In June, 1941, Germany invaded the USSR. The Red Army simply collapsed in front of them. Stalin himself took days to recover enough to take charge. The Blitzkrieg forced the Soviets out of Moscow a thousand miles inside the USSSR.
All was panic.
But in July of 1941 when all the news was clearly about the end of the USSR, soon to be under the heel of the most anti-Communist group that ever lived, the Soviets appointed a committee that anywhere else would have seemed unbelievable.
A group was assigned to work out what the USSR would later demand at Yalta.
At the time any other government would have considered this insane. But for the Soviets, the war in the headlines was not The War. It was a PHASE of their class struggle.
Stalin later told Roosevelt that the war against the kulaks had been nastier and harder than the war against the Germans.
Logic told the Reds that this German phase of the war could end three general ways: 1) Total defeat, for which they were preparing a last stand in Siberia, and which, if they lost, would be continued by the Communist Party in other lands; 2) some kind of Brest-Litovsk negotiated peace; or 3) Victory.
So they ignored the newspapers and set up a committee for 3), just as they had prepared for 1) and 2). They were coordinating with their agents in the US and other governments for Yalta while the Germans were rolling over them in the field.
I really appreciated this political savvy when I was part of the Reagan Administration when it took over in 1981. It had not the vaguest idea what it should do once it won.
Among others thing, the Reagan Administration lost the 1982 election by compromising with the Democrats on the tax cuts which ended the recession. They were delayed a year, so their effect didn’t hit the economy until after 1982.
Recovery began instantly when the full series of tax cuts began to take effect in 1983. You can see it on the charts.
This is the kind of planning defeatists prevent. They put a thousand times the energy into saying ALL Is Lost that rational people put into “What if we WIN?”
So when I talk about penalizing our enemies by the monetary route, I am not blowing smoke. If I didn’t know it before 1981, I know it now: Arguing whether All Is Lost is sick, it is insane. Planning what to do with victory can decide whether that victory will be permanent.
I do not plan to allow you to turn victory into defeat as America is famous for doing: Winning the war and losing the peace.
What I am talking about is not wishful thinking, it is hard planning, so LISTEN.
#1 by rdc75 on 12/03/2010 - 8:13 am
Just a minor nitpick:
The National Socialist Regime surely cannot be called “the most anti-Communist group that ever lived”.
They believed that Socialism is the best system ever (hence the name) just like the communists, they believed that Socialism is the wave of the future, etc.
Sure they were enemies of Stalin, just like the supporters of Trotzky were – but do you call the Trotzkyites the “most anti-Communist group that ever lived”? Of course not, because they were themselves socialists.
Basically National Socialism tried to defeat a murderous tyranny by establishing a similar murderous tyranny. Why? Because they thought a murderous tyranny was more efficient and Socialism was the wave of the future.
However that is nonsense, you cannot defeat socialism by becoming socialist.
I think that freedom and what would today be called “Libertarianism” is typically White and also the system in which Whites thrive best.
Just look at the 19th century, the century, the most libertarian century ever: Whites had large families and a strong morality.
Then look at the collectivist 20th century and what misery it has brought to us Whites.
#2 by beefcake on 12/03/2010 - 9:32 am
Well rdc75, Bob was NOT advocating National socialism. He would not like to live in a totalitarian regiem any more than I or your would.
He means, that we should not allow those who are pushing white Genocide off the hook when we bring their system of white genocide down, and their decndants will need to pay a heavier tax burden for their crimes.
He means we should plan on HOW to use our victory, as to do so would jeopardize it again in the future.
The only thing that libertarians do not bring up is RACE.
This is my issue with them, but its such a big issue with them, to me its the elephant in the room.
Libertarianism is just the latest face of conservative whites trying to PROVE they are not evil racists, while they lose every country they have on earth.
In thier effort to gain respect from libersals (and mommy proffesor) they all agree that we have a RACE problem too.
You know, that same RACE PROBLEM that will be solved when all the third world pours into EVERY white country, and we all interbreed and assimilate with them to make that Blended humanity.
#3 by Dave on 12/03/2010 - 9:46 am
We are not fighting a virile enemy and are fighting instead an enemy that is disgustingly corrupt, so the fight and victory are of the same cloth.
Which leads us directly to Mantra thinking.
It has to do with where real authority resides.
It heartens me that Simmons gets this, because the more of us that get it, the more of us have gotten what actually and truly needs to be got.
