I have often observed that the more one is educated, the more petrified is his brain. It is far easier to deceive the educated than it is the ignorant (without knowledge; not necessarily stupid).
A life-long acquaintance of mine used to hawk items, door to door. He said he loved college dorms since it was an easy place to sell anything. "Don't ever go to a working class neighborhood," he claimed, "because they are too savvy to fall for baloney on the cob." Most salesman, in their few honest moments, will reveal this fact to their associates and friends. Since I have seen the phenomena in action, I have always wondered why.
Consider the factual statement: Every time 666 jews were beamed into heaven, Adolf would eat 100 grams of Austrian pastry. The statement may be true or it may not, but it does contain precise concepts such as 666, 100, grams and pastry, to name a few. For the sake of discussion, let's call this statement, Fact 69.
John McMac is a carpenter who earned his experience after he dropped out of school at the age of 14. We present him with Fact 69. Since he has no way of profiting from the truth, or falseness, of our statement, John nods, continues his sawing and promptly forgets the whole thing by the next afternoon.
Nick Nack is a student at Proverbial Tech. His professor presents him with Fact 69. Nick probably doesn't care whether Fact 69 is true or not, but he does care about his grades. Thus, it is decidedly to Nick's advantage to believe Fact 69. The more he supports it, the more the professor smiles, and the quicker Nick is on his way to an "A."
Temporarily disillusioned Eric Thomson, told me that one of his college professors flatly told the class that anyone who believed that Pearl Harbor was the result of a manipulated sequence designed to get gullible Americans into a war, would not pass the course. One must believe the professor, or suffer the consequences.
Thus, we are trained to accept even laughable items as truth if it means we will profit from it. When one exits those ivy halls, it is very difficult to ever get objective again. Even the information we receive from our parents doesn't have this import. In school, the whole outcome depends upon our voluntary acceptance of whatever is presented. As the number of school years mount, so does our conditioning. We are definitely not trained to be independent thinking creatures and no government wants its subjects to think for themselves, and neither does any priesthood.
When one takes, as I did, a history course covering modern Germany, he soon finds that the prescribed book list is quite small. It has been preselected for you by a professor who has effectively censored all of the books not appearing on his list. When I asked about this obvious limitation to what the course was supposed to be about, all I received was a dictatorial response about who was piloting the ship. A big fist apparently is the repository of all wisdom. In addition, any author who was at odds with our Dr. Dink, was "unreliable."
I am not implying that all rote learning is bad. One learns ballet by the studious application of all that is taught. There are few facts to dispute. Much of mathematics and music falls into this category because that training has been demonstrated, time and again, by its predictable results. It's only when we enter the realm of who said what, when, and who did what to whom, do we get into fairyland and extreme subjectivity -- arguments over hearsay. Asking a gazelle its opinion of the lion is not an objective way to ascertain facts about lions. No one will ever find the truth concerning Nazi Germany in any Hollywood dogmadrama.
I was slightly distressed when I read some email which was relayed to me. It seems that there are a couple of foolish groups who are busily bickering about how many pounds of coke it takes to cremate one jew. One says this and the other days that. It's not very scientific unless one has an actual demonstration with proper fact gathering. Until I see some actual data concerning (1) a crematory, (2) a jew and (3) a pile of coke, I refuse to get into such a discussion. If the six-million business is fact, then it can definitely be reproduced or duplicated. I suggest going to the Red Chinese leaders and purchasing six-million of their most useless dog-eaters and doing the Nazi-waltz with their bodies, all according to the tons of hearsay we are daily assaulted with. (Don't worry about China as virtually every one of its leaders has stated that there are too many Chinese anyway and that population thinning is a desirable goal, from time to time.) Honest historians, and anthropologists, have always tried to recreate certain scenarios in an attempt to be somewhat more scientific in their quest for truth. An obvious hoax in the Holocaust business is the idiotic notion that if the revisionist side "wins" (whatever that means), peace, prosperity and a chicken in every pot, will automatically follow. Our land is being colonized by Mestizos, Chinese, and other groups seeking to "be free" which is little other than license to separate Whitey and his goodies, but the debating societies continue to babble about other things.
