Practical Tips on Subverting the System

The Bolshevik Left used astonishingly simple techniques to overthrow White civilization. Peer pressure, irrefutable argumentation, and of course adulteration of the language, a la Newspeak, to remove certain ideas from the public consciousness.

In thirty some years as a reluctant culture warrior and White Nationalist, a few effective but simple and non-confrontation techniques recommend themselves. All are based on the power of truth, which Christians recognize from Scripture and which our pagan friends recognize from science. I like to think these two worldviews are in no way opposed and they are, in fact, complimentary and necessary to regaining the lost minds of our fellows.

Technique 1: Use old-style vocabulary.
The forces of PC institutionalize their hatreds by banning the words that make opposition impossible. Certainly you cringe when a “conservative” talking head speaks “gender neutral” language such as the shudder inducing “their” instead of “him” or “person” in place of “man”. So use the old words outright: say “man”, “men”, “mankind” and “he” to refer to the common man. Use pre-PC terms such as “crippled” and even “retarded” instead of their sanitized offenses “differently abled” and “learning impaired”.

While these may seem awkward at first, they become natural with use – even to your friends, colleagues and family who will find certain distant but pleasant memories activated at their sound. More than that, they prepare the hearer’s mind for …

Technique 2: Pepper your communication with old time phrases and aphorisms.
I quote the King James (or Authorized) Bible liberally in my conversations. Not like the stereotypical Holy Rollers and Bible Thumpers but merely as common advice of the kind your grandmother once dispensed, “Well you know what they say – truth shall set you free!” or “better to sleep on the roof than in the same house as an disputatious woman!”. Shakespeare and, for Americans, the Founding Fathers who themselves quoted the Bible are also excellent sources of preformed subversion. Who can argue with Lincoln’s quotation of Matthew that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”? Other excellent clichés ripe for resurrection include, “You know what they say – give them an inch and they’ll take a mile!” and “I’ve had it up to here [indicating eyeballs] with this!”.

I’m sure you can think of dozens more ready to serve up to a mind hungry for freedom. The particular old-time idea is not so important, although they are often apropos, so long as it breaks the hearer from the spell of all encompassing post modernistic hallucination!

Technique 3: Speak radical truth as though it was commonplace, without self-consciousness or apology
This is the most important item. These subversive words and ideas must never be presented from a defensive or apologetic posture. Indeed, they must be spoken with all the nonchalant authority of the president of the teacher’s union addressing the PTA. And that is the exact relationship we want to create – one of authority over our (political) students so that they in an act of referent submission internalize these ideas as their own. This will be easier with the over-thirty population as many were taught these in their own youth. Younger people and children might well be hearing them for the first time.

After a sufficient period of refamiliarization, more substantial ideas may be introduced such as the obvious fact that different kinds of people behave in predictably different ways (perhaps after the successful introduction of such clichés as “birds of a feather flock together” or “different strokes for different folks” or “If I didn’t see it, I wouldn’t believe it!”.)

Ideas build on ideas and once the thought process has been initiated in our fellow men, it is hard to stop it. The mission then becomes one of mentoring and encouragement, guiding the Awakened to build a proper foundation of, dare I say it? critical thought and the proper assessment of the evidence he himself gathered through personal observation. From there, it will be possible to show him how these ideas are not only common sense – but predictive. The sheer joy of accurately seeing an inevitable outcome of natural laws will, in itself, propel the Awakened forward.

One final thought that bears special mention: children. If your protégé is of child-bearing age, it is imperative the he be guided to fatherhood. Women and girls must especially be introduced to motherhood as the responsible, most fulfilling role of all. Procreating and rearing children has a way of focusing one’s attention on elemental survival, future outcomes, and explicit questions of cultural transmission. While girls have a strong maternal instinct it is easy to subvert via birth control. Likewise, a boy’s libido is too often used as a weapon against his manhood and we must do all in our power to stop and reverse these abuses. If your protégé is already a family man or a mother considering divorce, we must try all within reason and appeal to maintain the sanctity of the family for the sake of future generations. They are, after all, the entire point of White Nationalism and civilization itself.

