Dave and Afkan have slipped into the sand trap of trying to make sense of the idiots in charge machinations.

Comment by Pain


We have spent fifty years fighting shadows established by "the idiots in charge of machinations."

People who define all issues in the light of a positive theory of race have effectively, played us for fools. At least, it is positive, and positively good, for them.

When I was much younger, I wondered why lawyers who went at each other tooth and nail in the courtroom would retire to expensive restaurants and have expensive dinners together.

One day, my uncle told me, "See, the whole thing is like the professional wrestling you see on television. They support the system and you are simply food for the system. The irreplaceable energy of your life simply feeds the machine when you go to court. No matter who wins or loses, the lawyers win, because either way they are getting paid.

Since then, the words "political oligopoly" have entered my vocabulary.

Since then, national politics is seen in an entirely different light. Eight years of Bush, eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush, eight years get the idea.

So, I only am interested in the one issue that effectively leads out of the Platonic cave in which we find ourselves and that is the intellectual model of family as the microcosm of race, race as the macrocosm of family, and race as the living bridge between family and culture.

For the first time, we transcend the false duality and double-bind mechanisms of political control inherent in the nature of "Wordism," and can tap vital sources of ideas and energy in the fulfillment of something uniquely creative, fighting the fight on our terms for a welcome change.

Comment by AFKAN


We have trouble understanding what a fundamental revolution we are demanding. That is why AFKAN keeps capitalizing race, but he doesn't do the work to fully explain or maybe to think out what he means.

The simple fact is that, in explaining reality, race substitutes for EVERYTHING people make a living on. Jesus may save your soul, but that is not what preachers make a living on. That is not a doctrine they can get power from. They need "Judeo-Christianity," something that allows them to say that God is a social agenda.

Listen to O'Reilly: He says, "The idea that some children can learn better than others is evil." That's a quote.

We are proceeding into utterly uncharted waters. There was a comfort in the idea that civilization had a clearly identifiable beginning and that mankind is a single, utterly malleable unit.

There were civilized people. Those who had become the heirs of Egypt, and savages of all races and who only needed the ministrations of civilized folk, of paid intellectuals. There was a lot of argument over which ministrations were the True Ministrations, but the basic concept that All Mankind needed the right words was not questioned.

Nobody but me seems to realize how fundamental this assumption is to everything we call civilization, including Western Civilization.

We are saying it is not true.

While others crowd around and decry Neo-conservatism as if it were some kind of Special Jewish Concept. It is an opportunistic concept in which Jews take the lead. But abolitionist-minded New Englanders, National Review types, would have led the charge and invented Neo-conservatism had there been no Jews - and they had had the smarts.

I see Neo-conservatives as one of a number of causes for natural responses that will crush present social thinking the way that modern medicine crushed bleeding two hundred years ago.

Nobody studies the embarrassing history of the end of bleeding in favor of bacteriology. Nobody will even notice the disappearance of everything that was Intellectual in our age.

Neo-conservatism says that liberalism as not what we said it was, a set of ideas that would lead to disaster. No, says neo-conservatism, liberalism was correct until on or about January 1, 1970. Then, unaccountably, it went wrong. That is the doctrine of conservatism today, as detailed by National Review.

The establishment is becoming more and more openly oppressive. That is because everything it is based on is becoming more obviously ridiculous every day. Rome did not disagree with Galileo; it simply said that the implications of what he said were destructive to Doctrine.

What AFKAN calls RACE violates the fundamental Doctrine of Professional Intellectualism that there is room for Compromise. If we do not accept some form of Neo-conservatism, even Judeo-Christianity, we are saying that thousands of Intellectuals were complete nincompoops.

No, we are saying, they did not "have a point to make." They were totally destructive and far, far, far worse than useless.

That is why no historian has EVER written a history of the actual transition of medicine in the early nineteenth century. The Royal Navy was still regularly bleeding crews in 1815, despite one of our commentators who said that bleeding was out of date long before then.

It wasn't.

But there was no COMPROMISE between Galen's crap about balancing humors and reality.


If race is everything, then every single professional in the social sciences back to classical times is a damned FOOL. As in the case of Galen versus reality, there is stark naked CHOICE. People don't LIKE that. They want a Judeo-Christianity, a Neo-conservatism that bridges the gap, something that says that everybody had a point, that Intellectualism was not a vicious, silly, destructive FRAUD.

But it WAS a vicious, pretentious, destructive fraud.

Let the Orient worship profound-sounding horseshit.

The wheel, declared to be the most fundamental of inventions, did not EXIST anywhere but in Indo-European lands. I am a fan of the comic strip BC, but no caveman had the wheel. China had it because they were in contact with Indo-Europeans.

We have no history; we have a set of convenient lies agreed upon, as has been stated before. It makes everybody happy. Truth NEVER makes everybody happy.

Race is the crunch. EVERYTHING is racial.

There is no compromise that is not an outright lie.

There will be many, many "Neos" after Neo-conservatism has been forgotten. But something is true or it is not true.


They are Wrong.

We are RIGHT.

There is no NEO anything.

This is not reasonable.

You can be resonable or you can be truthful.

This is not diplomacy.

Every Truth is saleable and reasonable. The truth is neither.


BW says:

"You can be reasonable or you can be truthful."

"This is not diplomacy."

"Every Truth is saleable and reasonable. The truth is neither."

I say:

Do not take BWs above statement and turn it into DOCTRINE. BW did not say, "Diplomacy doesn't matter".

That would be an excuse for failing to master diplomacy, a practical necessity in the real world.

Something turns into Wordism at the very moment it furnishes an excuse for failing to do what is necessary.

Comment by Dave


The mistake Dave is pointing out is how they managed to justify the Inquisition in the name of the man who said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I meant that WE have to see what is not true, clearly and without compromise IN OUR OWN MINDS. THEN we must find a way to tell others what we have concluded. That, as Dave says, is a matter of diplomacy, advertising work, any of a number of things that we do not like to say we are doing because, to our Aryan minds, the words sound dishonest.

But you cannot just shout people into believing what is true. You have to recognize Wordism's methods and counter them. Diplomacy, war, espionage, all these are real world methods. And if you can't use them to spread the truth, a Truth will win.

Diplomacy often just means decency. The person who says he is "always frank" invariably is using that as an excuse for cruelty. Diplomacy can be a lie or kindness or a trick, depending on who uses it how.

I hope this explanation by Dave and me was unnecessary, but in any case, it makes the point that I cannot do without your applying common sense here.


Remember this,

Any "literature" can be deadly.

If we don't perform OUR OWN investigations OURSELVES.

Wordism arises because "intellectualism" is easy. All you have to do is master a "literature" and have a yap that likes to yap.

But real investigations are hard. You have to be a good soldier to perform a real investigation and arrive and YOUR OWN conclusions.

Very few of us are good soldiers.

Revolutions are based on good soldiers.

Comment by Dave