Wishtory
Posted by Bob on September 3, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | Leave a Comment
My business is finding good, short ways to express what everybody knows. The problem is that to do this, I have to write an article. One good term to express what people already know is worth any number of articles.
Wishtory tells us that George Washington cut down the cherry tree. No one can read history with any accuracy if he is not always aware of wishtory. You simply cannot understand any history at all if you do not realize the reason the information in the history book is produced.
The moment WWII ended there was a huge demand for African Great Civilizations. Before that, it was generally agreed that there weren’t any.
So suddenly books poured out about Great African Civilizations. Somebody was writing Wishtory, either those before or those after World War II. But this is the only place you will hear it discussed.
The first thing any writer, academic or popular, does is to figure what will be published and what will sell. It really is publish or perish in academia, and the number of editors is very limited and they all think exactly the same.
By definition, publish or perish means that those who publish determine your fate. If you even suspect that that group does not have a lot of common points of view, you are a fool. Every daily newspaper has almost exactly the same items on page one and page two and so on. Every journal is edited by someone who, like newspaper editors, came up in the same school.
Everybody knows this. Nobody SAYS this.
The line above should be very familiar to BUGS readers.
An editor of an academic journal dreams of having one of his articles published favorably in a national magazine. Every academic writer dreams of the same thing. So when Time had a front page story about the African Eve, those who wanted to publish turned to anything they had to back that idea up or copy it.
As I said, when the first quick look at KGB files did not show any reference to Alger Hiss, it was a front-page story in our local liberal chain newspaper. A little later extensive files were found on Hiss, but they were not mentioned in the paper.
So if you were in a publish or perish situation and you had information on Hiss, which part of the info would you send in?
I have known men who fought for at least thirty countries in World War II. All of them agree that, if it were not for the Italians, American soldiers would cover the pavement as the jokes of the War.
You won’t read that, and you know WHY you won’t read that. But nobody THINKS about a thousand things like that.
Every Soviet documentary ended with a statement of why everything there proved Stalin was God. Every BBC documentary ends with a sermon about how all that has been said can be fitted into Politically Correct Wishtory.
If you publish or perish, you either don’t get tenure or you learn what will be published. This is life or death.
In a perfect society what would be published would be what is true. People who believe in a perfect society are normally given Prozac and if that doesn’t work they are sent somewhere quiet for the protection of themselves and others.
---------Free Speech Versus Violence
Posted by Bob on September 2, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 11 Comments
Someone said in a forum that the one argument anti-whites had that he might consider is that pro-white statements might cause violence. Meanwhile the same anti-whites insist that the only way we can have peace is for the history of white oppression be a major topic in our schools.
When Kelso and I and others were visiting New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, the police were in force. When we spoke in a old church where an ex-cop on our side had raised the money for pro-white meetings, there were hundreds of threateners across the street.
I’m used to that.
When we speak on a campus, we are often blocked by ”a threat of violence.”
But the whole situation was summed up by one of the cops who showed up: “We aren’t worried about YOU.”
The “threat of violence” ALWAYS comes from the anti-whites. The question is not whether they will act like the thugs they are, but whether public officials should allow any point of view to be shouted down.
During the Cold War liberals always insisted that “We should settle differences by discussions, not by violence.” But every university prevents any discussion of white genocide by talking about “a threat of violence.”
What do you do when one side wants to speak out and the threat of violence comes entirely from the other side? Is this a key to a peaceful society? Is this a free society?
As usual, I am stating what everybody knows but nobody, including our side, ever SAYS. Why do our people dummy up all the time?
Speech is the human ALTERNATIVE to violence.
This is another reason the Mantra is so critical. The one barrier we have is that respectable conservatives have joined with liberals in saying that any questioning of anti-white views is to be met with violence.
Outside the United States, in fact, the government provides the violence. William Buckley endorsed Europe’s sending people to prison for denying the six million figure for the Holocaust. This is not even Holocaust denial, it is arguing the NUMBERS.
The Soviet Union sent people to the Gulag for any criticism of Jews. In Battleship Potemkin, a Soviet propaganda film, you will see a heroic mob beating a man to death for an anti-Semitic remark.
John Adams risked lynching by successfully defending the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre in court. He is considered a hero for that.
In fact, in every single case in history those who defended the right of speech against violence, especially the Communists, are declared heroes.
Except us.
But, just as in the case of all immigration and assimilation policy applying only to white countries, we dummy up about it.
By now, the anti-whites are terrified that something like the Mantra will be recognized as a legitimate point of view.
That is our job, and that is why it is so HARD.
And that is why all the time we waste on crime rates and US immigration policy and criticizing affirmative action is a boon to the anti-whites. If they can keep all discussion of white survival off the table, and in the Forbidden Zone, they will own the debate.
Another fact we never mention is that Hate Speech Laws didn’t stop Hitler.
The American position has always been that free speech is the only human alternative to violence.
Our side seems to have forgotten that completely.
---------The Culture of Defeat
Posted by Bob on September 1, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 3 Comments
I spoke of earlier of how the selection of winners is different from the selection of Spokesmen. The Republican Party went without a majority in either House of Congress for a generation. In fact, from 1931 to 1995, they held a House majority for four years.
Yet the same leadership stayed at the top of the Party.
Those who were at the top of the Party all that time obviously did not care about winning. They had jobs based on their filling a place in the system. As soon as they DID win, the Reaganites came pouring in, and a lot of the old leadership lost their jobs.
Rush Limbaugh scared the diddly out of the media at first. The established media, including respectable conservatives, are always afraid of new people and new ideas.
We are not talking about their cause, but of their livelihood. Every successful movement has to deal with those for whom that movement was a comfortable niche.
It is easy to forget that “survival of the fittest” is a misleading term. Some animals do evolve to rule over and eat others. But most animals do not. Most evolve to fit a humble place where they do not compete. They develop camouflage.
So if you understand survival of the fittest to be the survival of some ideal, you are wrong. The same is true of institutions as of animals.
The REPUBLICAN Ohio legislature tried three times to get rid of my Republican boss, John Ashbrook, by changing his district to include Democrats. In his final run before he was murdered, the district that had been changed three times to add more Democrats had about a 65% traditional Democratic vote.
But in the 1980 election, John got 73% of that vote!
Obviously, what John was doing WON. Equally obviously, the Party leaders were desperate to get rid of him.
Nobody was less happy at Obama’s election victory than Jessie Jackson. In South Carolina, an obscure Black man won the Democratic Senate primary and nobody was more infuriated about it than this state’s lone black congressman.
If you devote your life to a cause, this is a very practical reality. I have always shown my approach wins. People saw me prove it in my confrontations. Obviously, winning was not the criterion, the usual meaning of “survival of the fittest” did not apply.
In the real world, every group has its own evolution. I found that I had to deal with those whom their organizations had put at the top of political and media outfits. They evolve, not so their group will win, but to FIT.
John Ashbrook won and won and won. He was not the slightest bit surprised that his Party tried desperately to get rid of a winner.
Groups that have been constantly losing will tend to develop a selection process that favors people who fit in with losers. I don’t know of any examples of a group that has lost for decades becoming a winner without major personnel changes.
---------Spokesmen Versus Winners
Posted by Bob on August 31, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 9 Comments
Hitler actually says in Mein Kampf that, as his Party grew, he needed an economic stand, too. Almost all the other parties were, as they are today, about the government’s role in the economy, from socialists and communists to a few libertarians.
Hitler explained how he found a philosopher to put one in his platform, though I forget for now who it was, and Hitler said he didn’t care either.
The Depression lasted a decade in America, and wasn’t half over when WWII broke out. Hitler ended the German Depression in a couple of years. This was because the New Deal was mostly an economic program, while Hitler just ended the problem and went on to other things.
The more your philosophy deals with economics, the worse your economy is going to be. Marxism says economics is everything, and the Soviet Union was still going down that road when it finally collapsed.
Hitler did what it took the United States thirty years to copy from him. He built a superhighway system and invented the VW that filled our first superhighways in the 1960s.
Hitler WAS fascinated by Lebensraum. He had a program for it. That, the thing he had a program for, destroyed him.
But Hitler adopted his economic program because he had to have one. So when he actually took over, and push came to shove, he just ignored that nonsense and went ahead and got the German people back to work.