Joe of the Mountain is the pen name of a life-long culture warrior. He is a professional management consultant by trade and a life-long Anglican by choice. He holds a number of academic degrees earned variously at the Pennsylvania State University and the University of Pennsylvania, with additional graduate studies at Villanova University. He is a direct, lineal descendant of the American Pilgrim Fathers and of freedom loving men wherever they may be found from Charles Martel, to the Huguenots to the freedom fighters of the Baltic. JotM lives on a Revolutionary War battlefield with his wife and sons in the surrounding farmland of his native Philadelphia.


  1. It’s rather silly to write an ‘About the author’ section when the author is using a pen name.

  2. I can sometimes sound like a broken record on this subject, but if you like to read, then read good books, old ones if possible. They incorporate the old style vocabulary and common wisdom recommended here, and there’s really no other way to get it, unless you like reading “Bartlett’s Quotations” cover to cover. Most modern books are subject to the censorship of New York publishers, who make sure that the authors don’t get too far off-message. Off-message is where we want to be.

    Younger readers: The phrase “broken record” comes from the fact that a phonograph record (“vinyl” as some now call them) could get a nick or scratch, and then begin to repeat a phrase indefinitely. “baby loves her da (hic) baby loves her da (hic) baby loves her da (hic)…

  3. Sam Davidson: Picky, picky, picky. He’s just introducing himself to a new audience. He hasn’t written for this site before, has he?
    On an on topic note, how about trashing the word the perverts have dreamed up for themselves; “gay” means happy and joyful, and they aint. Everybody seems to have eaten that food. Talk about meat sacrificed to idols!

  4. Assigning responsibility. the Left cowers before the concept of “responsibility” being the feminine minded portion of the ruling idiocracy.

  5. I believe this is a quality contribution with some sensible advice.

    Do you really think it’s appropriate to scold a man who’s beginning to wade into White Advocacy for attempting to balance his desire to contribute with his other personal considerations? Are you seriously proposing that everybody jump in and use their full legal names regardless of their personal situations?

  6. Good, useful advice, much obliged. It is true that if more of us simply speak boldly and truthfully and act responsibly, much will change for the better.

    On a related note, here is a partial classical curriculum I update sporadically:

    I welcome specific recommendations, and need help with books on geography, history, science and math.

  7. I remember reading a book about restoring Wester Civ or some such, in which the author lamented that Westerners no longer share a common literary “canon” and are now unable to share poignant and complex quotations and idioms amongst ourselves. It is a huge loss which does not show up directly anywhere, but indirectly everywhere.

    BTW, Welcome, Joe.

  8. “If your protégé is already a family man or a mother considering divorce, we must try all within reason and appeal to maintain the sanctity of the family for the sake of future generations.”

    Re: old-timey ideas. I believe I successfully persuaded a yong woman friend not to divorce by explaining to her the effects of divorce on kids. She knows I dote on her young ‘un, and I put it to her in terms of, “Well, I realize you’re not happy right now, but I’m even more worried about your daughter. I don’t want to see A____ hurt. Divorce is a disaster for kids.”

    She was astonished — and then thoughtfully agreeable — when I said this:
    “I think the old-time idea of staying together for the sake of the children is NOBLE.”

    Rusty: I found what I think is an excellent program for homeschoolers for teaching secondary math, 6th grade through calculus: Teaching Textbooks. Each course consists of CDroms of the professor explaining each lesson’s mathematical concept, then workbook problems with another CD/workbook for tests. For any workbook problems that would stump a student, there is a 3rd CD where ALL workbook problems are worked and carefully explained,.

