Your answer is that Jews can indeed be white, but they can't be trusted. That's a good answer, but I phrased my question in the wrong way.

What I'm getting at is this: how do we institutionalize genetic morality, and can this be done simply on the basis of skin color?

We've already agreed that it can't. Not only must the whites be separated from the browns, but also the loyal must be separated from the traitors.

Then we get into the classic problems of institution-building, familiar to anybody who has ever run a business, a platoon, a religion, or a political party: credos, mission statements, founding myths, mascots, demonologies, patron saints, heresies, and (most of all) a set of terms upon whose definitions all agree, starting with "us" and "them".

I'm bringing up the institutional question because I suspect that it's either a weak point in your thinking or in mine. You seem to be an enemy of all institutional trappings (clear thinkers usually are), but I believe they're indispensable, especially to a race like ours in which the instinct of self-preservation is, as you point out, weak or absent.

Comment by LibAnon


The fundamental difference in our thinking is that my basic premise is a very unusual one. I believe that institutions are like work tools, that is, they are a product of the people, designed for particular uses at particular times.

You see institutions as one of the determinants of the future of humanity.

The future of humanity is entirely a matter of genetics and race. It doesn't matter if a white society is libertarian or Nazi, because that will pass. For humanity's future all that matters is what COLOR they are.

Institutions bother me not in the least unless they affect race. Worrying about institutions is like building my world on a particular method of agriculture. There is no doubt we will have to have food and there is no doubt we will have to have institutions, but I do not address methods of raising food here.

WHITE people will eat well. Dark people will starve. That's all I need to know.

I am not going to write down here what tools carpenters need to develop in building houses or what institutions each country needs to deal with its particular problems. I AM going to say that if they are WHITE, they will develop the tools and institutions that will keep humanity from turning into a miserable, stagnant brown anthill.

Institutions are a dime a billion. But the instant a person starts to build his thinking on institutions, his attention deviates from race. My aim is to destroy all traitors within our race and to preserve our race. Now comes the critical word: PERIOD.

Any tool, be it a saw, a gun, or an institution, that keeps us white is good. Any tool, be it a saw, a gun, or an institution, that makes us nonwhite is bad.

We have our race to save. Screw homemaking tips.

Comment By LibAnon:

"Now comes the critical word: PERIOD."

I think the critical word is HOW, not PERIOD. Otherwise, you and I agree on all points.

Institutions are merely tools, the means to an end. Of course! But tools don't build themselves, nor is it beneath our dignity to build them.

It's fine for you to say "My aim is to destroy all traitors within our race and to preserve our race," just as NASA once said "Our aim is to put men on the moon before 1970."

But if NASA had simply followed that up with slogans like "PERIOD!" and "Screw rocket making tips!", they wouldn't have made it there.


DISCUSS Institutions Here!

I do not want to give the impression that I discourage discussion of anything here. LibAnon asked me a general question and I gave him a general answer.

But, as usual, my reply was more to what he made me think of than to his specific question. I refuse to spend any more time telling people that, when I do this, it is not aimed at THEM, and thank God LibAnon is one of the few who never takes these things personally.

But the last article was, I think, a good example of what your talking makes me think of. We need to discuss things, and in the end my product is YOUR developing concepts and planting ideas. Ideas on what?

That's the point; I have no idea "on what." All we have is a goal. I am no more going to the moon than the editor of Amazing Stories, William Campbell, ever went to the moon. Amazing Stories was published in the 1930s and changed its name to Analog, which is the biggest sci-fi mag today.

But while the rest of the world was fascinated by the latest words of Joe Schmoe in 1936, Campbell and his editorials talked about EVERYTHING. He got replies about EVERYTHING. Campbell will never be mentioned, because the New Wavers took over sci-fi in the 1960s, but he is one of the most influential people in all of history.

In fact, if you look in the files of Amazing Stories and Analog before Campbell died, you will find that it covered more territory than any other magazine was even vaguely interested in. In Campbell's publication, you could say it out loud in a letter if you couldn't get an article published. What magazine would talk about rockets and space or a completely self-contained environment or the speed of gravity back then?

