Archive for April, 2011

Occam Said “Keep it Simple”

Dr. Bob’s dying advice to Bill W. on Alcoholics Anonymous, which they jointly founded, was “Keep it simple.”

Dr. Bob did not mean that the way a Marxist would, “Keep it simple because the drunks — or in the case of the Marxist — the workers, are simpletons.” In Marxism, the Intellectuals were supposed to keep their own thinking highly complex so they could be the “dictatorship of the proletariat” for the working retards.

No, the founding principle of AA was that everybody in it was a drunk. Dr. Bob was reminding Bill W to keep HIS thinking simple.

In fact, in later life Bill W started talking LSD and the like because he had an Insight that they were what HE needed, but the average drunk shouldn’t touch them.

The greatest single step forward in Western thinking was Occam’s Razor.

William of Occam said “Keep it simple.”

He was not telling the peasants to keep it simple. There wasn’t much of a peasant readership in his day.

He was telling the Intellectuals to stop arguing how, after combining the commentaries on Aristotle with pieces of theology, how many angels could stand on the point of a pin. This classical example may not be accurate, but it is no sillier than what the Scholastics DID discuss.

Occam said that a truth should contain as few assumptions as possible.

There is nothing new about our age. The Scholastics are trying desperately to discuss anything but the simple fact that brown countries are poor countries, Mongoloid countries are not original, immigration and assimilation to ALL white countries and ONLY white countries is genocide according to the Genocide Treaty.

This happens on every piece of information that is produced by any industry.

Jews, in general, are hostile to whites the same way that Poles are generally hostile to Germans. Under present rules this statement makes me anti-Polish as well as anti-Semitic. But this simple statement is as unpopular with anti-Semites as it is with the ADL.

It is simplistic. It ignores the deep scholarship one needs to expose the whole sweep of historic antipathy of Jews to the goyim, the people of the lands (around them), who, as every Jew hears every Saturday in synagogue, hates and persecutes Jews and wants to make the Jews, who are always absolutely innocent and are trying to do them good, suffer.

That’s too simple for Intellectuals on BOTH sides.

It is incredible that Occam’s Razor was ever adopted as a rule by Western science.

I like to think it was adopted because of people like me who were not embarrassed by a simple truth.



Coach is Harder Than Guru or Leader

I was reading a comment where a person was quoting his answer to the usual line that white people deserve to have their countries taken over by non-whites because whites invaded colored lands.

The answer to this is, as usual to get back to the Mantra point. The answer is:

“So you’re admitting to the genocide and you’re justifying genocide.”

Don’t hit them where they expect to be hit.

But when I say, I am being a coach, not a Leader or a guru, this is definitely NOT a quibble.

When a coach first meets a freshman for pre-season training, his dream is that that same complete novice will, ten years from now, be a professional player whose advice the coach would love to have.

Ninety percent of Coaches’ ambition is the same as the Leader’s: He must have DISCIPLINE.

The reason I can demand discipline here is because I had to learn that discipline over so many battles.

But the basic difference between a coach and a Leader or Mommy Professor is that saying what I say is not THE END IN ITSELF.

For example it would be a great triumph for me if you were to say to yourself, “By gum, THAT is a major reason Bob keeps slamming at the Weakest Generation! They weren’t coached, they were beaten down into butt kissers for their sergeant and later for Mommy Professor!”

I can’t train you to see the more basic points and how they relate. That is, after all, the problem you face every day fighting the Mantra War. What you are doing is forcing people to see the world picture, not just to repeat what Mommy Professor programmed into them.

When they start back into their audio track about how whites deserve it, you do not want to go into it WITH them. You drag their heads out and point to the Genocide they are justifying.

This is harder discipline than any Mommy Professor imposes on any of his kiddies. But even that harder discipline is not the only end.

Nobody insists more on your saying what I have found effective. But my hope is for more in the long run.

I want you to end up with a world view that has nothing to say about Communism except that every Red State had — and has — to keep its people prisoners. I want you to look for the world view basics on questions. For example, economics will be bullshit until someone faces the one critical economic indicator: All brown skinned countries are poor.

I know of no exceptions to this rule except where white people found oil under brown peoples’ feet. Even if I could find exceptions, you don’t abandon supply and demand because of the FACT that in a number of cases, raising the price has made a low-sale product into a luxury product that is much more in demand.

Stay on the rule.

Leaders will usually be glad to have you as long as you pay your dues and add a number to their roster.

What I want from you is a hell of a lot harder.

Harder for you and harder for me.