Meanwhile, Roosevelt had two things going, his debt spending to end the Depression, and his Draconian taxes and regulations. Pretty well everybody now knows that high taxes and a lot of regulation make the economy go down. Every actual economist in the 1930s, contrary to what Keynes and historians have since said, actually advocated deficit spending to end the Depression.
When you put in a maximum income tax rate at 91%, the economy is going to suffer.
The British Labor Party had a program. One part of it was nationalizing industry. So when Labor won an election, it would begin to buy up the big industries and put the bureaucracy in control of them, and when the Conservatives won, the same nonsense would be repeated.
Libertarians want open borders. How long would an elected Libertarian Party last if the third world poured in? They are, after all, coming here to escape the results of their own politics.
No one today looks at the economic history of Britain in the generation after WWII because, while the Conservative Party won the elections, its program was much the same as that of the old Labor Party.
No one looks at Marxism or Democratic Socialism in Britain because just to recite it is hideously embarrassing to the left, and no one who did could get a job as a respectable conservative.
Just as you couldn’t get a job as a respectable conservative if you kept reminding people that every Communist country, and ONLY Communist countries, caged their people in with barbed wire, machine guns and land mines.
People were told to believe that the Berlin Wall was something special.
Every Communist country, and ONLY Communist countries, caged their entire population in.
No one asked why.
White leaders are not the first to reject an observation everybody knows about but no one says. They watched me pound many a Commie into the ground with it but it never occurred to them to use it.
What sells and makes the media choose one as a Spokesman for a protest is not the same thing that works.
---------Networking Versus Playing
Posted by Bob on August 30, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 8 Comments
In my years as an activist I was from time to time in contact with Carleton Putnam, author of Race and Reason. He was also the founder of Delta Airlines.
When I got into aircraft negotiations, I wrote to tell him about it. He could have helped me infinitely, since airlines in that time of regulation were almost entirely a matter of who you know.
But I knew he wouldn’t.
Stalin used to rob banks to finance the Communist Party. Party members would regularly marry rich women to make their assets available to the Party. Lenin never did a day’s actual work in his life.
To the leftist Revolutionaries as to the ancient Greeks, politics was life. To rightists, politics is a game you play after you have proved you are a Practical Man and made money.
You know how a respectable conservative gets all giddy when he gets to denounce white people? They think they are being really, truly, honestly Sophisticated when they do that. For all whites hatred of their race is a form of Selflessness, but nobody gets the glorious feeling out of it that respectables do.
White anti-whites see themselves as the ideal of self-denial. Black anti-blacks are evil.
Carleton Putnam saw this and hated it. But he did exactly the same thing. He surely prided himself on cases where he actually favored anti-whites over whites when it came to employment networking.
There was a similar outlook among respectables on Capitol Hill. Instead of hiring young conservative activists, they would cut their budgets and “give the money back to the taxpayers.”
In real industry anywhere on earth, an executive who is promoted gets a larger staff budget.
This is NOT charity.
Conservatives in congress get about a dollar in their budget to each thousand dollars of the Federal deficit that year. They then announce to their constituents that while “fraud and waste” is wasting hundreds of billions each year, they “gave back” half a million bucks from their budget.
What was the budget FOR?
It was to hire staff so they could track down some fraud and waste.
Let’s take one of those promoted executives. He limps in to the boss and says, “Well, my section lost five million dollars last year, but the good news is that I “gave back” fifty thousand dollars of my budget to the company.”
Would he walk out the door with a job?
Nobody denies more vigorously than respectable conservatives that those Hollywood operatives McCarthy and Reagan attacked in the fifties and who are now on the KGB lists actually hired leftist actors.
But anyone familiar with the history of the Communist Party would be astounded if they didn’t. In order to keep in with all the Personalities, media respectables say all us celebrities were chosen strictly for talent.
As long as our cause remains a hobby, a sport, we cannot build anything like what the other side has. While the Fords congratulated themselves on giving money, the left settled for nothing less than getting ALL of the Ford Foundation for themselves.
This is not a game. This is life itself.
---------Adelheim: The Mantra in Action: Questions and Answers V
Posted by Bob on August 29, 2010 at 10:01 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 4 Comments
Some of my own answers:
————–
Anti-white: Wouldn’t a melting pot under your logic be the genocide of every race? Soooo…..
Pro-white: The melting pot is only forced on white countries. All white countries and only white countries.
Are you one of those who support diversity? But do not support global diversity if diversity includes white people?
—————————
Anti-white: Can you present an example of an anti-racist and show where they made that argument? (where anti-racists were anti-white)
Pro-white: You want me to show you examples of anti-racists who argue for immigration, integration and intermarriage?
————————
Anti-white: Are whites being forced to intermarry? No.
Pro-white: You will be condemned for racism if you oppose intermarriage. In my country you can go to jail for racism.
The government protects the right to be anti-white but tries to do away with the right to be pro-white.
————————
Anti-white: How about, if certain people do not like the idea of racial mixing, they f**k off and die? Why do not you not mention any other racial “genocide”? Why only white?
Pro-white: I think that all races have a right to exist. Diversity; do you remember???
Why are all of you so hostile to white survival?
———————–
Anti-white: I will issue you the challenge I issue every time I see this crop up here.
Please provide a scientifically valid definition of race.
Or in other words, prove to me it is a concept that actual maps onto something real and significant in an empirical objective reality.
Pro-white: If somebody wanted a world with just white people; would you say that it would be okay because you could not find “a scientifically valid definition of race”??
I would oppose that. I think that all races have right to survive, including my race.
Aren’t you people supposed to be in favor of diversity??? Isn’t that a strength?? I guess you do not think so when diversity includes white people…
See why I think you are anti-white?
—————–
Anti-white: I would think a large gene pool would be ideal for the genetic traits of future generations, not purposefully maintaining a tiny one, essentially racial inbreeding.
Pro-white: You always come up with “new ideas” and those “new ideas” never includes white people.
See why I think anti-racists are just anti-white??
——————-
Anti-white: Stop obsessing over your skin color.
Pro-white: Would you be in favor of an all white world because skin color does not matter??
Diversity??
I think that all races have a right to exist, including my race. Why do you keep justifying genocide by saying it is just skin color??
Burgermeister
Posted by Bob on August 29, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses | 6 Comments
““I hope our BUGSTERS understand the stellar quality of this kind of commentary”
I do, and I am NOT an intellectual. When I first read the Mantra, I thought it was too simple and well…too mantra like. Then I realized, that the mindless quoting of mantras is the only weapon the anti-whites have! They quote their mantras on TV, in the movies, on the radio, in the newspapers, all over the internet, etc. In other words, THEY HAVE NO ARGUEMENT! An amazing revelation, the emperor really does have no clothes. We are not battling intellectuals at all, they are just sissies who are deathly afraid of getting punched the mouth and losing their status. Remember Geraldo’s insecure posturing against some so called White Supremacists? Imagine, we the most valuable and creative race on the planet are being driven to and fro by mere words and shadows. Sure, the threat of violence is real, but only because too many people draw their sustenance from fleecing the sheep; it is these people who are the real enemy and they mostly come from our camp. Thus, this is the true beauty of the Mantra…it exposes those who look like us as the traitors they are. All hail General Whitaker for this brilliant strategy!
And on a personal note, thank-you Sir for equipping the average Working Class White with the weapon we need to fight back.”
I very much appreciate the compliment, but you are anything but average.
And Trucker Roy really IS a trucker.
The stated requirement for Bob’s Underground Graduate Seminar, BUGS, is “For those who have outgrown a college education, whether they had one or not.” As with so much we discuss here, this sounds simple but is full of meaning. Most people who are able to “speak for the working people” use that as a sign of their humility.
In my public career I spoke for working people, that is, I wrote press releases and organized marches of grassroots uprisings against busing in Boston and Louisville and against Education Establishment textbooks in the public schools in Kanawha County, West Virginia.
I listened very carefully to what they wanted to say and wrote THAT down in the press releases. I was successful when they said that what I wrote was what they had said. We finally couldn’t take on all the grassroots that wanted us to help them and I had to make a living.
But nobody, anywhere, said I did not speak for the working people. In fact, the Communist Daily World had a major article bitching about how we must have big financing, since THEY couldn’t get into the wildcat strike areas we operated in!
