Archive for December 18th, 2005
Goethe’s Faust
While I am waiting for the input I asked you for, let me turn to a completely different subject.
We have heard of “Faust,” the story about the man who gave his soul for knowledge.
In the Medieval version of Faust, Faust was damned and bis body ripped to pieces. Richard Burton, who was a Welshman of the old sort, was obsessed with Hell, and he did a movie “Faust” with Elizabeth Taylor which was the Mediecval version where Faust is damned.
So when people say “Goethe’s Faust” they are really talking about something different. Goethe hated the old version of “Faust” and wrote his own which was such a succes that it was crammed down the throat of German schoolchildren to the point that Shakespeare used to be crammed down the throats of English schoolchilren.
We wish now that some of that cramming was still done, but in the 1950s and 1960s I tried to discuss Goethe’s Faust with Germans and they were too sick of it to talk about it.
In Goethe’s Faust, in total contrast to the Medieval version, Goethe’s soul is saved. The angles come down from heaven at the last minute and say, “Der der streben sich bemueht den koennen wir erlosen.”
Which means, “He who tries so hard to find what is true, he we can relieve of his sins.” And you can’t get more sinful than selling your soul to Satan for ANYTHING.
But by trying to find out what was true, Goethe made that absolute sin forgivable.
Jehavah would none of that. Goethe was going back to Wodenism. Woden hung on the World Tree, Ygsradil, to know a few more FACTS. He lost an eye for a bit more knowledge, not more Wisdom.
That concept is incomprehensible to anybody but an Aryan. Everybody elase assumes that gods know EVERYTHING already. They assume a despot is absolute.
In the Old Testament, man was kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating of the fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil so “He could be like the gods.
Lucifer means “the giver of light.” To us that seems like a compliment. In fact, the hero of ancient Greek literature was the god Prometheus, who gave man the secret of making fire, which the gods wanted to keep for themselves. He was the giver of light, too.
But Prometheus was damned. He was forever condemned to be chained down and have birds tear at his insides for his sin against the gods.
The Giver of Light was always damned in every faith but Wodenism.
Goethe was a part of the Romantic Era. He wanted to go back to the Old Gods.
He saw Faust’s pursuit of knowledge as a good thing for which Faust should not be damned.
But like everybody in the Romantic Era, he screwed it up. Goethe had Faust pursuing, not knowledge, but his True Love.
Wagner did the same thing. he had a great opera about Woden, but he screwed it up by saying that Woden gave an eye for his True Love, the Goddess Freya, not for simple knowledge.
The trouble with Romantics is that they are so damned romantic.
The word “Romantic,” of course, means “Latin.” The Germanic Romantics like Faust and Wagner got mixed up with their devotion to the French troubador’s idea of True Love and their wanting to get back to the ideas of their own Old Religion.
If they hadn’t got those things mixed up, they would have been forgotten. People are much more interested in True Love than in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.
So Goethe’s Faust was good public relations but it screwed the point up a lot.
None of which surprises any of us who live in the modern day.
Another Important Consideration in Making Our Points
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 12/18/2005
A buddy of mine used to like to say, “I know I’m not an alcoholic because I am very disciplined in my drinking.”
“I only drink when I’m alone or with somebody.”
That is not very good advice on drinking, but it’s a very important consideration when you are making a point in revolutionary politics.
Most of my discussions with someone on the other side come up in public. It could be at a college cofffee-shop or in debate.
In a debate, there is no mercy. You are not there to convince your opponent, you are there to make everyone else in teh room happy THEY didn’t take the position your opponent did.
And since the position he is taking is exactly the one they WOULD have taken, you get your points across to a roomful of people.
The rules at a coffee table are a little more gentle, but not much. The listeners leave the table with the knowledge that the points they thought were just humanity and reason when they sat down are unspeakably absurd and a breach of the most elementary kind of loyalty.
But Mark has a point. You don’t want to alienate everybody, and in discussion with a single person you should be less outraged.
Rather than saying it the way I did, maybe Peter should have repeated Bob’s Mantra:
“Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours in EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries. ”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries.”
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem.” I obviously am advocating the final solution to the BLACK problem.”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”
***Now let me use Mark’s advice and chance the last sentence. I STILL think this advice is only good in dealing with a SINGLE PERSON. I WANT the listeners to see the person who called me a Nazi in an impossible position.***
***But this is not Bob’s Wordism, this is Bob’s Blog. If another approach WORKS, let’s grab it.***
***Here is my new proposed last sentence for a single person exchange:***
“But if I say that, I’m a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. Is it fair to say that any white man who says what I just said is a Nazi?”
“Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.”
I need INPUT on this!
Mark
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 12/18/2005
In response to my “Belated Reply to Peter,” Mark says,
“Bob, being in sales for 20+ years I have found that posing a statement in the form of a question makes a point go over easier than just blurting out a fact or opinion. If you make a statement YOU are making the statement, whereas if you ask a question, the answer is being made by the OTHER PERSON and that makes it HIS statment, not yours.”
“For example, I could make the statment, “Black inner city neighborhoods are unsafe for white people to be in,” and the person I’m talking to says to himself, “Now that was a racist statement”. Off he goes without even thinking about what I’ve just said. ”
“Whereas if I pose it as a question, “Have you ever wondered why, when you and your wife and kids are driving thru a black neighborhood and you see black guys selling drugs or walking around drinking beer and acting half out of their mind, you instinctively fear for you and your family’s safety? But when you drive thru a white neighborhood — even a POOR white neighborhood, you don’t fear for your family’s safety? I wonder why do you think that is?”
“The person can still say, “Now that was a racist statement — but in his mind, since you’ve posed a question rather than a statment and have painted a series of word pictures, he has to answer it on some level, verbally or not. ”
Well, Mark, nobody ever declared me infallible, least of all me.
We need a team effort here.
This is not sales, this is revolutionary politics. Your socratic advice would be good even in regular politics, but this is not regular politics. Nonetheless, yours is advice that WORKS.
That has to be useful be useful to us or we are runningalong on some kind of Wordist Bobism.
The big difference is that in sales or regular politics you have to aim at making your prospect like you.
IN MY OPINION we must aim a lot more at shock value. We should let someone know KNOW that accusing you of mass murder is not something you will tamely put up with the way The Greatest Generation so bravely did.
You cannot put MY race is the form of a question. Then you’re back to the rabbit-like theoretical discussion of THE white race while every non-white would be considered nuts if he took this genocide the way we do.
The man Peter talked to sent him a nice note. Did Peter make his point?
Maybe not completely, but he has another chance. Maybe I wouldn’t.
Would my attack have alienated the man so much that Peter would never have a chance a chance to make the same points more gently?
These are questions Peter will have to answer for himself.
We have here a professional salesman, a political pro, and Peter, who is out there DOING what we theorizing about.
“One experiment is worth a hundred Expert Opinions.”
What we probably need is try more of your approach in some cases, but we must ALWAYS realize that our goal is to get across the few simple truths that I have spent decades hammering out.
Peter, we need you to get in here again.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for Sunday, December 18th, 2005
Bob’s Books
Bob's first book - 1976
A Plague On Both Your HousesBob's second book - 1982
THE NEW RIGHT PAPERSBob's deadliest book - 2004
Why Johnny Can't Think:
America's Professor-PriesthoodWhy Johnny Can't Think ebook zip
pwrd: Phu=9Ad5
WOW!
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 12/18/2005
I just got this little note:
“This is a very interesting line of topic, how to communicate effectively. As a Film Industry professional in Hollywood for over 8 years who has worked on many major feature films I can tell you about how the Jews of Hollywood devise, craft and market their Anti-White products.”
“Hollywood really is an entire Dialogue. A sentence is begun in one film and ended in the another. So you have two major questions, each being indirectly answered. It’s takes incredible security to make sure this can be pulled off, you have to own the methods of production, the cameras, the sets and even the actors so you don’t loose your investment in these Broken Dialogue Propagandas I call them.”
“I’ll contribute more if I see this helps ouf WhitakerOnline.org.”
“Thank you for your time.”
“From inside the corrupt Jew film industry called Hollywood.”
“A White Nationalist in the system. ”
Comment by Film Industry professional
You say, “A sentence is begun in one film and ended in the another. So you have two major questions, each being indirectly answered. It’s takes incredible security to make sure this can be pulled off, you have to own the methods of production, the cameras, the sets and even the actors so you don’t lose your investment in these Broken Dialogue Propagandas I call them.”
I can’t figure out what you mean by that.
Please explain it as unto a child.
And this doesn’t get anybody else off the hook in providing me input.
Film Industry professional wouldn’t be saying this if he hadn’t already read what I said about letting professional credentials scare you off.
INPUT, dammit!
2 Comments