Archive for December, 2005
About the fact that nobody declares war any more, CL says,
“Since this is a seminar, I’ll unashamedly add some other thoughts on this topic:”
“All of these banana republics (from Korea to Iraq) that we’ve attacked–but haven’t “declared war” on–have had -0- capability of performing a real military operation in the United States. Is it possible a “declaration of war” would only be considered for an “equal?” Bullies don’t usually make a big deal of beating-up a pipsqueak.”
“To follow the question of what constitutes a “real military operation” in the nuclear age would take the discussion way off course.”
“But maybe that’s another reason “declarations of war” aren’t used anymore: Did the end of the “conventional warfare” era make such declarations obsolete?”
“And we haven’t established what the actual purposes of such declarations were–other than as matters of convention, I mean. Did they have a purpose other than pomp and circumstance? If not, wouldn’t today’s omnipresent media be more effective rousing for war than a carnival barker type declaration to be reprinted next week on the front page of the county newspaper? Maybe it’s not the new military age, but the new propaganda age, that has made declarations of war superfluous.”
Comment by CL — 12/22/
CL, as to your first sentence, I like to think I have bravely led the way.
If somebody has the guts to hand out the BS I so often write with complete shamelessness, you have complete license, too.
You have hit on oint I mentioned but never thought of. I wrote a piece below about how at least part of the rationale for “nonproliferation (Anonymous some points about that)” is that we take it for granted that former colonial powers can handle nukes but their former colonies can’t.
I agree with that, but all the people who are against proliferation now called my attitudes evil and racist.
You started by referring to the countries we are fighting in a banana republics and you also said, with perfect legtimacy, that we don’t declare war on such people. You said, “Is it possible a “declaration of war” would only be considered for an “equal?” Bullies don’t usually make a big deal of beating-up a pipsqueak.”
That is very much the attitude everyone takes for granted. The United States of America does not declare war on pipsqueaks, any more than General Lee would have dueled with a hunk of white trash.
Lurking behind this is an attitude. And it is not YOUR attitude, it is one you have pointed to.
Yes, a declaration of war would imply an equality we do not even consider granting.
But I repeat, if the Gospel we preach that every country is equal and sovereign, why do we NOT declare them EQUAL?
Let me repeat this for Anonymous’s benefit. If you hire less than the required number of minorities, it is assumed that racism is at least ONE of your motivations.
But if no non-white country should have nukes, if all those fully sovereign little countries ar enot worth a declaration of war because it implies equality, no one assumes that any part of the motivation is racist.
Not a bit of it.
As to the PURPOSE of a declaration of war, we have had a demonstration of how practical a matter that is at Gitmo.
Many, many things used to change the moment war was declared.
But your last sentence has made me think of what might be the clincher.
In Vietnam only the poor people who couldn’t dodge the draft in college were sent out to die. In a state of war, Jane Fonda and all the college protestors would have been subject to charges of collaboration.
To put it simply, once war is declared it directly affects EVERYBODY. In Korea and Vietnam and Iraq we could do anything we wanted to with the grunts, but the media and everybody who counted were left out of it.
Could it be that a major explanation of the absence of war declarations results from class distinctions among those who declare they are against all class distinctions and racism among those who denounce racism?
CL, you sure helped me get some thinking done.
That’s the worst advice in the world.
My doctor brother used to make a comment every time he watched Jack Webb’s 1970s TV show about emergency medics. In the middle of a desperate situation, they didn’t go charging in rubbing the plates together and shouting “Clear!” They first talked to the people there and found out exactly what was going on.
My brother has been handling life-and-death emergencies for fifty years now.
He didn’t like the intro to the Ben Casey, MD show that started with the emergency room doors slamming open and a patient being rolled in with a doctor sitting on his chest slamming away at it.
But when he saw Jack Webb’s shows, he would say, “That’s the way a real emergency is handled. You find out what is going on.”
The first thing you learn in a CPR course, STEP ONE, is to look around and find out why the person is lying there with his heart stopped.
If he is lying on a live power line, it won’t do him a hell of a lot of good if you start CPR and end up lying on the ground with YOUR heart stopped.
This same advice is critical in politics. What happened after September 11, 2001 was exactly what I predicted on September 12, 2001.
My brother knows about emergencies because he’s been in the game a long, long time. I know about politics for exactly the same reason.