THEY couldn’t get invited to more real workers’ movements than they could handle as we did.
But what is missing in me is the humility this is supposed to show, the kind where a politician puts on overalls and shows how he can get down — though the word “down” is seldom stated — with “regular folks.”
I am much smarter than the average working person. I am also out of the league of those who call themselves “educated.” That’s not very humble.
Talking to somebody who calls himself “educated” is like running the hurdles. You know exactly how their brains have been trained and you jump over their particular superstitions. It’s WORK, and by the time you have talked to the ten thousandth “educated” person who has exactly the same wired-in “educated outlook,” the novelty is worn out like a million-mile tire and you can feel the road right through your butt.
BUGS is dedicated to using facts everybody knows and language everybody can understand to fight a mindset it takes thousand of hours of dog-like training in school to implant in people.
Our whole society is set up to say that one who has missed college or grad school or a new thirteenth grade can’t go head to head with someone who has. The person who hasn’t and who presumes to debate is seen as trying to justify his inferiority.
And that sense of inferiority is the biggest single weapon of anti-whites. Nobody would take their crap seriously for two minutes if they didn’t have degrees.
This is a theme of history. People refuse to see reality because the guy who talks class is of the Better Class or has on a robe and talks in Latin or speaks in unknown tongues only The Initiated know.
You weren’t allowed to question the predictions of priests who got them out of the stars or fish intestines because YOU couldn’t read the stars or fish intestines. You are completely drawn off the fact that the “education” to read fish intestines is not the POINT.
The POINT is whether those who use those methods come up with anything. But ten thousand years ago people were so feeling inferior about not being able to read fish intestines that they did not point out that those predictions were random.
Astrology, “education,” fish intestines, the Class System, they are all the same thing.
All they do is keep people from putting what the priests say in plain English.
---------What NEO Means
Posted by Bob on August 27, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 11 Comments
In the 2008 election, a leftist strategy was leaked which said “Find an opponent and call him a racist.”
Conservatives quoted this but it still worked beautifully. It worked because it is correct.
Conservatives base their American history upon the views of a man who knew his STATED historical view was absurd, Abraham Lincoln.
Everyone else knows it, too. You have to choose between the RACIAL views of our Founding Fathers or anything any of the Rousseau-Marxist Mommy Professors come up with.
Leftism is still based on the early twentieth century view that animals have no class system, no wars — “Only Man Has Wars” was a leftist hippie slogan, and no territory.
That nonsense is SHOT. But conservatives are even sillier. They posit a theory that everything liberals did until on or about January 1, 1970 was dead right, but at that moment it all went unaccountably wrong.
That’s insane.
National Review is full of praise for every liberal before 1970. It praises Lyndon Johnson’s policies rather than him personally because the people they follow, the liberals, can’t bring themselves to praise Lyndon.
This, by the way, is the true definition of neo-conservatism. The term has gotten a meaning of being Jewish or all for war, but the actual definition is neo, which means that it condemns the old conservatism National Review was founded on, and its conservatism, that is, its opposition to liberal proposals, is new, or neo-.
A writer in National Review was complaining that all the alternative histories end up showing how awful history would be if it were different. But that is the theme of National Review today. If Lincoln and Roosevelt and Johnson had not succeeded, the world would have been lost.
Only National Review would have a cover picture of Franklin Roosevelt and Churchill, saying They Saved the World. They did the same thing with Lincoln.
Would the world have ended if Britain had not declared war on Germany in 1939?
To question that is “racist,” according to National Review.
REAL neo-conservatism begins by conceding history to the Left. Its main voices are Jewish, but EVERYBODY’S main voices are Jewish. Everybody’s main voices used to be in New England.
So we can either feed our obsession or deal in reality. The reality is that neo-conservatism concedes history to the political left. That is the DEFINITION of NEO-conservatism.
Both of today’s official sides declare that all history was good until on or about January 1, 1970. So naturally all alternative histories that are PUBLISHED declare that any deviation from real history before January 1, 1970 would have been a disaster.
But can a person who concedes history to the left be a conservative?
---------Adelheim: The Mantra in Action: Questions and Answers IV
Posted by Bob on August 27, 2010 at 5:59 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses | Leave a Comment
Anti-white: And there are non-whites that do not benefit from any programs or quotas, but just want an end to all kinds of discrimination and racism because it is wrong.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): You Alzheimer anti-whites always pretend you never read this: “Quotes the mantra”
——————
Anti-white: There are more Whites in Africa than there are Blacks in Europe, there are more Whites in Asia than there are Asians in America, There are more Whites in India than there are Indians in Scotland.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): If you select it this way, ther are more Eskimos in America, too. But Europe and America will be a majority non-white by the middle of the century, and that is what you are for. As I said, YOUR intent is genocide, what you call “assimilation:” “Quotes the mantra”
——————
Anti-white: (Six-Man Race Shows the Value of Diversity – Stormfront)
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Let us assume the impossible: That instead of regurgitating the usual Diversity Poster, this guy could THINK.
My point was the six-man, all black race was exactly what we would expect to see in a real championship race. Look at the photos in each case in this standard and packaged Diversity Poster the same way:
Imagine a country made up 90% of the kind of people pictured IN EACH CASE.
In EVERY case, the ones made up of 90% whites would be where the brown ones would be going to get a better life. In the real world, it is the same as the six-man race.
It is easy to realize that the six black man race simply shows what blacks obviously do best.
You and Mommy Professor can talk until you are blue in the face about it is an accident that the six black runners you see are an accident, but no one is going do anything but laugh at you.
Blacks win the race. Mulattoes lose it. Get rid of the whites and the whole world looks like the colored countries where people do NOT want to go.
You do the standard Diversity poster and that is supposed to show that the fact that white countries are ALL where the brown ones want to go is somehow irrelevant because you are so Loving.
This is, speaking charitably, moronic.
If that’s a Brainy Spic, I’d hate to see a DUMB one.
——————
Anti-white: I would love for my son to marry a nice Panamanian girl… but if he wants to marry a Colombian, or American… what can I do about it?
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Get real.
The only right being suppressed is the right of white people to have their own lands and you KNOW it: “Quotes the mantra”
——————
Statement: That is the nature of the liberal, the leftist, the anti. Hypocrisy, contradiction, and yes double standard as you said friend.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): The anti-WHITE.
They are comfortable with “anti.”
Anti-WHITE makes a point: “Quotes the mantra”
——————
Anti-white: I’m researching White Nationalism and am interested to find out some answers to my questions.
1.) Do you believe that we did an injustice to the American Indians after we became a country? Why or why not?
2.) Do you believe we have have a financial obligation to American Indians and African Americans that were brought over during the slave trade?
3.) What do you think is the reason White Nationalist groups are developing very quickly in this country?
4.) How do you feel about White people who do not agree with your point of view?
5.) Do you believe it is wrong to hurt someone when they do not agree with you or if they are part of a minority group?
Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from you.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): If each Indian tribe is paying reparations to the people they replaced whites might pay, too. If Inuits are paying reparations to the Nordics they replaced, it might be Okay. If the blacks are paying reparations to the Hottentots they forced out and slaughtered all over Capoid Africa, maybe so.
Do you know ANY real history at all?
——————
Statement: Russia/Eastern European are unmistakenly part of the European race, but they are not considered Western. Ultimately, what does that mean?
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): It is a corollary to what I said:
Those who are obsessed with “culture” are enemies to our RACE.
——————
Anti-white: I’m white. My Dad’s Austrian. My mom’s American and she is of mostly English and French descent.
I was born with blond hair and blue eyes, but as the days went on my hair has turned brown.
That’s 100% the truth.
There’s no way of proving it unless I post a picture of myself, which I won’t. So whatever.
Call me a race traitor if you want. I don’t care.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): You are, in short, a true traitor.
I pointed out that whites had done nothing that non-whites would not have done had they had the power. You said that was not proven.
You are saying that whites are genetically evil and need to be done away with.
That is not an intellectual position. That is a declaration of war and should be treated as such.
——————
Anti-white: you claim that every other race is more violent but white people have done so much violence and killed so many people. It doesn’t make sense.
Think about it, white people have caused destruction everywhere. North America, South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East. is there any place that you haven’t wrecked?
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Whites have committed no evils other races would not have done had they had the power.
