Monday, August 23, 2010

Spanking the Monkey: Nazi asslick farts back.

Tom Baugh's latest.

Bob Wright thinks that if this guy isn't a Fibbie plant, he ought to be. I just think he's a Nazi asslick. Note in his latest screed how he pimps white supremacist James Edwards' book. Yep, a Nazi asslick in every sense.

A very good friend emailed me and said:

If I were ATF, I wouldn't mind seeing a full blown and continued war between you guys, with each new injury requiring hours to prepare a rebuttal, not to mention distracting the attention of a lot of people.

No doubt this is what Baugh has in mind. Leading to the question: just what master does he serve? I see he's not much into the Judeo-Christian ethic. OK, I won't make any more of this, nor will I try to answer his excremental bullet points one by one.

Just as long as people understand that Baugh is a shill for racist collectivists of white and black. Believe me, the enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend. That Baugh is trying to sell us differently tells us all I need to know. He's slick, I'll give him that. Slick like a copperhead. I should never have trusted him in the first place. He was recommended by a friend. He asked for help with SPLC, and I gave him my best advice. Stupid me. Never again.

Nazi asslick.

'Nuff said.



Concerned American said...


Are you saying the SSI readers who have read Baugh and gotten value from his work are Nazi sympathizers?

Are you also saying that anyone who recommends works by bad people is automatically a bad person?

As the chap who recommended the book to you (and still does recommend it to others), the emotional reaction inspired by Baugh is disappointing.

Name-calling is not persuasive.

As I have said to you previously:

My point in "Brouhaha" was to get folks (not you) looking at hard facts.

The good guys are deemed as utterly impotent by the Bad People.

Baugh, as an individual, doesn't really matter. His ideas do, at least some of them.

He is the only person I have read who speaks in detail of the central problem:

- The majority (> 150M, by my guess) of so-called "Americans" vehemently do not want the burdens of political liberty and individual freedom.

Some corollaries:

- That 150M+ mob will be used to tear apart and eat (literally, in some cases) the old-school minority known variously as Constitutionalists, individualists, et cetera.

- Neither that mob, their masters, nor their lackeys in press and politics fear the old-school minority.

- That absence of fear is because we of the despised minority have not given the looters and moochers any lesson at all, let alone a full-semester course, in Oderint dum metuant -- "Let them hate, so long as they fear".

- Given the above, personal secession (my phrase) and physical isolation from the coming madness is an approach that will buy not only survival, but time for additional skillset acquisition.

Anyone who disputes these assertions needs to explain the arc of the past 30 (100?) years.

The Baugh issue is tertiary to the ones above.

Most of the audience is not thinking anywhere near enough about these points, IMHO.

Reconsider this post, Mike. You are better than this.

Your friend and comrade,


Old Pablo said...

Man, don't beat yourself up. Keep writing your novel and rise above all this dirt.

Pat H. said...

CA, of course you've identified a problem with Mikes' diatribe.

I have Tom Baugh's book, money well spent from the ideas contained in it.

Those that think the Constitution can be "restored" are just plain wrong, or dumb as a bag of hammers. The Constitution was, itself, born of a statist conspiracy who wanted exactly what we have today.

Mike identifies many as "Nazi's" or FBI informfants, when he himself was an avowed communist at one point in his life.

Really, Mike, characterizing Tom Baugh, the League of the South, and any other group that knows the Constitution for what it is, as NAZI's, or worse is just a cover up for some kind of residual Marxism you yourself hold.

"Physician, heal thyself"!

Alvie D. Zane said...

+1 on CA.

You're better and bigger than this, my brother.

Anonymous said...

And Mike V. the supposed repentant Communist turned Christian patriot, shows his true colors?

What kind of Commie garbage did you try to talk Tom Baugh into doing anyway?

armed_and_christian said...

I think C.A. is right about the "central issue" & "corollaries," but you are also extremely correct that "the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend."

Justin said...

Tom Baugh said:

"As part of the first post, Mike Vanderboegh saw fit to publish a series of private emails between him and me from a few months ago. Interestingly, he chose to redact choice tidbits from his own emails, tidbits to which I was responding. Tidbits which paint things on an entirely different level. I am disappointed that he would publish private conversations, but I stand behind whatever I say in any forum (more later on that). I would like for Mike to consider publishing the rest of what he said to me, and let his readers judge for themselves. He might also want to explain whether he maintains his own private files of what others write to him, just in case he might need those later. "

True or untrue? There's more to integrity than shunning racists. If you're going to fling mud, either do it honestly or go pull up a chair next to Rachel Madcow.

Will you publish the rest? I don't personally care if you do, as this whole thing is rather old and NOT THE POINT, as CA points out.

I have, for one, gained much from Baugh's writings. Whether that makes me a Nazi in your eyes, well, I don't much care. He speaks/writes a lot of truth.