It didn’t take America long to smash Al-Queda-ruled Afghanistan. Then the Bush Administration had to do something else. All America was outraged at the out-of-control Arabs who had turned to terrorism.
So they had to “Do SOMETHING!”
Well, Saddam was a definite stereotype of everything Americans were up in arms about.
There were two choices, 1) we could do what Bush, Senior did and get out or 2) We could “Do SOMETHING!”
I will never forgive Bush, Senior for his betrayal of the Shiites and the kurds. But selling people out is what moderate Republicanism is all about.
Bush should have pulled out without betraying anybody. But I have been telling moderates that for fifty years.
Now let’s forget all those dying and tortured people and turn to the POLITICAL choices Bush, Junior faced once Afghanistan was taken over in a month or two.
Bush Junior was at the same 90% popularity rating his father had been at after the previous Iraq War. His father lost reelection.
Someone restated Lincoln’s saying this way, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. But if you can do it once it lasts four years.”
Bush followed the national demand that he “Do SOMETHING!” and it lasted long enough to get him reelected.
Of course it didn’t hurt him that the Democrats nominated ANOTHER Massachusetts liberal to run against him, but everybody screaming “Do SOMETHING!” was his real ticket to four more years.
Sorry, gang. It’s not just the Jews or the neocons.
A democracy is a system where people get what they DESERVE.
And anybody who shouts “Do SOMETHING!” is asking for death.
The people asked for it, and the neocons gave it to them.
IN MY OPINION, that invaluable praise my best readers keep repeating, the worst thing that has happened to the Bush war machine to date has been the capture of Saddam.
He is no longer a looming presence, hidden in the vast reaches of terrorism. He was found to be a terrified, gaunt-looking ghost of his former self, as all bullies tend to be once they lost their power.
The one huge thing the Bush Adminstration had in pushing the Iraq War was The Face to Hate, a haughty, obviously mentally unbalanced man who was seen as part of the conspiracy that brought down the Trade Center.
Right now the WORST thing that could happen to the neocons and their little boy Bush would be the capture of Osama Ben Laden.
If the Bush Administration didn’t know that before they know it now that Saddam is in jail.
If I know anything about politics and the (giggle) intelligence community, nobody is really going after Bin Laden. Hand some mercs a few million up front and a real bundle when he is captured and you’d have him in a couple of weeks.
“I had another thought. This is a little unrelated to the post, but wanted to share it anyway.”
“The message we are attempting to spread is ‘wordism’ to someone else i.e. blacks or jews. Just like all politics can be reduced to one amobea trying to be the top one, all races are trying to assert themselves as the head honcho. But it seems that only one race is the subject of EVERYBODYS anguish.”
“Ours was the one that produced the most. That established the best. That conquered virtually all. So it seems to me that we should be prominent as we have done so much already.
“So then, IN MY OPINION, you have to believe that what you want for your own people is right and the only truth their is. It requires faith. ”
“Faith seems hard to come by in the world of politics. ”
You ARE young, aren’t you?
Here is the thinking you led me into:
The problem whites really face is exactly the one Jews CLAIM they face. Jews will tell you that the reason everyone hates them is because of their virtues.
They say they are hated because everyody feels inferior to them.
When Kissinger said, “Any people that has been persecuted for two thousand years is doing something WRONG” he violated the fundamental doctrine of self-pity which is all that is left of modern Jewish religion.
Judaism has degenerated into self-pity. Christianity has degenerated into self -hatred.
Jews desperately need self-ctriticism. White gentiles desperately need to stop hating themselves.
This is not brain surgery. A people that has been given a license to pity themselves to the point any rational person would laugh at them is going to go overboard.
That is license Jews got in 1945. From the same source and the same time, white gentiles were given orders to blame everything on themselves. Naturally, just as the Jews did, they turned it into a sickness.
This leads me directly back to your comments:
“So then, IN MY OPINION, you have to believe that what you want for your own people is right and the only truth their is. It requires faith. ”
Yes, you could call it faith. But it might be easier to explain it this way:
The only race that is not absolutely convinced of white supremacy is the white race. If Derek had the same mind-set as any black or Chinese, it would never even occur to him that it should occur to him that whites are superior.