Slavery was everywhere. What was shameful was that WHITES would sink to it.
ONLY white people ever felt ashamed of slavery or abolished it.
Whites have committed no UNIQUE evils. We have done many, many unique GOOD things. The device you are using now is one of them.
---------The Mantra in Action
Posted by Bob on August 26, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses | 8 Comments
Adelheim’s basic work in finding and sending my arguments against anti-whites on Stormfront is important.
But BUGS will run these with new articles, because the first, of course, got no comments. Brian tells me that Kelso’s whitenewsnow has some discussion of it, which I will look up. But for BUGSers, nothing about this is new.
But if you are being trained in using a weapon, you can learn all about the theory and how to take it apart and put it back together and its effects in action. But you still have to pull the trigger, and your instructor has to watch you do it.
I do not want this to make BUGS boring. So skip it if you like. But I do want Brian to put in the whole Mantra where I do. I want everybody to see that what works is repetition. You pull the trigger over and over and over.
There are only a few of these. Then Adelheim added some of his own replies using this method. To me, this is very important.
If this bores YOU, it is because you know about the Mantra. But if you are bored, the other side is driven up the wall. They can’t deal with it.
We are the ONLY source of the Mantra. NOBODY but BUGS and the shows set up by BUGS members ever mentions the Mantra.
There is a lot of difference between theory and practice. Some people may agree with the theory of hammering in the Mantra, but when they start doing it, they have an urge to expand it to be more interesting or look better.
The Bang! Bang! Bang! I advocate is the one I practiced. It is a tough discipline.
And it is a lot like Classical warfare. The Greeks beat the Persians because the Persians used a mass attack, while the Greeks held together. Rome perfected this technique, locking shields and going in as a solid block. They formed an early tank, the testudo or tortoise, by forming a square and using the central shields as a roof.
This was easy theory and terribly hard practice. In the midst of a battle, it is against every instinct. When the moment comes, some want to run and some want to hold back and some want to go beserker.
On the Field of Mars Romans practiced doing the same thing, together, for thousands of hours.
I would like to hear from BUGSERS who have practice in using the Mantra this way.
I am sure everyone on the Field of Mars would rather have been hearing tales of Great Heroes and practicing far more exciting tactics.
But it is critical for the few of us who have found the fatal dent in the enemy lines to show how we pull the trigger or lock shields.
---------Adelheim: The Mantra in Action: Questions and Answers III
Posted by Bob on August 26, 2010 at 5:59 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses | Leave a Comment
Anti-white: “No one can “force” you to accept diversity.”
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Then you describe the diversity we are forced to accept.
——-
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): The “DUHH!” approach.
So you’ve never heard anybody talk about a race problem. You’ve never heard the white race condemned.
You’ve never heard anybody insist on open borders.
You’ve never heard anybody say the Final Solution to race is “mixing THE races,” when they mean only mixing races in predominantly white countries.
I am not even sure this comes up to the level of a good solid lie. It is certainly not a reply, and it is less than childish.
Mommy Professor will Let you get away with this crap, but you’re not with Mommy Professor here.
“Quotes the mantra”
————-
Anti-white: Hey now, we prefer to be called pro-humanity.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Stalin called himself a friend of humanity, too. “Quotes the mantra”
————————-
Anti-white: (writes a long rant about something)
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): You haven’t read a word we’ve said, have you? If Mommy Professor didn’t say it you don’t hear it. I used to be a professor myself.
I just pointed out that whites who are anti-white are the most rabid of all. It make you feel virtuous.
Another thing you never noticed is something I repeat and you anti-whites complain I keep repeating it but you never address it: “Quotes the mantra”
————————–
Statement: Of course the anti-whites don’t seem to understand that 60% of Jews make up the student body of Georgetown or Harvard, and are considered to be “Whites.”
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Jews are whatever they choose to all themselves at the moment, minority, white, religion, nation.
Anyone who contradicts them is ANAZIWHOWANTSTOKILLSIXMILLIONJEWS.
“Quotes the mantra”
———————————-
Anti-white: I’m not a racist and I’m not a WN. I don’t hate white people and I’m not against whites preserving their culture and identity. I’m white.
What I’m against is this hatred that many white nationalists have towards people of colour.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): What you are is this: “Quotes the mantra”
——————–
Anti-white: (a long rant I am an Asian and I am shocked – Page 34 – Stormfront )
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): This seems to begin with a complaint that we do not FULLY allow anti-whites to speak out here and ends with a demand that we be suppressed entirely.
——————
Anti-white: …..
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Anti-whites are always spouting about how massive immigration and assimilation demanded of ALL white countries and ONLY white countries is just Freedom.
I am really ticked off at my comrades for NEVER telling the truth about this.
The same anti-white who spouts this libertarian nonsense knows very well that free speech does not apply to US, but I am STILL waiting for us to SAY so every time this crap appears.
They keep saying we can live in our own bunkers if we want to. Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, it is forbidden for us to do so.
But no one points this out.
As O’Reilly said, “There should be no all-white ANYTHING in America.”
At least O’Reilly SAYS it. That’s more than my comrades do here.
For all their “diversity” talk, the fact is that all-white areas are forbidden because people will MOVE there. If we had freedom of choice integration would be doomed in the long term.
That is the justification for our entire set of laws, the ones O’Reilly is all for and states so clearly. Why do my comrades let the anti-whites get away with this “Freedom” crap?
——————
Anti-white: I don’t believe this. I’m fine with as many Europeans emigrating outside of Europe and other European-majority regions. I’m part-South Asian in a country that originally had an Australian Aboriginal majority, so it would be hypocritical of me to deny this of other people of European descent (I’m also half-White).
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): All anti-whites claim that. But in the real world: “Quotes the mantra”
---------The Attack Word
Posted by Bob on August 25, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses | 13 Comments
Simmons has been hammering on the importance of the term anti-white and it is time for me to chime in. I haven’t been on Stormfront for years, but I fought and I fought to get them to stop using terms like “anti” for the anti-whites.
It would be a shame if people with all our years of experience with the effectiveness of “racist” were to underestimate the importance of a basic attack word. “Racist” has been the greatest single weapon in the enemy’s arsenal. It is their attack word.
The attack word is the one that draws a reaction. For them it is racist. For us the attack word is anti-white. It sums up our reaction to their basic genocidal program. It is TRUE.
“Racism” is also TRUE. When the Founders declared that America was entirely about “We the People” they followed it with a 1793 Act declaring that the “people” they referred to were WHITE.
America was considered simply racial movement of the white race, the same one which, in wave after waved, brought Aryan groups, Iberians, Celts, Germans and Slavs across Europe westward into Europe. It brought the Dorian Greeks then the Ionian Greeks. It brought the Latins to Italy and then the Germanic Lombards.
This was well known, and it was a conundrum when Lincoln declared that America was a Proposition, not a people. The Constitution says it is a people. The legislation passed four years after the Constitution was adopted said it was a people.
A WHITE people.
So those who say “racist” are right. America was founded on racism, as they define it. That is what Lincoln-worshipping conservatives cannot face. That is why the word “racist” makes them change their diapers, because if America is NOT racist, it is just a bunch of words.
Conservatism cannot face true history, because it is as much a bunch of words, words twisting reality, as the left is.
Having explained why “racist” is effective because it is true.
“Anti-white” hits home on both liberals and respectable conservatives because it is true. Liberals are perfectly aware that what they say about whites, if said about any other race or any religion, would be genocidal hatred.
Even the rads regret the statement, “The white race is the cancer of humanity.” It was too blatant, and too true of their mindset.
Which is why anti-white is so effective. That one word changes the whole debate.
That one word sums up the whole debate.
That one word, like no other, gets ATTENTION.
They have no answer for it in their tape recorder minds because Mommy Professor never USES that word.
Good Work, Comrade Simmons.
---------Adelheim: The Mantra in Action: Questions and Answers II
Posted by Bob on August 25, 2010 at 5:59 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses | 2 Comments
Anti-white: Every man who says they’ve never thought of having sex with a colored
woman is just a plain old homosexual. You racist-homosexuals disgust me.
The big problem is that you racists are scared, because now, you are the
minority. You can hate religion, that’s your right, but just hating the color
of someone’s skin is so dumb.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Then why do YOU hate the color of OUR skin?