Consider fools who take their pleasures in music without ever succumbing to the suspicion of what their beloved music is preventing them from hearing. They cannot begin to understand someone like me, who was cursed with very suspicious ears. My ears seem to hear around theirs, no different than someone with eyes that see around sights that blind others. That ability makes my ears an authority, trumping their music.
Apply this to Mantra thinking and you are beginning to understand what Mantra thinking means. It is a gift of abilities to minds that care about abilities. It is a gift of power to minds that care about power.
This is about dominion, folks. There is no distinction about winning the war and winning the peace. If you cannot establish dominion over so-called peace, you never established dominion anywhere. It was all delusion.
The morons that allowed themselves to be called The Greatest Generation had no capacity to understand points like this. All they knew to do was surrender and to engage in self-deception that surrender was victory. They were the kind of music lovers that never made any attempt to hear around music. They never succumbed to the suspicion that the music they so loved actually deafened them. They never questioned what the music prevented them from hearing.
Which pretty much sums up the state of our society.
So who is the authority?
We are. BUGS is.
#4 by rdc75 on 12/03/2010 - 9:50 am
Yes, Libertarianism is an alsmost exclusive White phenomenon. Basically Libertarianism is to value truth and to see reality clearly. To reject the eastern ideas of collectivism.
Some White Nationalists see Libertarianism or indeed any moral system as a kind of burden or stumbling block.
Morals is making you stronger. A people with strong morals is what we shall be.
Just think about it: What White group is currently and has been for the last decades or even centuries the most successful, from a purely Darwinian point of view? Well, it’s probably the Amish. People who reject violence completely, who have strong morals.
Now I am not advocating the extreme pacifism of the Amish, but to make the point that Whites need strong morals to thrive. We all do not know what Whites groups will exist in 100 years, but I am sure that it will be groups with strong morals. And it will be groups that just grow naturally, quietly and peacefully.
The muddies cannot compete with us, remove welfare and they will freeze in the North and starve in the South. Remove welfare and the others will go back across the Rio Grande. Put a wall at the southern border, because the land is the property of the White people of the states. But this point of view works only when we accept property rights for example.
#5 by Dick_Whitman on 12/03/2010 - 2:42 pm
rdc75,
the ideal situation in the United States is to have the states decide the involvement of the welfare state. So if you want a more libertarian approach, you could live in a state that has that. If you want to live like the Amish, you can do that too.
I encourage you however to not get swept up in wordism. If your libertarianism or Austrian school of economics gets in the way of bringing out the best in our people, then it is evil. If it was up to most of the big capitalists in the US today there would be no borders to stop the “free flow of labor.”
I believe there is a place for the State to intervene in life. For example, say a child has potential in science but comes from a poor family. I believe the State should pay for this kid to get a free education. The libertarians I know would tell this kid “too bad, take out loans.”
I also believe there is place for regulations enforced by the State. Before the environmental regulations of the 1970’s lake Erie literally stated on fire because there was so much pollution. Companies openly dumped waste into the water. Now Lake Erie is much cleaner as a result.
I am (of course) a proponent of property rights. But I don’t believe that the guy with the most property gets to make all the rules.
So just remember as a general rule to put our people first.
#6 by rdc75 on 12/04/2010 - 1:24 am
In my opinion it is wordism, when it starts to cloud thinking – but a clear view of reality is not wordism, just a useful tool.
That non-white immigration is bad for White countries has become so clear that it’s just a fact. So yes, I fully agree that the state has to prevent that.
About free education: First of all, the cost of education is almost zero in the age of the Internet. Second, this kind of thinking was exactly the slippery slope that lead to the current affirmative action programs. Third, the overblown “education” system has become a parasite of our society.
Basically the view that rich = evil and poor = good is just Marxism (class warfare). It’s useful to destabilize a society but of course nonsense to try to build a society out of it.
And of course this kind of thinking also leads to low sentences for poor “oppressed” murderers and rapists while gun owners get minimum sentences just for owning a gun.
The marxists do not only hate the rich, they also hate the intelligent, the healthy, the beautiful.
I agree with environmental protection, but it has to be done in a way that does not kill off the smaller competitors.
#7 by shari on 12/03/2010 - 10:50 am
Dave, Your right about music. I caught some of a PBS special on “folkmusic.” I recognized most the songs of the early 60’s, but realize how, should I say? GAY they were! Twinky, assinine,peter,paul,mary,judy collins stuff. Quit watching when I saw the audience of greyhaired boomers, singing along,looking incredibly stupid.