As I said to Mr Wright earlier high school level insults are rather disappointing.

This struggle is not a freaking high school game.


Anonymous said...

If you lay down with dogs you're going to get fleas. Period. If you associate yourself with flea wrangler's like Baugh then you and your movement will get fleas.

These are not hard concepts.

The point Mike is trying to make here is you associate yourself with tarbabies like Stormfront and Nation of Islam then you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be clean in the minds of the 97%. So it goes for those who associate with them.

Furthermore, CA, its not generally thought of as "name-calling" if its true. I thought Nazi ass lick was rather polite.

-Van in the Hinterland

Justin said...

I re-read the article you linked to.

I think you're blowing this up unecessarily. I really do. I think you are mirepresenting what his meaning is.

And I have a mea culpa as well. I DO agree with everything he says in that specific article.


Dutchman6 said...

To CA et al.

For all those who say I'm "better than this," you're wrong. I am demonstrating by my plain opinion exactly how MUCH better I am than Baugh and anybody else who wants to compromise their principles by sucking up to racial collectivists.

I'm not looking for disciples. You don't have to agree with me, and if you don't it doesn't mean I won't trust you to tie my flank to. It just means that I doubt your judgment on this issue.

Baugh, on the other hand, is a Nazi lick. He has demonstrated it plainly more than once now. Hell, as far as I know, the present public argument was his intention all along. Every time I've made plain my differences with him, he's sent me an email thanking me. So what he's really after is attention and selling books, not necessarily in that order.

If you don't like what I write, then don't read it.

But I am not going to change MY principles just because some folks feel needy for allies, ANY allies, even ones like Baugh & Co. who will later discredit you at the least and stab you in the back at the most.

And if you follow him down his merry path, that's what you'll get -- stabbed in the back.

Are we all clear on that?


Anonymous said...

Interestingly, MALTHUS claims that this dichotomy makes me a Marxist, and then proceeds to offer his own false choice: Constitution as-is, or anarchy.--TB

Of course I never made any such claim. I simply argued that the black/white dichotomy was illogical and contrived, all the while taking pains to ensure no one thought I was making a personal attack on Tom Baugh. Is it asking too much to expect him to return the courtesy?

As for the Articles of Confederation, they are preferable to a Hamiltonian interpretation of the US Constitution, a point I have held and enunciated for decades. Long-time readers of WRSA's "comments" can attest to my "one step backward, two steps forward" argument in this regard.

As for the strawman "Constitution as-is" argument, I am resolutely opposed to the direct election of US Senators and the imposition of a tax on income. The "takings clause" is of equally dubious merit.

Baugh may own the distinction of having been a Marine but he enjoys shooting in the dark too much to be a first-rate example of the breed.

This most recent attempt at rebuttal By Tom Baugh does little to relieve me of the suspicion that he is being disingenuous and contentious for no other purpose than to attract attention to his dreary little book.


GunRights4US said...

I'm glad I'm not a disciple looking for a leader.

Anonymous said...

The majority (> 150M, by my guess) of so-called "Americans" vehemently do not want the burdens of political liberty and individual freedom.--CA

There has never existed a majority who wanted the burden of liberty. It is the "small and persistent minority" to whom we owe our political progress.

Thanks for your many contributions toward this end.


WarriorClass said...

Right on, Mike!


Anonymous said...

I agree with the friend who commented on the BATF preference.

Both you and Baugh have thoughts worth listening to and the discord and name calling is disappointing....worse on your side than his.

I believe you would be wise to rethink your debating tactics, cause you sure got your clock cleaned in this one.

Dutchman6 said...

"I believe you would be wise to rethink your debating tactics, cause you sure got your clock cleaned in this one."

Believe what you want. I am not going to be reasonable about anybody sucking up to Nazis and Nation of Islam. I could give a shit less about debating the point. Some points are not debatable. Anybody who tells you taht it is is selling something -- likely collectivism. Haven't any of you people read The Turner Diaries all the way to the end?


Dutchman6 said...

"Are you saying the SSI readers who have read Baugh and gotten value from his work are Nazi sympathizers?"

That's bullshit Pete and you know it. I'm saying BAUGH is a Nazi symp who is taking the rest of you in with tactical discussions while selling you STRATEGIC DEFEAT. Hell, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Very efficient. So does that validate his collectivist philosophy?

Baugh's actions regarding Stormfront, the NOI and that racist puke Edwards ought to tell you SOMETHING.

Moe Death said...

I'm a disciple of only one: Jesus. MVB has been very helpful to me in many ways, and I believe his aim is true.

Remember, our only reward for arguments like these will be the laughter of our enemies.

By their stripes shall you know them.


Justin said...


"Why we will lose..."


