Archive for category Blasts from the Past

Simmons and Pain

Simmons asks,

A question for you, What happens when the Mantra
exposes an explicit White Genocide group of Whites, Jews and Faithful Colored Companions? White genocide has been implied for the most part but once we expose it it will be left to the hard core white haters and then what do we say and do?

Pain happened to have the exact answer to this in his comment today:

“When we do argue with creeps, it is for the anyone that may overhear us.”

When open anti-whites, especially if they are white, say so out loud, encourage them. They will agree with the Mantra. Repeat it, and be sure as many people as possible HEAR them agreeing with you. Remember it for when the next person says, “But nobody is anti-white” or “How can a white person be anti-white?”

Much as they may cheer him in public, everybody despises a self-hater. As Pain points out, you are not there to win an argument, you are there to make OUR point.


1 Comment

The Lesson of New Amsterdam

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.


1 Comment

Wordism Versus Morality

Posted by Bob on December 1, 2005 at 5:51 pm

In my old “Partisan Dictionary” which I wrote in the Southern Partisan in the early 1980s, the following definiton appeared,

“Manners, n,

A formalized substitute for courtesy.”

Manners if doing whatever is fashionable and written down. Courtesy is concern for the other person.

By the same token, “ethics” is written down. Honesty, like courtesy, needs no explanation.

I have pointed out that the moment someone said something to me that sounded like they were getting around to “something you would like to have,” I would quote to them the Draconian penalties for bribing a staffer.

This was often unfair. I had honestly misinterpreted where they were leading. But it also gave me a certain reputation as a person who could not be trusted with even a hint of a bribe.

Why, exactly, was I so nasty about such hints of offers?

“well, Bob, it’s because you were raised in the Bible Belt. The Book taught you that ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor’ even if they pay you.”

And that is what really worries me about Wordists. My ancestors were proud to die to a man around the leader they had sworn fealty to long before the Gospel, much less the Old Testament, ever got to them.

I don’t lie, I don’t cheat, I don’t steal, and I honor my word not because some Book told me to be that way, but because I AM that way.

If you want to know about someone, let them talk. When a person justifies honesty by quoting a Book, you had better put your wallet in a safe place.

His Book can change tomorrow. His INTERPRETATION of his Book can change tomorrow.

Honesty is what an honest man takes for granted.

Wordism is for psychopaths.



Genetic Morality

Posted by Bob on January 6, 2006 at 8:24 pm

Has there ever been a book with this title?

According to all the “moral” teachers, there is no such thing as genetic morality.

There is a lot of disagreement on how much human life is influenced by our genes. Right after World War II the dream world of social science was science. That is, all human life was entirely a product of environment.

Hitler was for heredity so the World War II generation went to colleges that taught that the future was entirely a product of education, sociology, political science, historical determinism, in other words the social sciences.

Thirty years ago I pointed this out in detail in my first book in my own name.

Environment IS social science. Leaving heredity and environment to social scientists is exactly like leaving the price of steel up to the Steel Trust. So the Weakest Generation, fresh from obedience training, was trained that heredity was nothing.

To every church that I am aware of, the term “genetic morality” is an oxymoron. If you are intelligent, you should spend your time on theology, not on having or raising children.

Chilren are a byproduct. You are not responsible for helping better people pass their GENES on, genes future generations will desperately need.

The first rule of post-World War II thinking is that there is no moral dimension whatsoever to genetics.

The discussion begins and ends with “some Hitlerites would say one should have BETTER children, WHATEVER “BETTER” Means.”

This is supposed to get rid of the whole argument and get us back to social programs and adopting the third world into the United States.

But when it comes to social science, there is never the slightest doubt as to what “better” means.

Look at the person who tells you, “Looks don’t matter.” How much do their clothes cost? Are they only wearing a minimum regardless of fashion or how the clothes look. I had a woman once tell me looks don’t matter but she had to end the conversation because she had an appointment at the beauty salon.

You see, the social scientists HAS to know what is “better” or he will not be able to make a living teaching students how they can achieve that “better” by putting money into social programs.

I am sure the lady who running the beauty salon will tell you that looks don’t matter. I am sure the high-end clothing store owners are putting money into programs based on the premise that there is no such thing as “better” looking children.

O’Reilly demands that test scores and not race should be the determinant of who gets into school. But, since his degree is in education, he will also tell you that no child is innately smarter than any other child.

He SAYS that!

It isn’t true.

I am not speaking of theory here. I am speaking of MORALITY.

My morality is still Odinist. That which is not true is evil.

So Bob has a genetic morality.

That is why I object so strongly to the word “aristocracy” as used today. Aristocracy means rule by the best. It has nothing to do with naciocracy, which is rule by birth.

Even social scientists now have to admit that heredity is important. Anything that is important to humanity has a MORAL dimension.

We are perfectly willing to restrict any human freedom to improve human beings by ENVIRONMENTAL means.

Except for libertarians. They just say they have no responsibility for anything.

I do not respect what passes for morality today because it has one blind eye. Everyone except extreme libertarians agree that businessmen do not have the right to do anything they want to to increase profits and they are perfectly willing to back the restrictions that are needed by force.

