed down to the toes of their shoes that they were the good guys.
So while others start with the assumption that a person who is expert in a field has a more objective opinion, I start with the reality that the last person who is objective on any subject is the person who has devoted his life to it.
No one wants to hear this.
When people look at a judge their first thought is that he is a successful practitioner of law and is an expert, one who has given up a lucrative law practice which a lawyer of his abilities could probably command, in order to devote himself to the Law.
This is a very comforting idea. None of us want to be wheeled into the Emergency Room while having it in mind that the doctors are biased in what they do. If we are on trial, none of us wants to think that the judge has anything but Justice on his mind.
No one wants to pay a crippling fortune for tuition with the idea that the expensive professor has exactly the same mind set every other professor has.
After all, these are the areas where we do NOT understand what is going on. We want desperately to believe that when it comes to stuff we cannot understand, the people who do understand are no different from us, except for their higher knowledge on the subject.
It’s a scary world if that is not true.
But if you realize that each profession has a set of steel hard prejudices, you can at least predict what they are for.
Provigil gives energy, the way Ritalin does. It makes people feel energetic and good.
There is no way in God’s universe that a drug that makes people feel good will ever go unregulated.
Provigil is amazing. You know the “do no operate heavy machinery” bit? Provigil has been used on jet pilots for over two days without sleep and had no ill effects!
It is true that an effective drug is usually fatal in an overdose.
But the white power that kills more people than any other is called sugar, and you do not need a prescription saying you are not diabetic to get it.
What is important here is not the facts, but the concept.
The fact is simply that if a person gets his power in the medical industry, things are really regulated first and foremost because they are effective, not because they are dangerous.
Regulation is a power struggle, but a person who is inside a field cannot recognize that fact.
There is a lot of talk about privatizing space.
Holy Private Enterprise will get out there instead of government programs.
The people who insist on this are the same ones who met at conventions to push the space program with General Whozits as keynoter while the real subcommittee dealing with the real budget were snipping NASA out.
While they are showing how they are both pro-Space and pro-Private Enterprise For All Mankind — Hooray! — they are outnumbered a hundred to one, minimum, by those who are already putting together the regulations that will keep us out of space.
For every bit of promotion at their get-togethers, there are a hundred professionals demanding that we not pollute space. There are groups who would never put it this way, but they are demanding the rights of Native Spacians.
In 1969 the astronauts went up alone. Today they would have to have a thousand of Mommy Professor-trained bureaucrats for every astronaut, minimum.
As always you simply cannot put this into context without Mantra Thinking: We are dealing with an established religion.
When they want money for their own priests rather than for science, one of their continuing lines is, “Man has no right to interfere with the Works of God.”
Except for the substitution of the word “Nature” for “God,” do you actually see the slightest difference between today’s established religion and the Traditional Values.
Professional conservatives make their living by making the same statements in terms of the older established faith. To me, they are MORE offensive than liberals because they use the name of God,
You can’t blaspheme Nature.
The space program died under the ministrations of conservatives. Even Reagan, the former governor of California, regarded space spending as he did any other government expenditures except those cute boys in uniform.
To keep us out of space, you simply regulate any private program out of existence, just as they did atomic power and as they will any technology beyond the windmill.
And if someone can produce a windmill scare, there could be a hundred thousands bureaucrats in it for them
The income tax has one big advantage:
If we had a Value Added Tax the deficit would not be such a big issue. There would be a lot of yelling by conservatives, but the solution would be just to increase the VAT by a few percentage points.
With America’s present dependence on income tax, the debate includes exactly who pays the increased income tax, and everybody but welfarees pays the thing. So we have the kind of debate Europeans, who depend on the VAT, do not have.
Budget politics is a matter of visibility. So pork billions are added on simply because a few millions get completely lost in trillion dollar outlays.
The European living standard is much below the American, but the per capita income, which everyone relies on, is very close. Americans used to go to Europe and get excellent deals. But now living in Europe, including Canada, is a major financial sacrifice.
Prices in Europe have been driven sky high by the Value Added Tax.
Normally things are more costly in different countries. But I am still looking for one single thing, including Canadian whiskey, that is cheaper in Canada than in the US. People regularly drive all the way from Ottawa to the US border to do their shopping.
It is probably not ideology that makes Europeans hand out all those public goodies. It seems to me more likely that it is the VAT.
Bob Hope once said that the difference between Communism and capitalism was that under capitalism he got to see his money before it went to the government. In his day the income tax on above $300,000 a year was 91%.