    This system is has been specificaly designed for homeschoolers, especially designed for parents who are themselves math-phobic. And there are no goofy new-new-math “constructivist” “inclusive” ‘multicultural” “integrated math” fads. Just math, the good old fashioned way it’s been taught to successful engineers and mathematicians for countless generations, with a friendly, kindly-voiced professor who explains absolutely everything, as many times as you need to hear it.

    (No, I’m not a saleswoman. Just a mom with a suggestion for you of something I bought that I liked a lot.)

    My high-schooler scored a 29 on the ACT as a result of this program.

  9. He is a direct, lineal descendant of the American Pilgrim Fathers

    Welcome Joe. It is nice to have you here.

  10. This is an excellent piece. I have to confess that I don’t do this:

    “Technique 3: Speak radical truth as though it was commonplace, without self-consciousness or apology.”

    And yet every Progressive I know does. Doing this becomes much easier when others do it likewise, as you have the natural assuredness and confidence that derived from making ‘obviously true’ statements as in accordance with the consensus.

  11. “Younger readers: The phrase “broken record” comes from the fact that a phonograph record (“vinyl” as some now call them) could get a nick or scratch, and then begin to repeat a phrase indefinitely. ”

    -Sigh! I keep forgetting that there is a whole generation of people who never knew a time without cell-phones, let alone “records”. Old timer here, of course!

  12. I strongly disagree with Sam Davidson who writes:

    “it’s rather silly to write an ‘About the author’ section when the author is using a pen name.”

    I would like to know something about the writers of good articles. And I am very excited to learn that this writer has advanced degrees from solid academic institutions – this refutes the lie that only “ignorant”, “hateful”, “losers” are involved in White racialist causes.

    And for folks just getting involved in WN – please consider using a pen name and keeping your job, your position as a solid member in good standing in your community.

    We live in rough times where terrible powers will smear and destroy regular Whites who dare “Come out” on the side of our people.

  13. This is a good post with some good ideas about “living it” on a day to day basis. What’s up with the cattiness?

  14. “Politically correct” is marketing genius but a poison phrase for us, imo and it’s about time we stopped using it. It is anything but “correct”. Ask when that phrase is used, “correct according to whom and by what standards”. Come up with a derisive term to refer it instead of calling it “correct”.

  15. Lots to think about here, I will try to analyze my own language to see how much PC jargon I have picked up. Certainly “their” instead of “him” is something that I have been doing subconciously at times.

    Not my intention to offend any of the writers here, but it is refreshing to read some recommendations that don’t boil down to “out-Jew the Jews”.
    Certainly there are things that we can learn from the Jews when it comes to ethnic survival in a mixed society, but I find that many of the tactics espoused here seem to mirror Jewish tactics. They have been effective, but I don’t want to drop to that level.

    @ Andrew
    I am focusing on speaking my mind face-to-face. I would prefer it if my name had zero hits on Google, even when related to non-racialist web activity. I understand why you feel that way, but I don’t think that a name holds the same importance online as in real life. I could start using a full name tomorrow but nobody here would know if it was real anyways.

    – Frederick Pennybottom III

  16. Matt Parrott wrote:
    Do you really think it’s appropriate to scold a man who’s beginning to wade into White Advocacy for attempting to balance his desire to contribute with his other personal considerations?

    From the OP:
    In thirty some years as a reluctant culture warrior and White Nationalist…

    I took this to mean that he’s been in the game for thirty years. Maybe I’m wrong?

    Anyway, this is a good addition to the other “tips for white advocacy” posts.

  17. Instead of “politically correct” say “stifling mythology.” The phrase “politically correct” itself is part of a stifling mythology, meant to hide its totalitarian nature.

  18. The confidence Joe recommends is hard to come by. I remember a scene from “Band of Brothers” where this trooper was scared of dying. The lieutenant tells him to figure he’s already as good as dead anyway, and then he can fight like a good soldier.