I remember a cartoon character I saw at one time. It was a drawing of an oaf, playing pocket pool with one hand while the other clutched a can of beer. Drool was running down his chin and with eyes-crossed, he said, "It must be true. I seed it on the TV." There are many things we "seed" on TV.
Frankly, I do get a little pestered when my remote screws up and fails to change channels as cleanly as I desire. This tendency to malfunction resulted in my glimpsing of yet another "expert" swooning over Mayan science and mathematics. When someone says science to me, my mind recalls images of LASER beams, RADAR, electronic communications, Venus probes, jet aircraft and even "boom boxes." What science means to this old hen I watched, was not explained. I stayed tuned hoping that she'd give examples of Mayan equipment which was superior to a Smith and Wesson revolver, or even a Teflon coated frying pan. None was forthcoming and I had to settle with the fact that "their calendar was the most accurate of all time." (This would be a great theme for a drug concert.) I touched upon this in an earlier article but have a few extra comments which I shall deposit here.
Does anyone believe that the slotted rock piles at Stonehenge, or the notched bones of Mayan skeletons represent precise measuring devices, whether celestial or linear? Did the Mayans have something more superior, as a time-keeping device, than present-day atomic clocks? Without precision measuring devices, then how can any culture lay claim to having a superior calendar, or any other procedure which is worthy of mentioning?
The length of the tropical year has been established to the nearest clock second: 31556926. This means that the Mayan calendar lagged about 13 days every 52 of their years while our modern calendar is about 8 hours advanced in the same period. (This is why certain century years are not leap years -- 1800, 1900 A.D., for example, while 2000 A.D. is.) These 13 days accumulated and after a few centuries, their calendar was totally out of synchronization. What's more is the fact that if they knew about it, which I doubt, they made no effort to correct it as the Egyptians did, and who apparently taught them the whole scheme in the first place including the Babylonian base 20 mathematics which is revealed in their "haab", or civil year.
All White civilizations -- ancient Egypt was one before they engaged in race-mixing -- were aware of their calendar short-comings and periodically adjusted them by "leaping" over the day count. This was called a "leap day" and years containing leap days are known as leap years. All non-White calendar systems were never adjusted for their accumulated inaccuracies which suggests either of two things: (1) they didn't know the difference or (2) they didn't quit grasp all that their White teachers were professing. This is also very evident in our integrated schools.
Primitives never had the means to measure things accurately and therefore had no accurate means of defining a calendar beyond the appearance of the sun or some star. A line-of-sight squint, through a ragged hole in a rock, is not my idea of a precision instrument.
What we see on TV is an all out attempt to bamboozle marginal White brains into believing that some batch of muddies developed this, or that, first, thus minimizing the actual fact that White people are in a league all by themselves. The Germans, if left unmolested, would have probably landed a man on the moon in the late 1950's. With their technology, and their scientists, the Americans did it about 10 years later. This alone, whether American or German, should have announced clearly, and absolutely, without question, which species of Hominidae was superior. (Eskimo Bob and Bantu Willie do not belong to the same species, in my book.) The moon landings, in this regard, went unnoticed and the only explanation I can offer is that Americans have collectively lost their ability to deal any longer with reality. A good portion of this loss of ability lies with our compulsory system of education which trains people not to think. (The better you get at it, the more degrees you are awarded.) My grandfather often admonished, "Reading is bad for your eyes. If you believe what you read, it is bad for your mind."
Be cautious of what you believe when it comes to "science" as the government sponsors nothing which will reveal further, self-evident, White superiority. The money available for research into the discovery of the ancient Caucasian burial sites in China is very limited. The money available for "proving" that Black folks built the pyramids, discovered the North Pole, and invented helicopters, is huge, just as it is for sponsoring minority figure skaters, swimmers and gymnasts. There is absolutely no area where the White man isn't being screwed and no bit of propaganda which leaves him untarnished. But that is democracy in action and you asked for it.
15 March 1998