Bob, can you expand on what you think total collapse would be like? How would it be different from a catastrophic breakdown?

Comment by Danerbor


This relates to a very big lesson in human thinking that I heard expressed in a documentary on the Kennedy assassination:

"People assume that big things cause big things."

The idea that a little failure like Oswald could change history by shooting Kennedy, who became an Instant God at death, is simply unbelievable to human psychology. There had to be more to it.

It was assumed the Soviet Empire would last, literally, forever. The Soviet Empire was in science fiction books. No one believed it would just collapse because it was so SILLY.

In fact, the ONLY scenario anybody had of the USR falling was Mutually Assured Destruction in action, total nuclear war: Only a BIG thing can cause a BIG thing.

NOBODY believed Reagan would take it out in one decade. EVERYBODY takes it for granted now. In fact, the media insist Reagan had nothing to do with it. They all knew it was on its way out anyway. That is the official line.

If Perot had been marginally less insane, the official line would be that everybody knew the two-party system was on the brink of collapse so of curse President Perot was inevitable.

So the Revolution t overturn our present genocide against whites is now seen as the result of a titanic race war, whereas our revolution, here, will be seen as what was bound to happen soon.

Back to another blog rule:

"Why do people say things?"

Drama SELLS. Drama is exciting.

Screaming Conspiracy and blaming everything on an All-Knowing and all powerful Evil takes all the blame off of you and you have fun. It keeps you from doing what needs to be done, every day.

You can have all the thrills, all the money, all the fame, all the titles. We just want to rule the world.