Let me illustrate this with a typical Whitaker point, meaning a point that is so obvious no one even considers it. It is this:
“How often do Orientals or blacks think of each other?”
You can read an entire issue of Black News or a Chinese newspaper and never see a word written by blacks about Orientals or a word written by Orientals.
This is so routine you don’t even NOTICE it.
For non-whites, there is only one race on the Planet Earth: whites.
To go to Mark’s point, we need to make this part of our world picture. We must convince non-whites that we have a right to survival and a lot to offer.
And the fact is that other races take it for granted that we are MORALLY superior to them. Once again, this is so obvious no one notices it.
The very idea that any other race would worry about OUR survival is assumed, by EVERYBODY, to be a joke. The very idea that we would ignore a threat to any other race’s EXISTENCE is unthinkable.
Back to Bob’s Mantra:
” Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into 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.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“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 want the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”
“But if I say that, I’m a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
NOW, what if I DID say, “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.”
Does ANYONE doubt that the first people to give me hell would not be black, they would be WHITE?
No one, anywhere on this planet, has the slightest doubt that whites would leap to the defense of the right to exist to exist.
Even Bob, who wrote Bob’s Mantra, has the slightest hope that any OTHER race will address itself to genocide against whites.
We all assume that whites are CAPABLE of this. We want whites to repeat it and INSIST on it. But it would never occur to any of us that any NON-WHITE would feel MORALLY obligated to take white survival seriously.
Only whites do that for other races. Once again, this assumption if so total, so obvious, that we do not even SEE it.
Whites do not have to prove anything. we do not need to have faith in anything.
Our real problem is that everyone, including whites, assume our supremacy, both moral and creative, to the point that our very existence is threatened.
In the last article I explained how Antonio Fini had raised my obseervations on respectable conervatives to the level of theoretical awareness.
I am now going to do the same for him
In his second comment, Antonio says,
“To expand on my point Bob, the Austrian liberals are loudly condeming Govenor Schwarteneggar for signing off on the execution of Black mass muderer Tookie Williams. They even want to name an Austrian football stadium after Tookie, to embarass Arnold.”
“Now the Austrians I know are a pretty lawful, even obedient bunch of people. They won’t cross against a red light on an empty street at 2am. ”
“So what would Austrian liberals do if a white man walked into a store and shotgunned an entire family of Chinamen? Probably revive the death penalty for him. But a Black mass murderer is said to be “Most admirably rehabilitated” when he refrains from knifing any corrections officers. Why?”
“Because liberals expect Blacks to commit senseless acts of violence and Whites to obey the law. Liberals are racist to the core.”
Conservatives on the other hand know that if only Tookie had read Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises he could have developed into a brilliant capitalist entrepeneur. It is conservatives, not liberals who believe in the infinite perfectability of man.”
“We need to expose liberal racial hypocracy to conservatives. They already know about liberal economic hypocrisy.”
By pointing out how OBEDIENT Austrians are, you have answered your own question.
If Europeans ever realized how OBEDIENT they are, it would embarrass many of them into rebelliousness.
You ask some very logical questions. But you are dealing with a continent which for over a millenium fed the poor when told to and burned people alive when told to.
Many of those who were burned alive were exactly the people who pointed out that this was a contradiction. Today those are being imprioned are the ones who ask exactly the kind od questions you are asking.
Remember that we are dealing with an established RELIGION today, Political Correctness. Europe’s reaction today does not vary by one molecule from its blind obedience of the old established religion.
You asked why an obedient people could not be logical. You have answered your own question. Sitting at a stuck red light at 2 am is not logical. It is obedient.
The most ironic aspect of this is that Austrians think they are being rebellious in attacking Schwartzeneger. They think they are being independent-minded.
Why? Because they are TOLD that what they are doing they have been ordered to do because it represented independent, radical thought.
Karl Marx died in 1883. In his name, Joseph Stalin, Mao-Tes Tung and Pol Pot ran the most totally reactionary regimes in human history, including the cavemen. Those regimes DIED of terminal inability to deal with ANYTHING modern.
But to this day a follower of Karl Marx is still referred to in Europe as a “radical.”
Why? Because Europeans have been TOLD that a “radical” is a follower of a man who was out of date when he died in 1883. An opponent of that particular corpse is officially a “right winger,” one who advocates YESTERDAY’S ideas.
