Archive for December 6th, 2005
The rest of what Anonymous wrote about my calling nonproliferation colonialism:
“Nonproliferation is a war against nationalism, not against non-whites. If France were to elect a nationalist government there would be a Zionist-funded, Ukraine-style “popular revolution” within weeks, “former white colonial power” notwithstanding.”
“And just imagine what would happen if Germany started making noises about acquiring an independent nuclear deterrent! There would be a geopolitical earthquake.”
The first paragraph makes sense. I will not insult your intelligence by telling you why a Germany that would explode a test A-Bomb would be a special case.
I think you have to much either/or in the first paragraph. You are stating flatly that the fact that countries banned from nukes being non-white has NOTHING to do with it.
As for your general proposition, we are going to have a test of that before too long. With a ovting bloc the size ofthe Arabs and growing, the Zionists are going to face a hardcore anti-Zionist French government within a decade or two.
I doubt seriously whether the Zionists care whether it calls itself nationalist or not.
My ending line on the mob-connected big man in Holywood who threatened the Producers of “Back to the Future” into taking the same pay for the sequel to that smash hit was, “You won’t see any columnists discussing THAT.”
Anonymous pointed out that there is a BOOk about how the Jewish mob runs Hollywood. I do appreciate his pointing that out. I would much rather be corrected by my friends in here than by my enemies out there.
But nobody really ENJOYS being wrong.
I wonder how much coverage that book got? Could a non-Jew be allowed to write to write it?
But this is quibbling. I am astonished and pleased that such a book could still be published in America. I do not believe anyone, Jew or non-Jew, could have written that in Europe without facing a prison sentence.
So thanks, Anonymous (He said through grinding teeth.)
In reply to my article saying proliferation means colonialism, Anonymous says:
“Is the agenda to get rid of white people, or is it to make sure that only white people have the Bomb? It can’t be both, Bob.”
Anonymous, despite your politics you are thinking like a John Bircher. You imagine some giant, centrally orchestrated, consistent Plot.
I am talking about the real world and what people are really thinking. Your clocklike precision simply doesn’t work here.
Look at my other article about pilots in Africa. Your logic would say, “They can’t be for a black government and not be for black pilots.”
The only problem with your theory is the Bob Problem:
It doesn’t WORK.
They DO prefer white pilots. They DO prefer black governments. Maybe not hte black government they HAVE, but black governments.
Your logic breaks down in analyzing real people’s real motivations. The same pro-Israeli Jew whose dream is a world without white gentiles is fanatically against non-whites having the bomb.
Not only are you wrong that it can’t happen, as your logic breaks down in the case of black pilots, the fact is you are surrounded by people who think BOTH things.
And not one of them knows he has this doublethink in his mind.
Doublethink in politics is routine. Logicking out what people SHOULD think just won’t cut it.
This leads us to vital point: blind hatred is suicidal. The blind hatred of white gentiles which most Jews mistake for “righteous resentment” is actually hate.
For whites to desire the end of the white race is the natural result of the kind of worship of sterility that Christianity adopted from the Manichaeans. What would be more natural than that a race which believed sterility is the highest good would adopt the attitude that its own end is the ultimate goal a true Christian should seek?
To pursue this goal, they have to insist that a world without any whites would be just as good as a world without them.
But Mark Twain defined “faith” as “Believing what you know ain’t so.” This is a wonderful illustration of what he meant.
Everybody wants to have faith in the equality of all races and to view the end of hte white race as a great, world-saving sacrifice. But that’s for our great-great-grandchildren.
But when you talk about NUKES you talk about NOW. You are not dealing with far-off future date when Mamma PC will make everything nice.
And, frankly, you are not talking about future generations any more. Youare talking about what will happen to somebody your idealistic neighbors CARE about.
So if youthink non-whites should have the Bomb people say, “Have you lost your friggin’ MIND? You think a bunch of brown Iranians and black Africans and Orientals should have the BOMB!?”
It’s more coded than that, of course, but that is what it means.
Anonymous, you seem to be unaware that all your liberal friends who glorify diversity all the time could buy a house very cheaply in a black or Hispanic neighborhood and enjoy not only a low price but all the joys of multiculturalism.
The real thing is ugly and nasty, but the faith of Poltical Correctness will take of that.
You cannot be unaware that everybody around you agrees that former colonies should not have the Bomb. You cannot be unaware that they all agree that getting rid of the “race” problem, i.e., getting rid of whites, is the ultimate goal.
So why on earth did you pose such a sillly proposition?
You’re smarter than that.
When I rent a DVD I watch the movie first, and then I watch it with the commentary.