The Germans made a CONCEPT of Stoddard's work and developed the v rockets from it. A science fiction writer took the CONCEPT of the German V-1 and V-2 and developed the satellite CONCEPT in 1947. That is what the Orient does NOT do.

If you just build a Whitakerism out of what I say, I have failed.

Basics, concepts, a really Aryan, wandering mind, screw the herd. That is what this Blog should be about.

"Our aim is to put men on the moon before 1970."

That is the PERFECT example!

The moon shot began in the 1930s and earlier with science fiction writers. One science fiction writer invented our entire satellite communications system in 1947 in one story. But in 1950 no one thought much of it.

Even Goddard himself was only shooting better rockets and realizing their potential, which Germans took and made into the CONCEPT of the v-1 and V-2. I don't know if Goddard would have mentioned going to the moon - he would have been laughed at - but I KNOW he never mentioned a satellite system. He just shot better rockets and saw their potential while everybody else was talking about the most modern propellers.

In the Orient, Goddard's rockets would have been like their invention of the first mechanical clock. In obscure writings, Goddard's work would be traced as his rocket design floated around for two hundred years and finally disappeared.

We would be raving about how the Chinese had better rockets earlier. We would not ask, "So what?"

If you want to see how Wordist thinking of the future looks to me, watch the 1937 movie, Things to Come. The ultramodern plane of the late 1970s in that movie has not four but EIGHT propellers.

Please note that the goal of reaching the moon by 1970 was announced in the 1961 inaugural address. There was no mention of a rocket, much less WHICH rocket, which men, or HOW. There was no mention of anything BUT that goal. One year later we were no closer to the moon than we were then.

I am following up on the program with the Mantra. I am in a tiny, unpopular outlet like 1930s science fiction proceeding the best way I can find toward my goal. I am writing to try to entertain you as well as get some ideas across.

This is because I found out something early in my career that others never discovered: SPECIFIC complex plans for the future seldom work out. I say seldom in case it worked for somebody else because for me it was NEVER. I tried libertarianism, John Birchism and conservatism because each of these isms had a PLAN and a GROUP. But in the end they all failed because, even when they got part of their goal, the enemy, a bunch of pros, simply diverted them onto side issues.

The problem with the future is that you cannot really work with it until you are IN it.

That is why things like the Mantra work and all those institutions you want will NOT work. We went to the moon because the ideas got planted in tiny little fun publications that were laughed at by the literary committee. In fact, science fiction only began to lose its cutting edge when it began to take literary opinion seriously. I can communicate with anybody on earth by satellite because of science fiction stories written BEFORE that time.

Once Asimov started getting the big bucks writing for Playboy, the old days were over and science fiction was mainstream.

"Mainstream" means co-opted.

Then science fiction came up with a PLAN. It went New Wave in the 1960s and science fiction got a huge boost. New Wave Science Fiction meant, as I put it, "Putting a sociologist in a space suit." That was With It. It predicted a future where everybody looked back on the Vietnam War as the height of viciousness in all history. I said then that thus was like someone in 1854 saying that you and I would think about nothing but the Crimean War today.

In fact, New Wave had waves of blacks going into space and all the rest. It was really the Wave of the Future. It is forgotten completely today. It sought to build the future out of today, which is the staple of Wordists and Modern anything. Have you noticed that all the churches that tried to "modernize" in the 1950s have half their old membership from back when the population was half as large?

But this is not just modernization. It is ANY attempt to build a rigid plan for the future, because we cannot see one hour into the future. If you could, you could go the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and be a billionaire in a week.

Nobody would look at MONEY that way, but all the amateurs look at POWER that way. If you announce you've got The Plan, the rubes will make you rich and you will lose. That's how power politics is played right now. Washington is full of people living high off the hog, and the hog belongs to the rubes that believe that, while somebody who told you he has The Plan to Make a Million is an obvious fraud; no one can play real power politics UNLESS they have The Plan for Gaining Power.

Neither money nor power works that way. Respectable conservatives are rubes who belong to the neos, who are pros.

I plant IDEAS. I have done more than a million conservatives. If you go for power OR money, you have to stop predicting disaster or organizing for the Final Victory and get in there on the ground floor and do what needs doing. The Mantra is the SORT of thing that needs doing now.

We'll get to the moon later.