1 Comment

Way to Go, Gang!

General Comments VII, Comment #51 by Coniglio Bianco on 4/14/2011 – 5:52 pm

Here’s someone who needs to be straightened out for ridiculing the White Genocide Evidence Project.

I looked at the site and it was BLANKETED with the Mantra!

One of these days you will look back on those shining days when you were banned and banned and banned and BANNED!

After this time, if we get mainstream you are going to get bored out of your SKULL!

I tell people, “I resent being called a lunatic extremist. I like to think I’m right in the MIDDLE of the lunatics!”

Very few people get the real chance to get around the authorities and the general fanaticism the way we do.

It’s a tough experience, but it really makes life worth while.



Political Means and Ends

In the 1950s, every student had to learn the difference between “socialism” and “communism.” Every college student could parrot that, while socialist GOALS could be the same, professors who were socialists did not advocate violent MEANS to that end

One high State Department official said he had a problem with this back in the late 40s when he filled out his Federal job application. A question on it was, “Have you or any member of your family ever advocated the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence?”

He had a little trouble when he replied, “Yes.”

His grandfather was still alive and his grandfather was a Confederate veteran.

But note the question was not, “Are you a Communist?” There was a LOT of legal maneuvering then. The Federal Courts ruled that a person could be fired from his job for being a member of the Klan or other “hate” organizations accused of violent intent, but no one could be fired for being a Communist who openly advocated the violent overthrow of the government and the violent seizure of all property.

As we all know, this court law is the one that governs our society.

On the left, one simply has to make it impossible to prove that one is ENGAGED in promoting actual and specific violence. On the left, the ENDS make no difference at all.

On the right, the MEANS make no difference at all. The GOAL of preserving the white race opens the door to any action anyone wants to take.

This policy is, as usual, most fanatically supported by respectable conservatives. William Buckley kept whining to liberals that he wouldn’t hire anyone they called a racist. So why were Major New York Times writers openly not only pro-Communist, but pro-Stalinist?

The simple answer, of course, would be, “Largely because of prostitutes like you.”



Dave Does Some Excellent Coaching for Me

#6 by Frank on 4/9/2011 – 11:10 am
Dave, I live in a university town, so have a lot of Mommy Profs here both in the U and throughout the local political establishment. I comment in the local newsblogs, and get a word in wherever I smell anti-white, which is everywhere.

I actually use the phrase “mommy professor” in some posts, and usually with anti-white in the same sentence. The intent is to make the MPs look both silly and evil.

The question I have for you is: do you (or any other bugsters) use “mommy professor” outside of “our Thing” here? Do you recommend it? Do you see a problem with it?

Thanks for all your coach-talks!

#7 by Dave on 4/10/2011 – 2:28 am

I use “Mommy Professor” all the time and I use it in any venue I happen to be in without restraint (I regularly use the term in informal conversations with elected officials, in speaking before groups, and also at work) It is perfect because it is an underhanded way of expressing disrespect while having “cover” for being called on it.

You know the organizational game when it comes to behavioral standards: You have to keep your commentary within the bounds of “being directed toward an organizational purpose” or face discipline for having a personal agenda. You can stay within those bounds and successfully use the term “Mommy Professor”. I have never been called on it for violating organizational behavioral norms.

It is very difficult to be called on using “Mommy Professor” because you just say that you are reminding everyone, Mommy Professor’s credentials notwithstanding, that you are just dealing with opinion. The question is whether it is “informed opinion” and informed opinion adheres to people regardless of credentials. People are sick and tired of the costume of credentials anyway. Increasingly, reciting one’s credentials just makes people groan. In today’s world credentials are actually a hindrance to your credibility (outside of medicine and other technical areas where formal ratings actually matter), but kids don’t know this.

Everybody knows it is “Mommy Professor’s” tendency to hide behind her status, even though it is not uncommon for her to claim to be a renegade. (This is another thing I think people are increasingly sick of – the standard claim of Establishment people that they are anti-Establishment).

Think of Elizabeth Warren (Harvard Law Professor and Special Counsel to the President) and her pretense that she is a feared enemy of Wall Street and friend of THE CONSUMER.

I wish I had a nickel for every anti-Establishment “rebel” in the Establishment. I would be a rich man indeed. Mommy Professor LOVES to posture. Pretending she is a “rebel” is one of her most standard forms of posturing.

Believe me, Elizabeth Warren would be offended by being called “Mommy Professor” and she would have a terrible time responding. “Mommy Professor” is a great insult. It is durable, memorable, and it works.