But anyone who is too irresponsible or unintelligent to keep down their number of children has a right to dump them on the rest of us. If countries can’t control their population, they have every right to dump them into vacant space left by white people.

But the critical point is NOT that this is not RIGHT. The point here is one no conservative and very few others have the guts to make.

The critical point is that this is IMMORAL.

No one dares to face down the screaming priest or preacher with this IMMORALITY.

If you do not have a genetic morality, you are an immoral person.

You can whip yourself in a Trappist Monastery or hold revivals or hold a professorship in Ethics at Harvard University. But you an immoral person if you do not have a clear-cut GENETIC morality.

On Judgment Day, I doubt seriously whether you will only be asked about your morality on one aspect of life and never questioned on the other.

The hungry will have to be fed in future generations. The naked will have to be clothed in the future. Only a genetically healthy society can do that. You can sacrifice and whip your skin off in this generation, but it won’t do the future any good.

All they will have is their genes.

There are only two excuses for ignoring a genetic morality:

1) The future won’t happen or

2) Genes really don’t matter.

Joe, I don’t think ANYBODY believes either of those things except those who expect Judgment Day in the near future.

But the environmentalists, whose whole program is based on the future, have no genetic morality at all.

This is not just wrong. It is immoral.

All the churches disagree. But they will not avoid being judged on the Golden Rule.

You can go to Hell straight through the church door.

All the philosophies and pretences at Ethics in the world and all the incantations of “HITLER!” cannot protect you from your moral obligation in this world or in the next.



What Only Amateurs Can Do

Posted by Bob on June 24, 2006 at 1:01 pm

We have all heard the term “a ship of the line” from the days when Britain was in absolute command of the seas. The man who invented the “line ahead” formation that was so instrumental in giving Britannia true control over the waves has one especially interesting attribute. Not only did he never leave Britain, but he was never on a ship in his entire life, even in port.

The famous British redcoats got their uniform from Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army. Cromwell was in his middle age when he developed the New Model Army, training his troops in the methods Gustavus Adolphus had been using in the Thirty Years’ War before he was killed at, I believe, Lützen. The New Model Army, from its first day in battle, swept every opponent from the field. Cromwell always beat everybody.

Cromwell’s New Model was the basis of all British ground combat for about two centuries.

As I said, Cromwell was a middle-aged man before he led his New Model Army to its first victory. Before that, he had never been in the army, he had never been in a battle, he had never even HEARD a hostile shot fired.

One thing you are NOT going to see emphasized in a military history is that, when the British Empire was at its height and Britannia rules the waves, it might not have ruled anything without the techniques developed by complete military amateurs.

So let’s ask a question. Please note that this is 1) a question with so obvious an answer one feels silly asking it, and 2) a question absolutely no one ever considers when they look at history or anything else that doesn’t have the word “Advertisement” written all over it. That question is, “Why wouldn’t a military academy textbook emphasize that the developer of the line ahead formation and the New Model Army were both amateurs?

The obvious answer, so obvious it seems silly to state it, is that those who buy books for military academies want to emphasize how PROFESSIONAL military men are the only ones who know how to run an army or a navy.

This is rather obvious, but no one seems to take it into account. For example, when I was young I always heard that absolutely everything was created in the Cradle of Civilization, the Middle East. Even as a teenager, when this belief was absolute, it struck me as unlikely. The Middle East was made up of absolute, top to-bottom, rigid tyrannies. All intellectual life was owned by the priests. How could such a rigid tyranny invent NEW things?

It took me a while to realize WHY this doctrine ruled. It was taught in schools where the ability to read and write and do arithmetic were also taught. So history said that the societies that read and wrote and followed rules were the places where everything began and the only means by which truth triumphed over a mankind that was not better than the apes.

This was not a conscious choice. But that was the history schools at the time would obviously want so that was the history they got.

Isaac Asimov wrote his whole Foundation Trilogy in the early 1950s based on the idea that only an Empire could produce original ideas. After the Fall of Egypt or the Fall of Rome, history said, everything became stagnant and brutal and filthy until a new Empire based on scribes and bureaucracy came again. That is the absolute basis of the Foundation Trilogy, and it is exactly what everybody took to be true history in 1950.

The idea was that only a totally centralized bureaucratic state could INVENT things. New ideas only came from a rigid, bureaucratized state. It was assumed that the only argument against Communism, with everybody reporting Soviet leaps and bounds in production with every Five-Year Plan, was that it took away too much freedom.

No one doubted Communism was as successful as it claimed to be. It was just too mean about it.

Of course, everybody was wrong on every single point.

But how could you PREDICT they were wrong, when every statistic and historical instance and Future Inevitability they all the professionals announced said they were right? The way to do it would be to analyze each and every piece of information, each Theory of History, each Future Inevitably by ONE criterion:

Does anybody have a reason to WANT this to be true?

Professional scholars wanted it to be true that only a society which had a huge army of bureaucrats and scribes could accomplish anything. Asimov took this to a laughable extreme, but only laughable TODAY. At the time it was a sober analysis.

Intellectual life is an infomercial.

Treat it accordingly.