THIS is ENTIRELY a matter of “skin color:”
“Quotes The Mantra”
———-
Anti-white: Main stream ones, yes
i’m an anti-racst and i hate all racists including the KKK, NAACP, jesse jackson and al sharpton
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): But you only seek to DESTROY one race: “Quotes the mantra”
———
Anti-white: I don’t believe this. I’m fine with as many Europeans emigrating outside of Europe and other European-majority regions. I’m part-South Asian in a country that originally had an Australian Aboriginal majority, so it would be hypocritical of me to deny this of other people of European descent (I’m also half-White).
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Meanwhile, back on Earth: “Quotes the mantra”
——-
Anti-white: Race doesn’t exist…
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Allzheimer anti-white,a forensic pathologist must, to keep his job, testify that there is no such thing as race AND be able to tell the rae of a victim from a few scraps or bones.
If race does not exist, then why do you demand: “Quotes the Mantra”
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): In order to graduate a forensic specialist must spout the Politically Correct line that there is no such thing as race. But to keep his job he must be able to tell the race of the most damaged victim of which he has only decayed scraps.
In every country with an established religion like today’s Political Correctness, scienists were
required to repeat the Party Line but ignore it in serious business.
Since anti-whites are tape recorders, they wouldn’t understand that. They just repeat it, they don’t think about it.
————
Anti-white: Are we in 2008 or 1800?
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): The answer to your question is that you are still in 1800, fighting the New England slave trade, while I living in 2009, where the real situation is this: “Quotes the mantra”
————
Anti-white: Where did I say that the immigration into Liberia or Botswana is white? Would you be kind enough to point it out? No? Thought so.
The point is that people move between countries and not all movement is necessarily to white nations.
I am sure that the movement into Singapore, which is into the top positions is not white either, but Asian.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): One more time for the Alzheimer anti-white:
This is about RACE. I repeat, I never said a word about all immigration being to white countries.
I repeat, Singapore could cut off all immigration tomorrow and no one would object. ALL white countries and ONLY white countries are REQUIRED by you self-stytled “antis” to bring in in OTHER races in huge numbers.
What’s scary is that this guy REALLY can’t anything he hasn’t had drilled into him. He is really is a Mommy Professor Tape Recorder. So I will play my record back to him: “Quotes the mantra”
————
Anti-white: Race mixing is just a result of conquest.. Look on all the Italians, the Spanish, the Russians..
Example All those Latinos are Part whites.. every last one of ‘em..
You might call me a color race lover.. but we whites brought it onto to ourselves when we conquered these people/places.
Is it bad? I like authenticity, but i would say it is up to a personal choice.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): All crime is a matter of personal choice. “Quotes the mantra”
————
BBG’s Polish-Italian-Greek- Japanese Joke
Posted by Bob on August 24, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses | 5 Comments
BBG says: “Way back there was a set up on TV in which a guy would tell a joke in English to a Frenchman who would tell it in French to an Italian, to a German, to a Spaniard and then back to English. Of course nothing of the joke survived, which was the joke. Comparing the thoughts between thinkers of differing civilizations, races and millennia is compounded interest on the routine. It cannot be done.”
This really hit home. This is EXACTLY what Lawrence Brown was trying to explain in Might of the West. Accepted history tries to show a single continuum of a History of Mankind, and least of its problems is that it is in different languages.
If you go back to what the Renaissance nonsense says was the basis of our science, you find that they were talking about entirely different THINGS. BBG wrote the above in response to my description of what historians like to call the origin of our atomic science in one Greek philosopher.
He was not talking about our atomic science. He was questioning the “substance” idea in form and substance. There is no debate over this subject now. He was discussing this in a different language, a different language no matter how it is translated.
Lawrence Brown points out that few if any societies had what WE would call atheists. The world kept moving, so there must be a Prime Mover pushing it. We would call a Prime Mover a god.
Now we call it inertia. Every other society took it for granted that things could only keep moving if they were constantly pushed. But we take inertia for granted in the same way.
We are not speaking the same language. We are not living in the same world.
No other society ever divided Science and Religion the way we do. Where they were separated, they were different specialties, not different fields, and certainly no more contradictory than obstetrics contradicts ophthalmology.
The Mankind Theory of History ignores all this. It HAS to. Somehow it has to look at a seventeenth century Hottentot swimming in the Zambezi (Yes, Capoids were there then) and somehow show that that is a “stage of development” leading to the Moon Landing.
That takes a LOT of twisting. But we let them get away with it.
If we talk about the Mantra, the anti-white immediately says he is only talking his own country. So he has no idea of the fate of ALL white countries.
No one points out that he is hiding behind provinciality. Anti-whites are always talking about All Mankind and A Global Point of View. Then suddenly they say they are only talking about one country, so it isn‘t genocide.
Looked at one country at a time, immigration and assimilation is a policy. Looked at globally, it is genocide. They hide behind “mixing THE races,” they hide behind, “I am only talking about my own country.”
They are hiding behind provincialism, the same provincialism they so denounce.
Their whole world view is provincial. Mommy Professors of history refuse to talk about ancient thinking as it was. They only talk about how it led of what they call Modern Thinking, the Common Heritage of All Mankind.
The result is the same as BBG’s joke. This translation loses all its relevance, nay, all its SENSE, the same way that the joke loses its humor– it is not only no longer funny, it no longer makes SENSE.
By the time that joke comes from its tenth translation, you could easily teach how it was an entirely different joke originally, about any joke you want to make up. It could just as easily be used to show that it was a Wise Saying instead of a joke, a Wise Saying that just happens to coincide with whatever Mommy Professor is trying to sell right now.
Why is information produced. Let’s say you presented that meaningless mass of words to a journal as originally being the actual joke it was, or as the road traveled by different peoples to come to a Politically Correct conclusion.
Which do you think is more likely to be published?
---------Adelheim: The Mantra in Action: Questions and Answers
Posted by Bob on August 23, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses | Leave a Comment
This is a summary of some of the responses Bob gave to anti-whites on Stormfront.
Anti-white: So if I am against an Asians who say that Negroes are inferior, I’m being anti-white?
Africa for everyone
Asia for everyone
White countries for everyone
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): It doesn’t matter if you ALSO believe horses are purple. The point is that what you are pushing this: “Quotes the mantra”
—————-
Anti-white: That… that doesn’t make any sense.
I make a statement about my beliefs – saying that as many people of European ethnic backgrounds can immigrate to wherever they want – and you respond with what quotes from someone else? What? How did that contradict anything I said?
Anti-racist is not a codeword for anti-White. I am against racism, in all its forms. I am against, say, a Japanese person or a Zulu or whatever being racist against European peoples.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): This is how your “anti-racism” WORKS on Planet Earth: “Quotes the mantra”
—————
Anti-white: I don’t believe so called “anti-racists” are so much anti white……I would more likely refer to them as deceived.
Most of them have been indoctrinated by the mainstream politically correct press and media, and most have probably attended university, which has furthered their brainwashing.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): They are anti-white and proud of it. To white anti-whites, hating white people is a form of virtuous self-sacrifice.
Remember that we are part of a tradition, both Puritan and monastic Catholicism, that has often gone overboard in the area of self-hatred. There is a fine line between acknowledging one’s guilt and going into all-out self-hatred, and our established religion, Political Correctness, wipes that line out on racial issues.
The first building stone of our established religion today is total self-hatred. If any European professor said the same things about blacks or Orientals or, above all, Jews, that European professors routinely say about whites, he would be in prison.
Anti-whites are PROUD to be anti-white.
————-
Anti-white: The most anti-racist people I’ve met ARE white. How can they be anti-themselves?? That correlation makes no sense.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): It’s called treason, dumb-dumb. It happens all the time.
You’ve never HEARD of self-hatred?
———-
Anti-white: That… that doesn’t make any sense.
I make a statement about my beliefs – saying that as many people of European ethnic backgrounds can immigrate to wherever they want – and you respond with what quotes from someone else? What? How did that contradict anything I said?
Anti-racist is not a codeword for anti-White. I am against racism, in all its forms. I am against, say, a Japanese person or a Zulu or whatever being racist against European peoples.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): You are part of a program to end the existence, SPECIFICALLY, of the white race. That is its PRACTICAL, REAL result. To say that is d not anti-white is like saying that those who supported slavery were just objectively pro-property.
