Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

LibAnon

Posted by Bob on December 9th, 2006 under Coaching Session, Comment Responses, How Things Work


NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
“Now comes the critical word: PERIOD.”
I think the critical word is HOW, not PERIOD. Otherwise, you and I agree on all points.
Institutions are merely tools, the means to an end. Of course! But tools don’t build themselves, nor is it beneath our dignity to build them.
It’s fine for you to say “My aim is to destroy all traitors within our race and to preserve our race,” just as NASA once said “Our aim is to put men on the moon before 1970.” But if NASA had simply followed that up with slogans like “PERIOD!” and “Screw rocketmaking tips!”, they wouldn’t have made it there.

Comment by LibAnon

ME:

“Our aim is to put men on the moon before 1970.”

That is the PERFECT example!

The moon shot began in the 1930s and earlier with science fiction writers. Our entire satellite communications system was invented by one science fiction writer in 1947 in one story. But in 1950 no one thought much of it.

Even Goddard himself was only shooting better rockets and realizing their portential, which Germans took and made into the CONCEPT of the v-1 and V-2. I don’t know if Goddard would have mentioned going to the moon — he would have been laughed at — but I KNOW he never mentioned a satellite system. He just shot better rockets and saw their potential while everybody else was talking about the most modern propellors.

In the Orient, Goddard’s rockets would have been like their invention of the first mechanical clock. In obscure writings, Goddard’s work would be traced as his rocket design floated around for two hundred years and finally disappeared.

We would be raving about how the Chinese had better rockets earlier. We would not ask, “So what?”

If you want to see how Wordist thinking of the future looks to me, watch the 1937(?) movie, Things to Come. The ultramodern plane of the late 1970s in that movie has not four but EIGHT propellors.

Please note that the goal of reaching the moon by 1970 was announced in the 1961 inaugural address. There was no mention of a rocket, much less WHICH rocket, which men, or HOW. There was no mention of anything BUT that goal. One year later we were no closer to the moon than we were then.

I am following up on the program with the Mantra. I am in a tiny, unpopular outlet like 1930s science fiction proceeding the best way I can find toward my goal. I am writing to try to entertain you as well as get some ideas across.

This is because I found out something early in my career that others never discovered: SPECIFIC complex plans for the future seldom work out. I say seldom in case it worked for somebody else because for me it was NEVER. I tried libertarianism, John Birchism and conservatism because each of these isms had a PLAN and a GROUP. But in the end they all failed because, even when they got part of their goal, the enemy, a bunch of pros, simply diverted them onto side-issues.

The problem with the future is that you cannot really work with it until you are IN it.

That is why things like the Mantra work and all those institutions you want will NOT work. We went to the moon because the ideas got planted in tiny little fun publications which were laughed at by the literary committee. In fact, science fiction only began to lose its cutting edge when it began to take literary opinion seriously. I can communicate with anybody on earth by satellite because of science fiction stories written BEFORE that time.

Once Asimov started getting the big bucks writing for Playboy, the old days were over and science fiction was mainstream.

“Mainstream” means co-opted.

Then science fiction came up with a PLAN. It went New Wave in the 1960s and science fiction got a huge boost. New Wave Science Fiction meant, as I put it, “Putting a sociologist in a space suit.” That was With It. It predicted a future where everybody looked back on the Vietnam War as the height of viciousness in all history. I said then that thus was like someone in 1854 saying that you and I would think about nothing but the Crimean War today.

In fact, New Wave had waves of blacks going into space and all the rest. It was really the Wave of the Future. It is forgotten completely today. It sought to build the future out of today, which is the staple of Wordists and Modern anything. Have you noticed that all the churches that tried to “modernize” in the 1950s have half their old membership from back when the population was half as large?

But this is not just modernization. It is ANY attempt to build a rigid plan for the future, because we cannot see one hour into the future. If you could, you could go the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and be a billionaire in a week.

Nobody would look at MONEY that way, but all the amateurs look at POWER that way. If you announce you’ve got The Plan, the rubes will make you rich and you will lose. That’s how power politics is played right now. Washington is full of people living high off the hog, and the hog belongs to the rubes who believe that, while somebody who told you he has The Plan to Make a Million is an obvious fraud; no one can play real power politics UNLESS they have The Plan for Gaining Power.

Neither money nor power works that way. Respectable conservatives are rubes who belong to the neos, who are pros.

I plant IDEAS. I have done more than a million conservatives. If you go for power OR money, you have to stop predicting disaster or organizing for the Final Victory and get in there on the ground floor and do what needs doing. The Mantra is the SORT of thing that needs doing now.

We’ll get to the moon later.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Alan B. on 12/09/2006 - 2:57 pm

    NOT SPAM

    NOT SPAM

    I continue to post the Mantra when ever I can because I feel its important to get the ideas out. What keeps me going is this, just having somebody read the mantra will at least expose them to the fraud of muticultrialism. I am not concerned as to whether somebody is pro or con non white immigration, my main goal is to plant the seed so that eventually a little light bulb will pop on in somebodies head and they will begin to see multicutrialism for what it really IS, white race genocide. Just keep posting the mantra and let the truth do the rest, its more productive to post the montra in 10 locations, than it is to post it in one and spend 30 minutes trying to convince a retard to look at it with an open mind.

  2. #2 by Dave on 12/09/2006 - 3:38 pm

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM

    There is no distinction between an operational capability and strategy. Installing a capability is strategy.

    Accordingly, the most profound ideology is easily defeated by the simplest capability.

    Let us apply this to multicultural orthodoxy and street violence.

    The multicultural orthodoxy is a profound ideology, but is melts before the mutt’s willingness to immediately escalate low-level intimidation to murderous violence, regardless of consequences.

    The same whites that promote multicultural orthodoxy are completely unable to deal with the mutt’s capability and they flee before it. Consequently, the contradiction contained in multiculturalism is stupendous beyond description and cannot possibly survive.

    I’m interested mitigating the mutt’s capability and to furnishing a countermeasure to it.

    That is an activity of competitive fitness and competitive fitness resides in knowing what others do not know, seeing what others do not see, and hearing what others do not hear.

  3. #3 by LibAnon on 12/09/2006 - 3:54 pm

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM
    “We’ll get to the moon later.”
    Kennedy also said “If not us, who? And if not now, when?” The time for writing science fiction has passed, in my opinion. We need to be building rockets.
    You are right to put the emphasis on timing, of course. Knowing WHEN pays a lot more than knowing WHAT, as they say on Wall Street. But I’d be the last to say that I or anybody else can deduce such knowledge a priori. You, David Duke and others are all out there using very different approaches, and that’s good. Time will tell which one works best.
    On a different subject, I’d like to address some of the flak I’ve been getting in the comments because I do appreciate it. Yes, guys, I’m 90% anti, just as Bob is 90% atheist. I’d like to think that the measly 10% that remains makes me a better comrade, not a worse one, just as I think Bob’s rather tenuous piety makes him a better Christian. But even if you don’t agree, and prefer the company of 100%-convinced Moonies, at least my presence here can make you think about what you’re going to do with the large percentage of the white population who just aren’t “getting it”. Are you going to fine-tune your pitch, or are you just going to kill us all?

  4. #4 by Shari on 12/10/2006 - 7:47 pm

    Not Spam
    Not Spam

    I think that LibAnon is right that 100% believers are not the best bet. 10% believers might be much more honest and true.

You must be logged in to post a comment.