Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Reply to H.S.

Posted by Bob on August 28th, 2005 under Comment Responses


H.S. disagrees with evolution.

Suits me. The last thing I want is a bunch of commenters who agree with me on everything.

But, as you will see, what bothered me was not the disagreement, but something far more critical.

She misused the term “politically correct.”

Deal with the POINT. But NEVER use “politically correct” as a throwaway expression.

In this war, that is a terrible misstep. And this IS a war.

Misusing that word is more important than anything relating to evolution. It aids the enemy enormously.

Here is the exchange: HS begins by quoting me:

Whales are the only animal for which we have a complete fossil record of its evolution from one species to another.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/redesign.shtml
Whales were originally a furry hooved carnivore, no more at home in the water than a tiger. But the shoreline is where the food is. While all other hooved carnivores died out this one apparently ate fish that washedup, then began to go after them in the water.

HS REPLIES:

If adherents to the alternate religion of PC need for whales to have been furry hooved carnivores, you will have a thousand professors line up and swear that they did.

There is less than no scientific fact to back up the article and statements above.

Here is my reply. Bob’s Blog is not a gentle place:

Why does PC need evolution?

Evolution is the antithesis of equality and universality.

I am genuinely interested in your answer to this, since it fits into the kind of thinking I am trying to inculcate.

Evolution is a bone of contention between atheistic forms of wordism and Christian forms of wordism. Karl Marx hated religion so he tried to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, and Darwin refused. Marx felt he had an ally against wordist Christianity, which is based on the Old Testament.

But in terms of Bob’s Blog, a fight between two forms of wordism is not important.

Professors rue the day they ever coined the term “political correctness.” It gave a name to their whole campaign of terrorizing everybody who used the wrong words.

Since then they have backpedaled desperately. They say the term political correctness was just a joke. They use it on talk shows to mean saying the right things about religion.

Anything to divert people from the real and limited meaning of the term political correctness. For once their ploys have NOT worked. For once the public knows exactly what the term political correctness means and it is the only word to describe this phenomenon.

Conservatives who use political correctness for anything they don’t approve of help the professors enormously.

If evolution is necessary to political correctness I would certainly agree that a thousand professors would line up to support it before midnight tonight. But I have NEVER heard evolution mentioned as a motivation for ANY human action in ANY social science class. Social science, political correctness, avoids any discussion of heredity whatsoever.

I repeat, what is it about evolution that is politically correct?

Professors hate Old Testament wordism, so they use evolution against it. But that is a battle between two forms of wordism.

When it comes to environment versus heredity, professors avoid evolution like the plague.

And I repeat, if you expand the term politically correct to include anything you do not agree with, you are aiding the enemy.

You may be right on your opinions and facts. But NEVER aid the enemy by your terminology.

Please note that everything I have said here has to do with political strategy, not evolution.

Words are our weapon here. Don’t use them against our own side.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Peter on 08/28/2005 - 8:25 pm

    I hope HS understands that you paid her an enormous compliment by spending so much of your blog addressing her exception to one entry.

  2. #2 by Bob on 08/28/2005 - 8:41 pm

    Peter, you cannot imagine how much I appreciate that statement.

    You are dead right.

    I don’t contradict people who can’t take it. I don’t waste my time on someone I don’t respect.

  3. #3 by Bob on 08/28/2005 - 9:11 pm

    Peter, point 2, that I don’t argue with people I don’t respect should read, “IN BOB’S BLOG I don’t argue with people I don’t respect.”

    Out in the political world I spent most of my time arguing with people who, in my opinion, made whale doo look like it was sitting on the top of Mount Everest.

    That was no fun. So now I only hit back at someone who is worthy of it.

  4. #4 by Mike on 08/28/2005 - 10:13 pm

    I see you’re blaming American idiocy on Europeans again:

    http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5869

    Try to remember, Europeans, under German leadership, had the Judeo-bolshevik problem licked until the brilliant Americans jumped in to save Uncle Joe. The speech codes that exist in Europe today are the result of AMERICAN IDIOCY!!! 1945, remembah??? At least Europeans put up a fight. Americans surrendered their sovereignty – and still don’t even know it!

    Now, WHO thinks more like Ted Kennedy?

  5. #5 by H.S. on 08/29/2005 - 3:47 am

    Peter, Yes I understand. I have always been treated with respect here, and his unusually patient “logic” statements are the process of working out the bottom line of the PC debate that many miss – I understand even that.

    I disagree and can demonstrate what I see as flawed logic of what is thesis, what is anti-thesis which are mislabeled. He starts with a truth/non-truth synthesis and therefore cannot arrive at truth. My arena of science is Biology with emphasis on genetics and pre-med – the basics.

    Some serious things have happened in my life this weekend… and I am more than grieved that I will not have the time or heart to be addressing what is so deadly important.

    Yes, Bob, I see more than a TINY bit of compliment in that statement.

You must be logged in to post a comment.