“Quotes the mantra”
————
Anti-white: However, one can’t say that if one is anti-racist one is anti-white
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth: “Quotes the mantra”
I Have Been Here Before
Posted by Bob on August 22, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses, How Things Work | 11 Comments
While others go on from what we say to generalization, Adelheim looked up my old arguments against anti-whites on Stormfront. I will be putting them here, in parts.
It is certainly good to say what an article makes you think of, that’s good seminar practice. And commenters are getting better at relating their observations back to the basic point. One should always ask oneself, am I just using BUGS to drop in a point I could use some other forum for, or is this a seminar comment that BELONGS here?
Adelheim also has another bit of news. We have been leaning on the BNP to talk about white genocide. Naturally it was Adelheim who noticed some of us might have gotten through:
Adelheim_ on August 14th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
BNP: Europe Is Being Ethnically Cleansed – Andrew Brons MEP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd9xBIDtDJ0&playnext=1&videos=_ZTy3UQ44Rs&feature=recentlikmore
Somewhere after 3:00 he uses the term Ethnically Cleansed. I think it is a speech for the EU parliament or something.”
The Mantra and its promotion alone are literally worth the time and effort of a million blogs. Horus reports we, the White Rabbit and BUGS and your pushing, are yielding results:
“The information is GETTING out there. The old white nationalists and conservatives and being outgunned by the younger new comers. Fresh blood! The old guys refused to obey and get on a consistent message. They are too damn thick headed. They are now getting over run by the new young people who are starved to make changes.
Now the White Nationalists are being forced via peer pressure to mention genocide. And it is about damn time. All you have to do is surf whitenewsnow.com to see the young ones go to town. They are not posting on BUGS but they are reading it.”
One experience I have that is invaluable to you is that I have been this way before. I have always found the basic need and hammered at it, pushing, squeezing what later becomes obvious to a few dozen, on to a few hundred, on to thousands, on to mainstream thinking.
The USSR fell because ridiculed “Wallace Democrats” were brought in to vote for Reagan. I was the only writer in both camps, organizing thousands of working families for marches and writing for National Review, Conservative Digest and working on Capitol Hill.
After their stunning defeat in 1980, the dazed media renamed those “Wallace Democrats” “Reagan Democrats” and their whole attitude changed. But for two decades before conservatives had panicked at every accusation of appealing to “Wallace Democrats” and had to change their diapers each time it was mentioned the way they do today when called “racist.”
I have done this on other issues, but this is the most recognizable. I know the signs of a message going its geometric way better than anyone else alive.
Once again, it took decades to get to this point, but I recognize this point very well.
Adelheim and Horus are giving us reports from the front.
And I know how to read them.
---------Form, Substance, and Reality
Posted by Bob on August 21, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 6 Comments
We all know that there was a Greek philosopher who came up with the concept of atoms.
Here is the way I understand it. The Nicene Creed says that the Son is of one Substance with the Father. Centuries before that philosopher and Aristotle had a run-in over this fundamental concept.
The heretic said that if you slice a bit of cheese in two and the one of those two pieces in two, and then one of THOSE pieces in two and on and on and on, you would get to piece that was no longer cheese. You would get down to a piece so small it was part of the building blocks of all matter.
Aristotle said this was nonsense. He pointed out that all the Authorities agreed that all matter had its own Form and Substance. The different things were each a matter of substance, not a redistribution of a common set of atoms.
The Atomic Philosopher was very lucky he lost the debate then and not after the Nicene Creed was established. The killing point at Nicaea was whether there was a Trinity, in which God was in three FORMS, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but one Substance.
In other words, the Arian Heresy said that Jesus was not God. They simply stated this in their own terms.
A Protestant chemist I knew went into a Catholic Church Mass, got some bread and chemically analyzed it. He said he had disproven Transubstantiation because the bread had no protein in it.
I didn’t try to explain to him that, just as those at Niceae had use their own physics, so had he. He would have been insulted to hear that he was on the same level as the Christians he despised who said that if there was Evolution, there was no God.
Christians would be insulted to know that the Creed they so deeply say they believe in they don’t understand.
Our whole history is screwed up this way. We try desperately to show a continuum between what we call Classical Thought and our present sciences. History is totally unaware of the Levantine Civilization which had a totally different way of thought and a different chemistry and physics that would have made no sense to us or to Aristotle.
One recent discovery about dinosaurs was that some of the different species we had named were actually species we already know, but at their pre-adult phases. A little THINKING might have told us that not all animals are of the same construction when they are young as when they are adult, but it didn’t come up.
Ironically, nothing is changing more rapidly today than history.
Just as all of our present ideologies developed when we firmly believed that no animal held territory, that no animal had a class system, that no animals would ever give his life to defend his group, we now insist that all men always thought basically alike.
Why? Men who are fundamentally different is heresy. Everything the white man has comes from All Mankind.
We are right back with “substance” and the Nicene Creed.
---------BUGS, Theses and Heresy
Posted by Bob on August 20, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Filed Under General | 4 Comments
In a world where even the idea of a REAL Seminar had died out, BUGS, Bob’s Underground Graduate SEMINAR will never be understood by outsiders.
Political writings are taken to be Final Truths. I write up what I am chewing on and put it to you. You will notice that when commenters show a statement of fact by me to be completely wrong, they are not bashful about it as they would be in correcting any Leader.
So far, the corrections have concerned examples that are not crucial to the LOGIC, the THINKING which is what the article is about. But this approach will never be all that popular, because what people want is News and Jews.
In the oppressive Middle Ages, we developed a system where a priest would nail his assertions up on a church wall. He was ready for an open fight. News was a part of his sermon, and the sermon was the only sure source of what was going on that people had.
But note that the news was in a different category from assertions, and that was taken for granted in 1519 when Luther nailed his Theses to the church door. We all learn that but nobody THINKS about it.
BUGS is nailed to the church door of our established religion.
It caused so much trouble that that custom died in the Catholic Church.
Which is what they want to do with BUGS’ theses.
Luther’s Theses had to do with BASICS. It challenged basic assumptions about the means of salvation, which was the purpose of the door and the church behind it. It was not a quibble about Church History which would have been handled in the sermon.
When you read about Luther’s Theses, you always see the line about how this was a standard method of the time. But the implications of this are never even considered. It is the way Western Man did things.
News from the Pulpit and challenging the Basics are two totally different things.
BUGS is a very new thing to our age and our movement, but it is also simply the rebirth of the kind of thinking that is fundamental to the Western Civilization Mommy Professor presumes to teach about and respectable conservatives say they defend.
As usual, Mommy Professor and respectable conservatives simply have no idea of what they claim to teach or defend. And as usual, they couldn’t care less.
That is not what they get paid for. That is not why the information is produced.
---------With Media Bias, Seminars Have Died
Posted by Bob on August 19, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 8 Comments
The point of a real seminar is that the participants correct you. So BUGS includes many things I only know part way or may be mistaken about. I went back to polisci grad school for a semester in 1994, I did well enough, but it was mainly to check out some of the more blatant assertions I make about the Professor-Priesthood.
One thing I discovered was that I had been right when I said that real seminars had died out, but that they had become even deader since I was in school decades before.
As in grammar school, you are assigned a “paper” of so many WORDS. Even an undergrad in the 1960s the idea of telling an UNDERGRADUATE how many WORDS should be in his work would be laughed at as childish.
You did that for assigned writing in Junior High.
In the sixties a professor would routinely present a proposal for an article he was going to submit to his seminar and often also to an advanced regular class. I assume that if you are a doctorate just beginning a concept for a journal article, you would want to submit it at its early stages to a group of engineers in grad school to check it for possible fundamental problems.
Nothing of the kind would even be contemplated in the so-called seminars I went to. They were like freshman high school English, where students would be in a lecture course, but would pick stories in the Reader’s Digest to report on.
You had to get the length of the report right and the teacher knew the article.
This was a unique experience, so I am reporting my basic findings to you. In real academia, i.e., the sciences, an article presents the results of a particular piece of research and other professors repeat the same experiment.
The more radical your conclusions the more likely later repeats will contradict it. But also the more radical your results the more likely they are to go into the media.
When the KGB files were opened up right after the fall of the USSR some professors took a quick look at them and said that Alger Hiss was not mentioned in them as a spy. Our local liberal newspaper had Hiss’s picture on the front page and blared this “news.”