To me, as a free-born American, this is hilarious. To Europeans it is, quite literally, Gospel.
No matter how badly I feel about what I said before, I NEVER try to make up for it by giving false praise.
Antonio, unfazed by my attacks, gave us two great additions to our seminar before I even apologized.
Let me quote them and then explain why they are on target:
Antonio Fini Bob I’ve been thinking about your comment to my comment and I’ve yet to think of a magic bullet solution what I’m going to start doing is hammering on the racism of liberals.
My observation about conservatives is they spend their lives secretly wondering when blacks and browns are going to undergo a flash of inspiration and realize that America is a great country, Ronald Regan was a great President and the welfare/ affirmitave action state is destructive and wrong. In other words they believe every intelligent black man has a level headed, white, middle class conservative inside of him struggling to get out.
Same thing with jews.
Liberals on the other hand suffer no such delusions. They know negros are hopeless, and homosexuals are incurrably sick. But it makes them feel good to give away other peoples money and rights to help the underclass.
I mean to keep pounding away on my liberal friends that they don’t really believe in equality. They believe in White Man’s Burden and the eternal misery and hopelessness of non-whites. Also the vengeful ruthlessness of jews. The last thing they want is for blacks and browns to become answerable for their own problems, like adult human beings.
What I mean to hammer home to conservatives is that the liberals are exactly right in their racist assesment of non-whites. It’s O-k to have racist feelings because Hillary and Oprah and Rosie O’Donnell have the exact same feelings. They’re just willing to exploit other people’s misery to demonstrate their holiness to the world.
To expand on my point Bob, the Austrian liberals are loudly condeming Govenor Schwarteneggar for signing off on the execution of Black mass muderer Tookie Williams. They even want to name an Austrian football stadium after Tookie, to embarass Arnold.
Now the Austrians I know are a pretty lawful, even obedient bunch of people. They won’t cross against a red light on an empty street at 2am.
So what would Austrian liberals do if a white man walked into a store and shotgunned an entire family of Chinamen? Probably revive the death penalty for him. But a Black mass murderer is said to be “Most admirably rehabilitated” when he refrains from knifing any corrections officers. Why?
Because liberals expect Blacks to commit senseless acts of violence and Whites to obey the law. Liberals are racist to the core.
Conservatives on the other hand know that if only Tookie had read Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises he could have developed into a brilliant capitalist entrepeneur. It is conservatives, not liberals who believe in the infinite perfectability of man.
We need to expose liberal racial hypocracy to conservatives. They already know about liberal economic hypocracy.
Antonio, the only magic bullet there is is the kind of hard thought you have given here.
Notice how Antonio’s discussion is TARGETED. It outlines a different approach of each of a group of our enemies. It doesn’t mk ake the whole problem the Jews or the Communists or any other single group of evil geniuses.
Respectable conservatives are masters of self-deception. They are MASTERS of Goodthink. That is the only way to stay respectable and never see anything liberals do not want you to see.
But I did not go the next step Antonio has here. Respectable cosnervatives may be the only people on earth, including blacks, who BELIEVE that blacks are innately equal to whites.
As Fini says, “In other words (respectable cosnervatives) believe every intelligent black man has a level headed, white, middle class conservative inside of him struggling to get out.”
Brilliant. What is funny is that I have OBSERVED this for decades as a conservative attitude, but I have never rbought it right out the way Antonio does. I knowe now that the strange feelig I had in dealing with conservatives was that they BELIEVED this crap.
Now this is what a seminar is all about. Somebody else analyses what a grizzled old veteran has seen and seen nd puzzled about but never really understood. Working all alone leaves you in a lot os intellectual blind alleys like that.
Fini finishes is thought in the second comment brilliantly,
“It is conservatives, not liberals who believe in the infinite perfectability of man.”
I very nearly stood up and cheered. If you read National Review, you see that all the time. I have a free lifetime subscription to NR and have seen that over and over.
But, as Sherlock Holmes kept telling Doctor Watson, I have SEEN it, but I have not previously OBSERVED it.
The technical term for this, by the way, is, “Bringing an idea to the level of theoretical awareness.”
It is one of the basic functions of a seminar.
I will get off my self-flagelaton for time to address the point Mark made me think of.
What ever happened to DECLARING war?