Almost every one of them contains attacks on Poltical Correctness from the most politically correct place on earth.
I was listening to the commentary on “Back the Future II” and I heard a war story that was as good as any I went ten thousand miles to get.
Two of the producers of “Back to the Future” were talking about the film. One of them said that the two of them and the other producer had asked for an increase in salary for the sequel, since everybody else had gotten a raise.
When a movie is a huge hit, like “Back to the Future I” had been, everybody routinely gets a big increase for making the sequel. So since everybody else from stars to Best Boy got an increase for BFII, they demanded an increase or they wouldn’t do the sequel.
One of the commenters said that the third producer got a call from a big shot in the studio who seldom called anybody. He had thorouhgly Jewish name and the one thing everybody knew about him was that he had mob connections, close ones.
This producer said, on the disc which is available everywhere, that when the other producer came back from talking to this mob-connected studio big shot he was white as a sheet and shaking.
“So,” the producers tells the public at large, “We settled for the same amount we got for Back to the Future I.”
That’s the way it works in Hollywood.
Then they went on to the rest of the comments.
Don’t look for THAT to be talked about by any columnist.
When I first got to Africa, there was a surplus of pilots in the world. So many had been trained in recent wars that many had to go to obscure African countries to get jobs.
At the same time a lot of people began to ask why, since there had been black rulers in those countries for years, there were no black PILOTS there?
I had many a drink with the white pilots down there, and they were not the only ones who explained to me why they didn’t have black pilots down there.
They tried to introduce black pilots slowly. They would put an African co-pilot in the cockpit with a white pilot.
And the passengers would walk off the plane.
It was never the WHITE passengers who got off the plane. They were familiar with the concept of pilot and co-pilot, and they knew that African planes involved a certain risk anyway.
The media never reports a plane crashing out in the African bush-country.
No, it was the BLACKS who got off the plane. They were not about to go into the sky with a black man flying the plane.
I STILL have never seen a black man in the cockpit, but it has been a long time since I was out in the bush.
I remember when the political left wanted every non-white country to have all the rights and sovereignty every white country had. It was a major rallying cry.
Now Iran might bomb Israel. Suddenly these “irresponsible countries,” all of them them brown or Oriental, must be kept from getting their hands on nuclear weapons.
No one worries about Britain having nukes. France is welcome to them. Israel is more than welcome to them.
In fact I cannot think of one single white former colonial power that would cause a world panic if they had had nukes for years.
Including Denmark and Belgium.
Now let’s take a look at the country this “stopping nuclear proliferation” is aimed at.
There’s North Korea, China, Iran, and the general phrase “any petty little tyrant or third-world terrorist.”
Surely they mean, say, the Prime Minister of Sweden?
What do all of these “terrorists and tyrants” have in common?
Come now, we have all been trained, at considerable public expense, in our established religion of Political Correctness.
If someone says that only whites should have something and non-whites can’t be trusted with it, what is he?
He’s anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews, of course.
Except when it comes to “nuclear proliferation.”
If you hire half as many non-whites as whites, that’s discrimination.
But when you just can’t think of any non-white countries that should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, what’s that?
Now I am against nuclear peroliferation, but that is because I have always said that dark-skinned countries cannot be trusted with power the way white countries can.
But I am as used to being called a racist, a bigot, a reactionary, and anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews as Dr. Duke is to being referred to as “Former Klansman David Duke.”
He says he’s beginning to think that’s his full name.
But nonproliferation is the battle-cry of everybody who calls me anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
You knowwho I’m talknig about: The ones who used to say that non-whites should have all the power and sovereignty whites do. The ones who attacked anyone who said they weren’t ready to assume that responsibility.
Especially the Zionists.
So all the countries World Opinion called imperialists have a right to nukes, but their former colonies do not.
But THAT’S not colonialism, is it?
One of the things we worked out in the blog did what a really good exchane does. It started in one place and ended up in a much more productive one.
It started with the fact that, while the whole mephasis in America is disestablishing any trace of the old established religion of the Bible, our entire Middle Eastern policy is based on that same established religion.
The only reason anyone can say that what we call “The Jews” have any claim to Israel is the idea that the Old Testament gives them the right to it.
So I pointed out that many of the things we try to shoehorn into the Old Testament are actually concepts that the Jews got from the Aryan Zoroastrians. They are not Semitic concepts, they are Aryan concepts that got back to us through the Jews’ close contact with the Persians, the only non-Jewish people praised in both Testaments.
But I didn’t really know where I was going with that, so commenters set me straight.
In the careful, diplomatic style readers use when dealing with Ole Bob, which I encourage, one commenter told me I was boring him sick. So it developed into something useful. He forced me to think about it before I doddered along.