    If we act like we have nothing to lose, there is courage to be found there. Because if we don’t act with courage we shall lose it all anyway. So we’re as good as lost or dead. If someone calls you “racist!” so what? You’re a dead man already. Just laugh and say “thank you!” and keep on.

  19. re: Edgar Steele

    Just reading a handful of articles, if you take the blue pill it’s an open and shut case – they have him on tape saying “make sure they’re dead” or something. But after taking the red pill, it seems unlikely that anyone would be so stupid as to actually offer to pay some unknown person to kill anyone, at least, anyone with an above room temperature IQ. The only time I’ve heard of such things is in the movies and in reports of people being stung by informants.

    So to be on topic and use Technique 3: It’s obvious this is a set up meant to punish the attorney for defending Whites and put him in prison.

  20. On pen names – it’s good to use them online for even mostly non-controversial topics, simply to avoid harassment from – well, who knows, that’s the point. The internet is all public and never goes away. Someone literally could find something you wrote 20 years ago and track you down, it’s happened.

    Lord knows I got shit-tons of death threats online in 2001-2002 and there was an organized campaign on neo-con-tards to publicize names and addresses of people writing against invading Iraq.

    Great article by the way. Let me try techniques 1, 2, and 3:

    I’ve had it up to here with the common man ignoring Mossad’s role in the 911 attacks.

    How’d I do?

    Everyone knows that Mossad was involved in the 911 attacks.

  21. I sympathize with your distaste for leftist euphemisms, and I choose old school words whenever possible.

    I never say gay, perferring homosexual, pervert or sodomite, depending on my mood.

    I never say undocumented worker, preferring honest and descriptive terms like linejumper, freeloader, invader or illegal.

    I even eschew the term “liberal” itself, opting for traitorous swine, colonic scum, or bedwetting sissy, depending on the context.

    Stated simply, I hate liberals. They make me sick. I can’t even listen to the pretentious snobs of NPR for more than a few minutes, without intense feelings of nausea, a stiffening of my sphincters and pronounced prevomitory salivation.

    Now, as for libertarians…

  22. realVercingetorix: Is it just me, or do the public/government radio people have their own, special, NPR accent?

  23. Jacob C: I read somewhere that using “their” as a single possessive neuter pronoun has been done for centuries, that such usage can be found in books published in the 17th Century, and ever since.

  24. Andrew Yeoman: “Here’s another one that seems to be overlooked a lot: openly expressing your views with your full name.”

    At some point this is important, though obviously maintaining your career and social life is also. One thing coming-out does is it commits you and forces you to take a good look at your ideas and take what you say seriously. You don’t have the luxury of pissing on about riding panzers through DC or generally being libelous. For myself, I ‘everyone’ a number of articles via Facebook — The John Fuerst with the Blue Hippo Pic. This forces me to makes sure my ideas are sound and justified, which is good, since his is ultimately needed if we wish to get anywhere.

  25. Whatever-his-name, a good piece. Information is power, so Jews, Reds, Left in general always try to increase theirs by language-control through euphemisms and outright word-banning. On the one hand, they steal our language bit-by-bit by converting formerly useful words – for ex. “gay”, i.e. happy, good-natured – into a euphemism for satanic activity and, on the other, try to ban a denotative term like “faggot” – which perfectly defines the hot, burning, deathly, excremental, sadomaschistic nature of homosex. Other examples are legion: “undocumented worker” vs. wetback,
    “developmentally challanged” vs retarded, etc. We can’t defeat this in their puppet media, but we can certainly stop playing along with it in the media we have available to us.

  26. Getting people started in thinking can be a tall order. People who are truly smart and can actually think are few and far between. I feel like i am walking through the valley of the shadow of death when I consider that most people do not even realize they are subject to propaganda. Propaganda is always someone else out THERE. You know, the OPPOSITION. How utterly retarded! EVERYONE is subject to propaganda, it is the nature of human brains.