#8 by Dick_Whitman on 12/03/2010 - 2:04 pm
“What I am talking about is not wishful thinking, it is hard planning, so LISTEN.” (Bob)
I’m listening! I encourage you to post on this subject more often. Planning for the future is beneficial in many ways. Besides the obvious reason of being prepared, it allows people to envision the future that they wish to have. This vision then enters the subconscious mind and this in a sense programs the subconscious to achieve the goals you/we are after.
Another thing we need to think about is how we define “victory?” I define it as the end of the program of genocide against our race and control of our own destiny.
What does this look like you ask? Here’s a few suggestions:
1) the right to our own communities
2) running our own institutions
3) living under our own symbolism
4) the right to our own narrative
So yes Bob, please do write more about preparing for the “peace.”
#9 by Simmons on 12/03/2010 - 3:23 pm
Mantraman posts two responses on a youtube thread about an Austrian who wants to win.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFkkIpj4kHc&feature=player_embedded
#10 by The Old Man of the Mountain on 12/03/2010 - 9:36 pm
John Quincy Adams knew that “slavery is wrong” and that is all that he knew about it.
Every session he made a motion in Congress that slavery be abolished. He never imagined that it could happen in his lifetime, when it did, he had no plan at all.
That is a large part of the reason we are in this mess today; if there had been a well though out plan in advance, things would have gone differently.
#11 by Wandrin on 12/04/2010 - 12:25 am
“They believed that Socialism is the best system ever (hence the name) just like the communists, they believed that Socialism is the wave of the future, etc.”
Now they didn’t. It was marketing. After he won power Hitler had the socialist element killed.
“Another thing we need to think about is how we define “victory?””
Victory isn’t enough. Somehow it needs to be made much harder for something like this to happen again in the future.
#12 by OldBlighty on 12/04/2010 - 3:28 am
>Now they didn’t. It was marketing. After he won power Hitler had the socialist element killed.
I always assumed Hitler was elected into power, but it didn’t happen that way at all. He formed a coalition with the left in order to take power and then got rid of the useful idiots later.
>Victory isn’t enough. Somehow it needs to be made much harder for something like this to happen again in the future.
If we are accusing people of Genocide, the next logical step is to put them on trial for Genocide.
The other thing we should do is pursue them wherever they run on the planet, using all legal means at our disposal, just like the Jews did with the Nazis.
Our motto should be Never forgive, never forget.
Otherwise these people will return to try the same thing all over again.
#13 by BGLass on 12/04/2010 - 9:50 am
“…The other thing we should do is pursue them wherever they run on the planet, using all legal means at our disposal, just like the Jews did with the Nazis.
Our motto should be Never forgive, never forget.
Otherwise these people will return to try the same thing all over again…..”
A problem there is simply religious. The Jewish “Torah” is very explicit (over and over)— ‘when you take the land, you destory everything, all altars, all remnants of the people, absolutely everything. That’s why they continue—to never stop destroying the “remnant.” This can extend for instance, to German heritage in the U.S., and so on.
This is drummed into the Torah reader.
Of course, the Bible based people read that word for word, also, as literalists just like Orthodox.
Anyway, better to find a way of selling that plays better to the Christian-imbedded consciousness, somehow. Non-jews just aren’t going to do things like Jews.
#14 by Mademoiselle White Rabbit on 12/05/2010 - 1:05 am
I feel that a good real-world illustration of this point can be found in the so-called Women’s Lib movement. They ultimately accomplished everything they fought for: the “right” to abortion and birth control, the “right” for women to be employed alongside men in the workplace, the “right” to be considered sexual beings and initiate sex with men… the list continues.
What is most remarkable, then, is that most boomer-era feminists feel that they are still “fighting for their rights.” The war never ended to them. If the sexual liberation they encouraged has been manipulated by child predators and rapists, it is because men are inherently resentful of powerful women and express this through violence. If young girls are viewed as nothing more than sex objects, it is because the patriarchal society has exploited them. If children of working mothers don’t benefit the way those with stay-at-home mothers do, it is because employers don’t do enough to accomodate their female workforce.
Feminists can’t accept that they have done just as much damage to their gender as male misogynists could have dreamed. They didn’t ensure that the far-reaching effects of their actions would benefit women because they never bothered to plan past their victory celebration.