The KGB files are larger than the Library of Congress. Some other readers found Alger Hiss and practically everybody else who was subjected to “McCarthyism” was, in fact, a KGB agent with thousands of pages detailing his activities.
The State Newspaper never mentioned any of that.
This is not an isolated event. Putting a story on the front page is a big decision. If you ask “Why is this information produced?” the answer is simply that it is a big story that, so far as the people who depend on the newspaper for their information, proves what the paper has been saying all along.
Any objections will be buried in the letters to the editors section, assumed to be coming from a biased source, or not at all.
We all know that is how the world works, but no one THINKS about it when it comes to things like the death of Seminars.
Even in the 1960s a professor was subject to some real losses if his article was silly or wrong. So he checked it out with his seminars. Today, if you are on the right side, if you are completely wrong all you have is another published article for your resume.
This is all between you and the editor. No one has ever suffered from being totally discredited by Jensen or other heretics.
---------The Island That Has a Bill of Rights
Posted by Bob on August 18, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 4 Comments
I said in an earlier piece that enforcing a bad law rigorously is one way to get rid of it, but I stressed that was true in America. I am open to any contrary evidence, because I don’t LIKE this, but there really doesn’t seem to be any law today’s Europeans won’t support.
Knowing what the World War II Generation did to enslave America, a continent which had TWO such wars may be worse off. WWI barely touched America.
American and British laws were routinely changed by juries. The endless list of small crimes that one could be hanged for in Britain was effectively reversed by juries who would not convict a person who could be hanged for stealing a few shillings.
But today it is hard to imagine a British jury defying a judge in any way. I would be glad to be wrong if someone can give some examples. In America, too, juries consider themselves servants of the court.
The decision in the Crown Versus Pierce, where a judge ruled that in the case of Hate Laws, “the truth is no defense,” was the law under the Alien and Sedition Laws passed after the last huge Federalist Party victory in 1798.
But it was the LAST Federalist Party win because in 1800 the American electorate, not the courts, saved freedom of speech. It was hard to get convictions under that law — in America.
But the idea of a jury in today’s Britain disputing a guy in a black dress strikes me as impossible.
Would America pass the First Amendment today?
No other country on earth has what we call the first amendment.
I have pointed out that “since the invention of the wheel” is supposed to mean in caveman days, but when I point out how rare the wheel is, nobody remembers that phrase. Everyone says it, but nobody THINKS about it.
I have seen editorials reprinted from Australia bragging that they have no Bill of Rights and never will. In fact, all you find in American publications is a few columns like William Buckley’s endorsing European Hate Laws.
The Australian and Canadian reaction to mass shootings, which only happen where no honest person has a weapon, is to pass Draconian guns laws. I have heard of no instance where a jury has refused to convict anybody for trying to defend his family.
But I doubt you will see any of this put together in a few words anywhere but in BUGS.
In several states, including South Carolina, liquor laws were repealed by juries. In fact, while the rest of the state debated the law absolutely banning the per drink sale of anything but beer, Charleston had open bars.
The bars were kept open by juries. For a quarter of a century.
Try to imagine that happening with the cowed juries of today.
America is an island with its Bill of Rights. It is an island under assault.
But no one mentions that.
---------Niggling
Posted by Bob on August 17, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 4 Comments
Mayor Giuliani brought down the crime rate in New York City, an seemingly impossible task, by enforcing the little laws. When bums are allowed to litter they tend to go on to outfight robbery.
Every Jewish comedian criticized this as “fascism.” Even Leno mentioned comedians as part of the liberal complex, so I’m not saying anything wild here.
It did, however, WORK. I would never have imagined it would work so well.
This is also, as the comedians said, a form of profiling. The guy who harasses people or openly throws paper on the street is likely to more serious crimes. They are largely minorities, of course.
In other words niggling enforcement of laws works, not because it is niggling enforcement, but because it is a cover for profiling those who, by the color of their skin, are clearly more likely to be lawbreakers.
But niggling enforcement has an entirely different beneficial effect on law abiding people in America.
In America, the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it rigorously. When I came up absolutely everyone who was fashionable was for New York gun control. That ruined Rosie O’Donnell.
I think Zero Tolerance for Weapons has done the new generation a lot of good. Everyone knows about some little kid who was thrown out of school for carrying a plastic knife or something to school.
Gun control is a struggle liberals have lost big time. You know that because they don’t mention it any more. The cops really enforced it because they wanted to be the only high-school graduates who got to walk around with guns.
For people without inferiority complexes, having to carry a weapon is a bother. What really stopped pilots from carrying guns was not he knee jerk reaction to it by liberals. Pilots don’t have the cops’ inferiority complex and they don’t WANT to have to carry a gun.
So they don’t.
That was something most people didn’t THINK about, my continuing theme here. They were arguing over whether a man who had over two hundred lives in his hands should be ALLOWED to carry a gun.
Unlike flying a passenger jet, they said, a gun is a big responsibility.
On TV, the detectives are always taking off their coats and showing guns on them, which makes cops feel Macho. But a pilot has no need of that to get respect in HIS costume.
That’s how human beings think, gang.
If a cop doesn’t have his gun, he usually gets fined. If we want pilots to carry weapons, we will have to pay them to do it. Most lawmakers seemed to think they were “giving” pilots guns, and the pilots would have to take a course to learn how to use them on a plane.
I would guess that if you don’t know the mechanics of planes, training you in the use of guns on a place will be very, very hard. But the lawmakers were so fixated on guns they considered any kind of that magic word police, or Air Marshals, should carry the guns.
Walking in line to board a plane with my shoes off and my pants sagging without the belt, I have mentioned o others around me that the oil countries that sponsor terrorism should have to help pay for this crap.
I point out that if you ask any terrorist one thing he really wants, his answer will include making sure nobody on board is armed. I worked in a prison, and I have yet to find a single prisoner who is not all for gun control.
I have also never found a single prisoner who had the slightest difficulty getting a gun to commit a crime with, in New York or South Carolina. The gun that shot Reagan was bought in Hawaii and used in DC, two places which have gun laws that make that make New York look wimpish.
I have also never had a single passenger disagree with me about how the terrorists should help pay for this nonsense.
---------The National Debate Market
Posted by Bob on August 16, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 16 Comments
I talked earlier about how much more effective it would be if, instead of complex debates, people said, “I don’t believe you.” Respectable conservatives get paid precisely to take total absurdities from our established religion and make them sound intelligent by debating them in detail.
No one could be a professional conservative and use the Mantra. In a debate on television, once you had made it clear that the anti-white position is simple genocide, how would you pass the remainder of the time?
I mean this as a serious question. How can all the professional proponents of our established religion allow people on who simply chop them up and leave dead air? Not to mention that, since it IS our established religion, real heretics are not allowed exposure.
We have this problem in dealing with Obama. Obama is doing precisely what he said he would do: being an old style leftist, for which the codeword is “Change,” The fact that it requires a code word shows how successful it has been.
What is wrong with it, the reason liberalism and socialism need a codeword, is simple, 1) it has been tried, and 2) it does not work. Obama is trying Change and it does not work.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. But you won’t hear any professional conservative putting it that simply. And that is why the argument against this stuff doesn’t work.
It is not plain and simple. It treats this nonsense as if it had a point. It is part of the pretense that the national debate has two sides. The fact is that the so-called national debate has one side, our established religion of Political Correctness, and a group which serves as its respectable opposition.
In short, there is one side that is discredited and another side that tries to keep it credited.
That is why there is only one side, and that is why the one side is our established RELIGION. It is based entirely on faith that what has failed, from democratic socialism in Britain to liberalism in the US to state Communism in a third of the world, has failed and failed and failed and failed.
Its failure is not the point precisely because it is a religion, faith without evidence and, in fact, faith contrary to evidence.
But until we start saying things like “This is a religion” respectable conservatives will be able to keep up the pretense, which makes them their livelihoods, that this discredited nonsense is a Point of View.
More than that, that it is THE Point of View against which those who are called “conservatives” are merely the opposition.
I also keep emphasizing how important it is to realize that our so-called “National Debate” and all the highly publicized Movements are a means for hundreds of thousands of people to make a LIVELIHOOD.