    To even begin to actually think for yourself requires not just intelligence but a motivation for truth. You need to seek out and understand the principles and forces at work in human brains that shape our thoughts and opinions. I have been to MENSA meetings where not one single person there could actually think clearly about their own interests. They could probably win a round of jeopardy, but that just says that they can learn and retreive information better — which might even mean they are MORE susceptible to mass-media propaganda in some ways!

    To be truly smart means having a working knowledge of the forces of evolution and history which made human brains, so that you are not in AUTOMATIC mode. You can see past the immersion in emotional conditioning all around us in the media, in schools, in books, in movies, etc. You need to see that even our paternal and maternal emotions can be detrimental to our future if they are displaced on the wrong targets (i.e. the retarded, on more “child-like” negroes, or on cats or dogs in lieu of having children…). There are also the obvious ones like sexual perversions, but people rarely see clear enough to know that compassionate, even maternal, instincts can be perverted into maladaptive avenues.

    Thinking means knowing what is going on upstairs in the old brain in order to know truth. Fear closes your mind… AUTOMATICALLY. Simply having a high IQ is not being smart. Using that IQ in socially-accepted channels alone is simply being a high-level slave. To be free means having creativity and mental agility enough to see beyond the conditioning we are bombarded with every day. That takes 1) knowledge, especially of the evolution of brains. 2) balls 3) creativity 4) love of truth above all

    This is my favorite part of the article:

    “Speak radical truth as though it was commonplace, without self-consciousness or apology”


  27. “I read somewhere that using “their” as a single possessive neuter pronoun has been done for centuries, that such usage can be found in books published in the 17th Century, and ever since.”

    “Their” in context is common (natural) gender. I don’t care if and consider it irrelevant that there has long been an alternative expression. I prefer the common gender genitive pronoun “his” as well as the common gender noun “men” specifically because some Communist ideologues proscribed them.

  28. Poem to the Politically Correct

    Do not cut the balls off my language
    She needs no hysterectomy either
    Never avoid the truth to be fair
    Only to be kind

  29. Poem to the Politically Correct

    Do not cut the balls off my language
    She needs no hysterectomy either
    Why use a ten-syllable phrase
    When you can tell the truth with two or three
    Never avoid the truth to be fair
    Only to be kind

    (please delete my post above)

  30. To express a view contrary to some responses, I hope the author does not roam into white advocacy, at least not what mostly falls under that term today. We need some variety, because after a time, too little variety leads to too small a picture.

    I immensely enjoyed the author’s brief, fresh article. Earlier in the day I laughed a lot, discussing with a friend the insanity of the world. Later, when I came to the article, I saw it as humorous. It was truthful and light – “light” is not the best word to describe it but I can’t quickly think of a better one, and “light” is so rare in what we read our side. Some lightness, sometimes, not too much from everyone, is needed.

    I liked the touch of sketching Christianity and paganism together. I also liked the country-ish, fresh-air feel. And definitely the points the article made.

  31. Regarding the author’s use of a pen name – it’s the ideas that matter, more than anything. The use of a protective identity is a time-honored tradition, when times are perilous.

    Different people are under different circumstances. Joe seems to be a very bright, erudite, focused adult, with a defined and experienced point of view. I’d much rather have intelligent, functional people operate under circumstances where they function in a variety of spheres, then opine, and accomplish nothing. Considering the dire economic situation of the USA, and for Whites, especially (check VDare’s American Worker Displacement date, sometime) – I’d rather have committed White Nationalists – who *are* *committed* White Nationalists – operating under false names, than see them un-employed, and homeless, under their legal name.

    Finally – it’s easy to operate under your own name when your message poses real threat to the power structure.

  32. Joe:

    great article!
    I’m near Reading and there are a small number of us around here. let’s have a white nationalist family-oriented bbq soon!

    barb and rusty: thanx for the links!

    IF you read alot of pre-WWII era books, you will internalize the olde-timey lingo eventually. All of my favourite materials are from that era.