Naturally that bracket yielded almost nothing because anyone who reached it could afford tax advice. Only professional athletes, especially boxers, got caught in that bracket.
But the 91% did distort the economy enormously by distorting investment and putting a limit on how much productive people worked. That top rate became major news when Joe Louis got ruined by it.
The income tax has to be discussed in detail, and every group makes it public. The Value Added Tax increases price wildly, but every group wanting more government money has the same advantage a pork-driven congressman does.
In a VAT economy the general tax increase is a general thing, while each expenditure gets specific attention.
Here is another thing that happens to all of us but we do not THINK enough about it.
We start talking to someone about a problem they have, and as we talk, they tell us the problem with each bit of advice. At the END of this process, we finally come up with the thing we realize is exactly what we SHOULD have told them at the beginning.
Once again, here is something that happens to all of us, like hearing the Emperor’s Clothes, but we drown that experience in News and Jews and Puppy Dog Tales.
You have just spent half an hour finally realizing exactly what the problem is, and the solution is boiled down to a sentence or two, which you keep repeating lamely at the ends until you can end the talk.
This is what happens to every person who has to learn to write effectively.
I sit down with something buzzing around in my mind and try to express it the way I thought of it. You feel like it’s all worked out but it just won’t come out on paper.
Ever heard anybody say THAT before:
“I had it all worked out but it wouldn’t come out on paper.”
I would bet good money you have heard YOU say that.
The idea worked out beautifully when the images were in your own mind, in the language you use with yourself.
I used to have an idea wonderfully worked out. In fact I had it so clear in my mind that it was a BORE to write it down. It was a BORE, it was WORK to force it onto the paper.
Then something awful happened.
The clear idea I had had in my own mind was no longer something I could see in my mind, where I can hop around in my own images.
I didn’t know where to start. If the concept is in your mind, you have all the exciting running around in your own head, but when you hit the keyboard, it is clunk, clunk, clunk, just one sentence after another.
It becomes WORK, and you get confused and tired. And when you have been forcing yourself back to that damned keyboard over and over and you are exhausted, you might come up , after hours of work, with a sentence that expresses what you really needed at the beginning.
You are exhausted.
You are sick of it.
And you have finally written your first sentence.
We have all heard of “judge-made law.”
But Mommy Professor is very silent on the subject of “jury-made law.”
And one lesson we must learn is that silence from Mommy Professor is as important as his outright blatherings.
Talking about liquor laws reminded me of jury-made law. When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, Charleston, SC opened its bars. When you went to Charleston, there were open bars and liquor by the drink.
Once in the 1940s, Governor Olin D. Johnston, “a personal and political dry,” called the Mayor of Charleston with the press watching and said, “I demand that you close those bars in Charleston.” The mayor replied, as Johnston knew he would, “Governor, YOU close them.”
Thus were two successful political careers advanced.
As I pointed out in the case of Mississippi’s prohibition laws, there was a huge difference between MAKING a law and ENFORCING a law.
Governor Johnston would have had to bring bar owners in Charleston before a Charleston jury.
Lots o’ luck there, Olin D.
The whole concept of jury-made law has been alien to Americans since the Greatest Generation took over.
Once again, I have to tell you that I am not exaggerating here: before the Greatest Generation, jurors were really not all that intimidated by a grown man sitting there in a black dress. The reverend stillness with which people called for jury duty today was alien to pre-WWII Americans.
In fact you already know about jury made law. You know that the death penalty for theft and other minor crimes was gotten rid of because juries, knowing the judge would follow the law blindly, simply refused to convict.
That, after all the arguments, was what happened to South Carolina’s ban on liquor by the drink: Juries simply refused to convict.
But the Greatest Generation was a wholly different matter. To them, the Judge was Authority. He wore a costume and his word was, to coin a phrase, law.
Some poor bastard who had had to shoot somebody in self-defense was convicted of manslaughter by a jury because the man in the costume had told them that, according to the law, he should have thought the whole thing out in the few seconds while he was being attacked and had a gun in his hand.
I actually met one judge in my youth who was absolutely dumbfounded by the way his jury actually sent a man, for not having behaved in the manner the law says a lawyer with hours to ponder things would have behaved, to prison for the rest of his life.
He told me he had always said that a jury would NEVER convict a decent person.
But it was his first Greatest Generation jury.
No one called for jury duty today has the slightest concept of what a jury is all about.
They are there to obey.