As Mark pointed out, we have repeatedly killed off tens of thousands of our young men, time after time, since 1941 and not even THOUGHT of declaring it a WAR.
This phenomenon is not at all limited to the United States. I vividly remember the one time I totally took Israel’s side against the Arabs.
Ignoring the complications, which are fascinating to someone interested in international and a bore to anybody else, all of hte Arab states except Lebanon declared war against Isreal in 1948.
When I went into Israel, just as when I went into Rhodesia, I would get my visa stamped on a separate peice of cardboard, not in my passport. The reason for this was that if yo had a Rhodesian visa in your passport you could not get into black-ruled countries.
By the same token, a passport with an Israeli visa meant you could not get into the Arab countries who were officially at war with Israel.
Then around 1980 Israel conducted a sneak attack and bombed out Iraq’s nuclear power plant because it might make them capable of obtaining nuclear weapons.
I was in a peculiar position. I was certainly no friend of Israel, and I had no interest in whether they were right or not in attacking the plant.
No, my problem was entirely different.
I DESPISE the guy in the bar who acts like he is about to fight someone but waits until there are people to grab his arms and shouts, “Lemme at him! Lemme at him!”
He is a coward posing as a real fighter.
Iraq had an official state of war declared between itself and Israel. So when Israel bombed Iraq, Iraq went whining and crying to the United Nations.
When you have a state of war declared against another country, you have given that country the right to bomb the hell out of you. That’s what a state of war IS.
I have championed the Arabs a long time, and it was EMBARRASSING to me to see a coutry that had been beating its chest and yelling how rough and tough it was and how it would fight to the death against Zionism go squealing to the UN when Israel took them up on it.
Which reminds me. Did Iran and Iraq DECLARE war on eaxh other? There were over a million deaths in that conflict, but i honestly don’t know whether war was ever formally declared.
In the Falkland Islands War (sic) there was an actual naval conflict going on and neither side ever even considered declaring war and nobody expected them to.
What has happened to declarations of war and why?
In one of my more rational moments, I gave Antonio some good advice a few days ago. I said that the one person who have to have a good opinion of yourself.
I have also said that if you follow the Golden Rule, you cannot treat yourself like a dog. If youare to do unto unto others as you would have them do unto you, you can’t kick yourself unmercifully.
Last night was not my first, or even my hundredth, incident of hitting everyone around me inexcusably. I have never been unforgiving when someone did that to me since I reached the age of twenty.
But giving YOURSELF a break is very hard.
I remember reading a comment froma German who said, “If we criticised others the way we criticize ourselves we would be sadists.”
The whole history of Christianity has been darkened by people who forgave others but subjected themselves to whippings and starvation and deprivation far worse than the naked and hungry Jesus said we should help.
But it is STILL hard to forgive yourself. That makes me jealous of psychopaths.
Every reader here knows exactly what I am talking about. It must be wonderful to be a psychpath who has never given himself a moment’s discomfort about the worst thing he did to somebody else.
In my attempts at self-justification, I try to tell myself that I am like a shotgun aimed at the enemy. I get out there and fight them nose-to-nose, but the people aiming me have to get used to the fact that they have to absorb the kick of the weapon they are using.
It is a hell of a lot better to be taking the kick than being on the business end of a shotgun, but the kick is stillnot pleasant. When you send someone out to say the unsayable and fight alone, you can’t expect him to come back as a totally nice guy.
So there are two parts to this process. I must apologize to you and not hate myself.
Antoni’s example here is a good one. His fury is directed at the man who concenrated so hard on forgiving Hispanics that he totally ignored his duty to stand up for himself and his OWN people.
But if we go back to the millions of Christians who turned the Golden Rule into “Be nice to everybody else but vicious to yourself” we see this is not exactly a new problem.
I want Shari to explicitly accept my apology. I want that from the rest of you, too. But at the same time everything I write here strikes me as a rather weak excuse.
The fact is that if I am to expect you to accept my apology I am going to have accept my own as well.
As the German guy said, it is a hell of a lot easier to give someone else who is sincerely sorry your forgiveness than it is to give it to yourself.
A conscience is a wonderful thing, but it is certainly NOT the key to happiness.
Can you believe that the same Bob who wrote those nasty replies last night was the same one who wowed you a few days ago with the wisdom that “This Blog is supposed to be FUN!?”