  33. “Politically correct” is marketing genius but a poison phrase for us, imo and it’s about time we stopped using it. It is anything but “correct”. Ask when that phrase is used, “correct according to whom and by what standards”. Come up with a derisive term to refer it instead of calling it “correct”.

    Politically conformist?
    Politically prescribed?

  34. I like to find obscure quotes from the opposition’s own heroes and use them to my own advantage: malcolm x, marx, bakunin, proudhon, UN statements about genocide or self-determination, etc.
    It really fux with their heads 🙂

  35. Think and speak STRAIGHT LOGICAL words and concepts.

    I like your mention of “gay” being given an ILLOGICAL new meaning. Here are two other concepts to explore…

    “Racist” [Russian rasistov] was FIRST USED in his 1930 biased “History of the Russian Revolution” by extremist Leon Trostsky [born Leiba Davidovich Bronstein] to damn the masses of Russian folks wanting to keep their culture, religion, and lineage (race-nation) from his CHANGLING PLANS for them as a pliable homogeneous globalist ooze to be ruled by his kind of people (for their own good!)

    Trotsky was vehemently opposed to such traditionalists, the “slavophiles” (slavic folks who liked their community). And he soon expanded the term in a 1933 vitrioloic attack {his usual method!} against German National socialism, intending to SILENCE AND DESTROY white awareness and its culture and people… a GENOCIDAL PROPAGANDA TOOL

    So now that you know the hateful nutcase who created the term to silence and destroy you, REPUDIATE USE OF “RACIST.” Scorn fools (especially whites) who do so!
    Tell them the origin and purpose of the term. {Websearch}


    “Christian Identity” is sometime rather arcane, but here are some simple facts even many “CI” don’t have clear:

    It is a well-know fact of geoscience that many human remains have been found dating before 5500 BC – which is the earliers time of creation of Adam in the Bible (using data in the Septuagint, not Masoretic-KJV translation that gives an age around 4000 BC – the most common date.)

    Therefore, those folks are PRE-ADAMITES… and the Bible really says little to or about them. The oldest such human remains are from Africa. Other racial groups began later in other places. Adam was the last type, and…

    “Adam” who was made in the image of God (“Adam” is the original word for “man” in most of Genesis 1-12, except notably for Cain, a “mortal”-man in Gen 4:1) was given DOMINION over all the other LIVING CREATURES in Gen 1:26-28. In other words, Adam is like the keeper of a zoo with many creatures. At least that was the original plan… and Jesus (called the perfected “last Adam” I Cor 15:45) will overthrow all manmade regimes (I Cor 15:22-24) and crush evil ones as a victorious warrior (Rev 19:11-21) to rule ALL EARTH again (Zech 14:9); and we also destroy his enemies (Luke 19:27 – ask for a sermon on this line!)

    PS: There is not geoscience evidence of a global flood only a few thousand years ago, so that event only his a region and covered the “erets” land/ground/earth that Noah saw. And civilizations such as east China and Egypt continued, along with humans of varius races in most of the rest of the earth.

    So the real core “Prime Directive” of the Bible agrees well with what some of our secular minded folks understand at an intuitive level…. but government-licensed “churching” franchise outlets teach a very different PC tune!

    (Now you can go to “CI” information sources and explore things like the appearance* of Adamic Israelites – whom they do not confuse with “Jews” because Jesus himself told these critics of himself: THEY WERE NOT NOT HIS PEOPLE (John 10:22-34) in a scene that then had critical “Jews” challenge his saying that he is Son of God. His reply was strange. He did not say that he had a special role and was THE only Son of God! He told them to check Scriptures (Psam 82) and WE are told: you are gods! [But will die, since we were under a curse.] And it says God will at last inherit all the NATIONS – a term almost universally not understood! But it was first used and defined in Gen 10:5. The original word GOWY is translated (KJV) both as nations and Gentiles! It refers to Adamic families that fill the chapter… NOT TO ALL HUMANS!