One thing that came of it was a realization that all the obsession with avoiding sex and being sterile that is such an integral part of early Christianity cannot, with the most monomaniacal efforts of the most dedicated Old Testament fanatic, be shoehorned into the Old Testament.
“It is better to spill your seed into the belly of a whore than to cast it upon the ground.”
“Be fruitful and multiply.”
Those are inthe Old Testament. But not one word of St. Paul’s ideal of total chastity and nonreproduction is even HINTED at in the OT.
But early Christianity is a solid mass of people deciding to remain sterile for the rest of their lives for God’s sake.
The subtext of every Christian denomination I know is that Jesus, a man, never had a sexual desire in his life. The popes, who claim to be direct descendants of Peter, are required to avoid marriage.
Peter was married.
Jesus never condemned sex. He blessed the Marriage at Cana. Why should he bless something he wanted people to avoid?
So where did this whole obsession, which is still strong today and has done so much damage to our gene pool, COME from?
It could only have come from the vastly powerful relgiion of Zoroastrianism, the established faith of Persia, which was eighteen hundred years old when Persia was conquered by Islam.
Just as Modern Christianity has degenerated into self-hatred after two millennia, just as modern Judaism has degenerated into little except self-pity, Zoroastrianism in its last stages had degenerated into total self-destruction.
Zoroaster taught that Ahura-Mazda, which became the later Jewish concept of Jehovah, was the Lord of Good, the God of the Next World:
“My kingdom is not of this world.”
Ahriman, who became our Satan, was the Evil One and also he was The God of This World. And that was what wrecked it.
More and more, This World became altogether evil in the minds of Persians and of those who tok their ideas.
Persia was as big as Rome. It was the empire Rome could not defeat. Our history has totally forgotten how it was half of the known world in the time of Jesus and a thousand years before.
So the idea that this world was evil, and all reproduction, all things of the body, were evil, was pure Zoroastrianism. It is called Manichaeism. But Mani was in Iraq synthesizing Christianity and Zoroastrianism a century before Mohammed was born.
The hatred of self is a product, not of hte Old Testament, but of a degenerated form of an Aryan faith history has forgotten and tehology has worked at forgetting.
Right or wrong, that’s a hell of a concept.
I just discovered that I can’t find the old blogs.
All that work gone!
So please bear with me. I am going to have to repeat much of what I said before. Please bear with me on this.
Long-term readers will have seen much of what I must now write before. But new readers will have to be introduced to concepts you are very familar with.
Maybe I can give it some packaging that won’t make it too boring for you. It is a real pain to me.
But rewrites are usualy better anyway. The concepts I was painfully developing as we hashed them out here will be more complete. I hope the pain will less yours, from boredom, than mine, from the work involved.
But I put things here for you to read and pass on, and maybe even for people to read in the future. So I need what I have said before to be here.
I now have to find a way to KEEP what I write. I am making copies now and sending them to myself.
I just did domething very unusual. I deleted a comment from a commenter which met all my criteria:
1) It was on subject what I said and not a side argument between two commenters on something else;
2) It was written by the commenter himself, and not just a quote from somewhere else without a personal explanation of why it was there
3) It had no nasty language or insults to anybody but me — I’m fair game.
I can’t say I never will, but I have seldom if ever deleted a comment that meets those criteria.
This time I had to.
And there is a good piece of advice that goes along with my explanation of this.
When someone says they will not discuss something, especially a person with a background like mine, NEVER ask them to explain why.
First of all, no reasonably polite person is going to dismiss a subject unlike he simply wants to let it pass. So let it pass and don’t draw more attention to it.
More important, you hvae no idea why the person does not want to talk about it. It may be for a reason you have no idea about.
Most important, the explanation of WHY one does not want to talk about it usually requires mentioning the reason one does NOT want to talk about it.
I was on David Duke’s radion show, and I was astonished that David, of all people, would make this very mistake. He asked me what I had done in some blank years in my life. I told him vaguely that I had done some intelligence work.
I told him I wantged to be a little vague about that.
To my astonishment, David, on a live show, started pressing me on it.
What the HELL!?
This makes no sense at all and David, having dealt with so many touchy situations, should be the first one to know it.
This is not the same situation, but for heaven’s sake if someone who has led a touchy life says don’t go there then DON’T GO THERE.
And I am certainly no the only person you will ever meet with whom you DON’T GO THERE.
In fact, I doubt seriously there is anybody, even public figures, who simply don’t go there on certain things.
I ask for less privacy than almost anybody I know. But even I need SOME.