Rollory said...

How is wishing to engage in freedom of association equivalent to collectivism?

Being a racist is an opinion, and having differing opinions was once allowed in this country, and considered to be something that the fabric of society could handle without recourse to law. You may disagree with it, but it's entirely permissible under the Constitution - even the post-1865 Constitution.

When you say you want to restore the Constitution, are there parts that get marked out with "but of course we don't mean all of it"?

Defender said...

About 20 years ago, I bought a copy of the Nation of Islam's tabloid newspaper The Final Call from a roadside vendor. I knew next to nothing about Islam or Black Muslims. I saw in there disgust with our government for going off the gold standard, and warnings about the biochip. I don't remember much else, but I've been looked at and spoken to as a white devil oppressor by people who've never met me, thanks to leader Louis Farrakhan (but also "Christian" minister Jeremiah Wright). Believe me, my family on both sides has been among the OPPRESSED, not the oppressors.
My opinion is that Mr. Baugh may have some good points about mutual resistance and not fearing anarchy -- which wouldn't be allowed to go very far -- but I doubt we'll ever unscramble THAT salmonella-tainted egg, plus I fear NoI would never set aside its melanin-based prejudices, any more than neo-Nazis and the KKK could. Or Jesse "Heimeytown" Jackson's so-called Rainbow Coalition or La Raza. The one-worlders are very good at getting everyone to blame everyone else.

Speaking of "divide and conquer":
Just saw this: The DEA is looking for a few good translators ... of EBONICS.

AP says: The Drug Enforcement Administration recently sent memos asking companies that provide translation services to help it find nine translators in the Southeast who are fluent in Ebonics, Special Agent Michael Sanders said Monday.

daniel said...


Where is evidence on Baugh's Naziism? You've made a charge in the post without laying out the basis of the charge.

Dan III said...

As I said elsewhere, I will not stand shoulder-to-shoulder with someone whose other shoulder is shoulder-to-shoulder with avowed racists and moslems.
They are the enemies of decent people and, even though he may have had a few good ideas, Baugh's thoughts on this must, necessarily, cause one to re-assess his judgment.

But I would suggest ignoring him, Dutchman. You have better things to do with your time, and you have a good message to spread.
If you think he's just trying to push his book, don't give him more PR. As I'm sure you know, even bad PR is PR, as the saying goes.

And there's another Dan III around here!
We must differentiate somehow, my friend!

Anonymous said...

Can I ask for a praxis post about fallacies? If we can't think straight we can't do much of anything else well.

MALTHUS writes: "There has never existed a majority who wanted the burden of liberty. It is the "small and persistent minority" to whom we owe our political progress."

You're right. That's why majority voting schemes never evolve towards liberty. A constitutional republic as envisioned by Jefferson is still a majority voting scheme, it just starts off farther back in the exponential growth curve of centralized power than a direct democracy. The articles of confederation starts off even further back. In computer science, the flaw in the Constitution whereby a successful small infringement opens a hole to try for a larger infringement is named "escalation of privileges".

Suppose that an escalation of privileges by government grows through these stages: theocratic New England settlements, articles of confederacy, Jeffersonian Republic, Lincoln's civil war, Federal reserve, great society, direct democracy, genocide of scapegoat.

Consider the trend at SSI. For a long time people wanted to get back to the Constitution. Now some people want to go back to the Articles, because the Constitution has flaws. But the Articles has flaws too, don't you want to start out at the pre-Articles? But the pre-Articles has flaws too, don't you want to start out at the pre-pre-Articles? Etc. The solution is NOT to start out at the pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-Articles; the solution is to reject the social arrangement which has the escalation of privilege flaw. Only when the exponent for growth is less than one will liberty triumph.

Reg T said...

Mike, I'll reiterate. "Nazi Asslick" and the rest of your diatribe simply demonstrates that you've lost it. If you cannot make your point, defend your ideas, with calm, reasoned speech - as you usually do - then you are proving that you don't have either the facts or the moral high ground.

Or are you being a bit of a collectivist yourself? Have you decided the rest of us are too dumb to judge whether or not Tom Baugh has anything of value to say? What is it about Tom that so threatens the likes of you and Bob Wright? If you are afraid of losing your following, be assured it will happen more quickly with name calling, derision and divisiveness.

Anonymous said...

One can always learn something, even from an enemy. Nazi is another word for socialist. They are and ever have been the enemy. Stalin called them fascists, because they were socialists who rejected soviet control, and that is the primary difference.

I will have nothing to do with them, any of them. I feel as comfortable around them as I do around the new black panther party. These are just things for the Marxists and Marxist media to play with, a weapon to use against non-Marxists.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for pointing this Baugh business out. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

What does everyone think of this? Not totally off topic. And I don't recall seeing it discussed here.