    And who was Adam?

    Luke 3:23-38 lists lineages, ending with “Adam the son of God.” Take that seriously! Adamites are Children of God – the very group given rule over the “zoo” of Earth! And Jesus is the perfected “last Adam” (I Cor 15:45) and he is the “Son of God” (Mark 1:1 – a line often mentioned, but rarely understood!) He’s the FIRST OF MANY BRETHREN, the folks made in the IMAGE OF THE SON (Rom 8:28-29)

    So exactly what was that image? (Study for another time.)

    The conflict within “white Nationalism” is real in that God wants his folks to obey God’s law (not done in”churching”) and for whites to merely push by our strength outside of this is… not going to work. (Hitler tried and failed. He pushed pagan myths and supressing mention of our actual Warrior/Redeemer soon returning… after we get out of the manmade “Babylon” city & its system, Rev 18). Let’s start to do it right this time!

    PS: About 120 BC John Hyrcanus (King of Judea) crushed the Edomites (discussed in short Obadiah & Malachi 1:1-4) and forced them to become circumcised and learn the old Hebrew religion and become Judean… ie “Jews.” And they took on this new identity and mixed in [Herod had such an Edomitic Father & an Arab mother, Cyrpus! Wesbsearch] So we have a rather easy explanation for how Jesus could tell a bunch of powerful men in Jerusalem that they are not his “called” ones…. because they were not his people!

    The Edomite transition is in “Antiquities of the Jews” by 1st Century historian Josephus (Book 13, Chap 9, l 257+) and stated in various older Jewish & regular encyclopedias but largely ommited in recent versions. Remind folks!

  36. Thanks for all the replies to my first outing at OD. I’m flattered to be accepted and enjoyed by the readership and hope some of my experience might help in a small way.

    If I might address a few points, indirectly for clarification, I’ll try to be short considering the subject matter.

    Joe of the Mountain is a nickname given me by classmates that stuck: I frequently climbed Mount Nittany and urged my classmates to join me. Usually, it was actually sung to the tune, “George of the Jungle” which was in theatres at the time.

    Some years ago, I published an off-campus student paper in which I and my staff were continuously and relentlessly smeared by the campus and town dailies. We weren’t even ideological – just “normal” but we unwisely investigated the womens’ studies departments. At one point, a pile of our papers were burned on the lawn of our advisor, a prominent attorney and member of the board of trustees. Careers, lives and health were ruined for too many of us. I myself never recovered good health and most of us were denied career advancement from that point forward whether by punitive grades, denial of graduate admission, false criminal charges (which had to be refuted) or mere libel of reputation. Needless to say the GOP was nowhere to be found but the pro-lifer’s defended us without hesitation.

    Thus is the wages of candor, so to speak.

    “Politically correct” as a concept: the earliest published example I know is in “What Is to Be Done?” although the exact phrasing varies with the translation. Of course, that’s hardly definitive, just what I’ve noticed.

    Outing oneself at work: I would be fired instantly were I to publish these ideas under my true name. This does not mean I do not advocate or express them in the office – in fact I’ve rarely received push back from colleagues or clients when I broach the subject, except in as much as their own observations and means to solve the same problems differ from my own! In other words, a surprising number of my fellows agree and feel the same way. Many times, they only need encouragement (“more-heart-edness”) to speak out. However, at the corporate level, there is zero-tolerance even though this company itself manages EEOC diktats in very creative ways such as hiring blue-eyed Whites from Latin America to meet AA quotas.

    The old books — the Western Canon — are indispensable. Many years ago I started an heirloom library based on the Easton Press catalogue. Twenty years and $20,000 later I know my sons (and I hope their children) will have tangible proof of their heritage despite the censor’s scissors or the lies of the Internet.

    Genesis does in fact contain two stories of Creation; Noah did not speak scientifically when describing the Deluge and those that try to make the Good Book into a technical manual do a grave disservice to the rest of us.