What is debated is as much a market product as your cereal.
When you look at this “National Debate” ask yourself the one important question: Why is this information produced? It is produced by a market.
Supply Side Idealism
Posted by Bob on August 15, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 3 Comments
In Why None Dare Call It Treason I said I would talk about what happened to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who drew a major portion of their income from siding with the Soviets when the Soviet Empire fell.
This is a practical question, a question anyone who knows anything about real political science would wonder about. But since only Mommy Professors are in political science, they have no idea what makes real politics what they are.
A political science Mommy Professor sees these hundreds of thousands pf Cold Warriors as disappointed idealists. He does not see them as job-seekers.
Until Obama, it was hard to realize how many people’s job resume consisted entirely of “social activist.” I’ve SEEN them. In 1995, when the Democrats lost their majority in Congress and a third of the entire staff on the Hill went to the Republicans it was barely mentioned outside the Beltway.
Another wave of Idealists and Intellectuals hit the streets. Barely five years before, an even greater wave of pro-Soviet Idealists and Intellectuals hit the streets. As the USSR went down every single professional pro-Peace, pro-Soviet, whatever term you want to use, became an Environmentalist.
It is important to realize that intelligent Americans, no matter how anti-American, do have one trait in common: They MAKE their opportunities.
Watch out now, I may be tooting my own horn, but I come from the Belly of the Beast. If you want an easy life in DC, you go to Harvard and join the CIA or the civil service. Totally contrary to popular conception, Capitol Hill is not a place for time-servers.
One man who wrote a popular book called “Workaholics” points out to his New York audience that, contrary to their beliefs, New York was not America’s workaholic center, Washington was. For a New Yorker to take second place in anything “tough” is like a World War II veteran admitting anyone else was in a REAL War.
But I could show up at Capitol Hill offices at 2 a.m. and the place was lit up like a Christmas tree. John Ashbrook caught me in my office at 2 a.m., took one look at me, and said, “Bob, you’ll work better if you’re ALIVE. Get out of here.”
So I have to tell you that the activists on the other side were nothing like what you would think of as Washington bureaucrats. A senior staffer who lost his job at the age of fifty would go out and MAKE himself another one.
This would never occur to anyone as part of the growth of the Environmentalist Movement, the swelling of the militant Anti-Racist Movement.
I was right there, so as the USSR fell I dreaded what would come next from those people who had opposed me in the Cold War.
No political science professor is ever going to think of the tens of thousands of people in the political real world the collapse of a leftist cause brings. A new supply of activists, what he calls Idealists, causes a surge in other movements.
Call it Supply Side Idealism.
---------Why None Dare Call It Treason
Posted by Bob on August 14, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 8 Comments
It is now official that Ted Kennedy was working with the Communists, while the Cold War was still on, to defeat Reagan.
Old but true: “Treason never prospers, for when it prospers, none dare call it treason.”
Incidents like this are simply forgotten. But the Kennedy incident was part of what I advisedly call a titanic movement when the entire left pulled out all the stops to save the Soviet Union.
The Strategic Defense Initiative was invented by Jerry Pournell, a science fiction writer He is from Louisiana and therefore in my objective opinion a genius. Its aim was exactly what it accomplished, to destroy the PSYCHOLOGICAL equality of the USSR as a Superpower.
The USSR had stolen enough nuclear and rocket capability to be able to assure that it could cause tens of millions of deaths in a United States without any defense against ICBMs. But the very idea of competing against the United States in developing ANYTHING was impossible for the USSR.
The technology needed to be part of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, was in place by the seventies. In fact, the old bomber-based MAD would have still worked before 1960.
The much-touted Sputnik of 1958 which showed the Soviet lead in space was done by a rocket Americans had had in their warehouses for years.
You won’t see any of this elsewhere folks. For me, knowing it is like a mechanic being able to replace a sparkplug.
This is why SDI, which Kennedy called Star Wars, was a death blow to the USSR’s Superpower status.
The titanic effort I spoke of involved every resource the Left had, from moderate Republicans to comedians. A TV movie was dedicated to it, which was enormously publicized but a total flop.
The last Superman movie was dedicated to it, which is why it was the last.
The day SDI was announced, the Soviet crumble moved into a collapse. Its economy was already crumbling, its invincibility lay in entirely in its nuclear capability.
Russia could have fielded more nukes and more troops without too much trouble. Just cut rations a bit.
But the USSR had no scientific capability, certainly not at the Star Wars level. Firing a bullet someone taught you how to make is one thing. Developing a technology to shoot down a bullet is a whole different ball game.
A ball game they could not play.
The giant initiative which involved the mind-boggling power of the entire left argued that 1) SDI was a waste of money, it wouldn’t work, and 2) It would work and cause nuclear war: the Soviets would attack us while they still could before SDI was completed.
At the same time the Left argued that Moscow was for peace.
This was a massive initiative on the part of hundreds of thousands of Americans for whom supporting the USSR and making all dirty tricks out to be American Intelligence dirty tricks was all or a major part of their livelihood.
One of the funniest statements Reagan made, a joke no one was allowed to catch, was saying we would share research on SDI.
He was aware of the same thing every president since Roosevelt had been aware of: There WAS no “Soviet research” to share with. Their only research that mattered was spies.
This Nuclear Freeze Movement was so huge it had to be eclipsed by the fall of the Soviet Empire to get it out of the history books.
Yes, Senator Kennedy did leave a record of working outright with the Soviets, but nobody is surprised.
And what happened to those hundreds of thousands of professional pro-Communists?
You won’t see THAT discussed anywhere but here, in a later article.
Working Without Thinking
Posted by Bob on August 13, 2010 at 6:00 am
Filed Under Coaching Session | 3 Comments
Your doctor, your preacher, your lawyer and your accountant are in a position to give you orders. So is your “superior.” No one gets all his orders obeyed.
On an organization chart, the guy two ranks up routinely calls a “subordinate” to find out what should be done in a particular area. My boss — note the lack of quotes — John Ashbrook, was called for an interview by his state’s largest newspaper — the Plain Dealer.
He told the writer that I would call with what he had to say, gave me the number, and he had no idea what he had said until the the Sunday paper came out.
Hindenburg was commander of the German forces in World War I but it was pretty well know that Ludendorff ran the show.
It is understatement to say that an organization chart doesn’t tell you the real story. Everybody says he knows that, but I notice that every succeeding Administration in Washington, no matter how militantly it goes in, is tamed in each Department by the career staff getting them all tied with a “reorganization” instead of with changing policy.
In other words, as usual, everybody KNOWS the chart doesn’t tell the truth, but when faced with a situation where this fact is crucial, he hasn’t THOUGHT about it.
I keep telling people that “the President really doesn’t have any power.” He is so tied down by fiscal reality and election reality that his opinions don’t really make that much difference.
Real power is the ability to make the world the way you want it. How much does the president have that ability? He is only able to balance considerations. He even gets those balances from his advisors.
No matter whether they are called monarchies, anarchies, democracies, or dictatorships, all real governments are oligarchies.
Reagan was criticized for working forty hours a week. He had stepped into the presidency after governing the largest state in the country for eight years, and he knew the limitations of a chief executive.
When asked about Reagan’s forty hours, I would say, “When a hand reaches for the Red Phone at three o’clock in the morning, I don’t want that hand shaking with fatigue.”
I knew a self-made multimillionaire who said, “If I HAVE to work more than forty hours a week, I fire somebody.”
Ben Franklin has been quoted down through the centuries as the ultimate advocate of hard work, “early to bed, early to rise” and so on. If you actually read his short autobiography, it sounds startling modern.
Franklin said, yes, he got a reputation for hard work by waking everybody up in Philadelphia pushing his wheelbarrow down the street at six o’clock in the morning.
He points out that what was important was not being there at six, but that “ I became KNOWN for it.”
It was public relations. If anybody THOUGHT about it, why the hell would a PRINTER need to be pushing a loudly rattling wheelbarrow down the street to work every morning?
But Franklin knew damned well that, then or now, no one who wanted to preach would THINK about it.
They didn’t.
----------
Bob’s Books
Bob's first book - 1976 
A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES
Bob's second book - 1982 
THE NEW RIGHT PAPERS
Bob's deadliest book - 2004 
Why Johnny Can't Think
America's
Professor-Priesthood
-