    Anyway, thank you for the warm welcome. I hope other of my scribblings might be fit for presentation here in the future.

    Joe of the Mountain

  37. Actually Genesis has only ONE Creation Story about THIS Earth, although it very very briefly mentions the creation AND DESTRUCTION of a pervious “Earth” [a firm place] in Gen 1:1-1:2… alluding to a First Earth world totally destroyed – thus not the one in which some men and birds survived at Noah’s time, much later, in this Earth, which story is obscurely mentioned more in Jer 4:22-28 (which commercial “churching” groups always ignore or wrongly and illogically say refers back to Noah’s time.)

    The first Chapter of Genesis very brifly describes the vast time (divided into six creative pulses or YOWM “days” of vast time to conform with science real-time chronology) in which Earth and all living things were created (in many steps that geoscience now investigates with precision that ancinets totally lacked, hence they accepted wrong myths and traditions – WE MUST BE WISER NOW!)

    The six “day” YOWM period ends with creation of pre-Adam human forms, and then (last creativity) Adam himself (Gen 1:26) actually the only one made in the IMAGE of God. (Hence his offspring are ones “CALLED,” ones predestined and born conformed in the IMAGE of the SON, being his other BROTHERS, in Romans 8:28-29, since we form the “gods” addressed in Ps 82 – but we must die, due to sin, until that status is reveresed via our perfected BROTHER who never sinned and dies to pay the price of the sin of his kinfolks – see such redemption in Bible Law in Lev 25)

    The six “day” YOWM period creation synopsis ends with the end of Genesis Chapter One, and then more detail is given in Chapoter Two onward about this special Adam and creation of his Adamic wife, and their Adamic child Abel (and later Seth), and so on. The story of Adam fills the rest of Genesis – with very brief mention of others such as Satan and his offspring (the first prophecy in Gen 3:15) and comments on non-Adamite “living” CHAY creatures (including pre-Adamic humans geoscience has discovered), and the family of Cain (who is never listed in offspring of Adam who had offspring, and who is NOT called an “Adam” = man in Gen 4:1, but an IYSH from a word for a mortal entitiry ENOSH…. study original words using Strong’s Concordance and KJV Bible keyed to it.)

    So there is one creation story of this Earth, and it is told mostly in three parts: Genesis Ch. One summarizes the vast time of creation up to & including creation of Adam; Genesis Chap 2-9 tells more about Adam and early Adamites up to the events of Noah’s Deluge in a local but large region (since geoscience sees no evidence of a simultaneous worldwide flood only a few thousand years ago and some ancient groups survuved uninterrupted in far flung locations!); and further data on the “trees” in Eden is given obscurely in Ezekiel 31:1-9. These were acceptable Adamic lineage persons for mating with Adamic offspring! (clearly God chose a few of the most advanced pre-Adamites, ones appearing like Adams, and placed them in Eden as a small selected breeding group for Adam who got God’s perfected genese and image.

    It is how a new “species” is created!! You have a few selected proto-New forms mating with the New Pair in a seculded area. They generate a population of the New Ones. Later the New Group meets and competes with others out in the wider world. This is Bible and Science!

    And we’re now in a vast “rest” time and God is no longer creatingw species! For 150 years scientists have looked for evolution of one species into another at the present time. THEY HAVE NOT FOUND IT, contrary to expectation if it’s a random godless thing. (Scientsts have been looking for 150 years since “The Origin of Species by Natural Selection; or Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life” first appeared. Darwin did not know what was inside the “black box” of genes, an unknown topic, so he just assumed it was all natural and godless. Clearly the creation of new species does require DESIGN input, and for now God is not making more designed species! He is showing us a huge sign that he exists, but of course most folks cannot decipher what is happening!

    Clearly many very different new life forms (species and even greater divisions) had come into existence. But right now we do not see that happening. WHY? (I know of no atheist scientist who has a good answer.)

Comments are closed.