The same one who wisely told you the story of the great advice he received a quarter of a century ago that nobody has any use for an Agry OLD Man?
Ladies first. Shari, please accept my apology.
And Mark and Antonio and whowever else I blew up at last night.
My praise of Derek stands. He has gotten the messsage big-time and did what I reallly admire. He put whole wads of what I said into a short summation.
Now let’s see if I can find some way to wriggle out of this mess.
First of all, when I tell you about stupid people, you now know it is nit just theory. You are hearing from one who has practiced stupidity and, if I may brag a little, does a better job of it than almost anybody else when he really gets going.
Admit it. It takes a political pro to come up with a twisted excuse like that.
You could do me a really big favor by really accepting my apology.
This inexcusable blow-up may have done me some good.
What Shari did was to give me some good advice on how things look at the level of reality, the way Peter did.
Antonio would not be who he is if he was disgusted with our people’s behavior. The stomach-turning example he gave us of the guy who kept getting kicked by Hispanics and not only accepted it but JUSTIFIED it is the sort of reaction anyone I would care to associate with is going to have.
In fact, each thing that was said was part of the very dialogue I am trying to have.
I will be dealing rationally with each of hte points made — and I am sure I missed an important one I will haev to reread last night’s material to deal with.
But it is hard right now because I am trying to get over the embarrassment.
It is hard even to write this.
I am very tired, and it seems my dream of a seminar has gone down in ruins, though I’ll feel better tomorrow.
Derek saved the evening for me. He said,
“The mantra is simple. I have read a million little studies about getting people “on the same page”. Much like getting a group of youngsters to sing “row, row, your boat” we need to get people to start singing the race problem is really the white problem. ”
“This is simple and effective.”
Thank you, Derek!
We CAN change everything. But we have to make a beginning. We have to develope the means to get our message down to basics and sell those basics.
Western science started with people like Newton applying simple gravity everywhere. It got going with Occam’s Razor, which said all the scholastic complications were absurd.
We now have while blackboards full of equations that WORK from simple basic laws of thermodynamics.
And every inch of the way we had to fight the byways that lead nowhere.
A classic remark to Galileo was, “You cannot overturn the whole weight of Genesis with a tube that has a piece of glass in each end.”
He DID overturn the authority of Genesis with a tube that had a piece of glass in each end. Even the most literal Bible literalist still insists that the earth is the center of the universe and the stars were just spread around it.
His enemies were reduced to imprisoning people for disagreeing, just as they are today against us.
As Derek says, while everybody else is arguing with established religion point by point, we need to see what strict attention to reality can do.
That is what built white society, and that is how we save it.
IN MY OPINION, Bruce has just completed the list of what we have been doing wrong.
Shari told us it’s hard and she doesn’t see much hope.
Those are two of hte mandtras taht have made the world what it is today.
Antonio followed with the Bitching Syndrome.
Now Mark says,
“Do you just want to restrict your method of stating the obvious about race, or expand it to other, related areas?”
“For instance, I think it’s obvious that the Iraq war is a bad one because Bush didn’t get the constitutionally required declaration of war. It’s not the lies about WMD, nor the question of him getting approval from other countries, nor even the question of who’s interests we are really fighting for, although those are all important in a small picture kind of way. The big picture on our wars is that every single one from Korea till today didn’t go through the constitutionally required channel. Most of todays peaceniks want to stop the Iraq war, I want to create an atmosphere of understanding where the people will no longer allow any Korean/Vietnam/Iraq wars on legal grounds. Whether Bush lied about some detail has nothing to do with the next series of war and therefor contitutes a distraction from the big picture. I want to focus on the big picture.”
It reminds me of an spisode of Blackadder I was just watching. The World War I Blackadder is informed by the general that there is a new strategy.
Blackadder says, “Would this new strategy consist of marching slowly across No Man’s Land against the enemy?”
The general is upset. This plan was Top Secret. How did Blackadder know it?
“Because, general, it isthe same plan we usd the last seventeen times.”
The general replies, “Yes, and that is what is so brilliant about it. The enemy will never expect us to use the same strategy AGAIN!”
I know I am being unfair to everyody here, but Mark I was here when the Korean War was on. Nobody wanted to talk about race,they wanted to talk about The Big Picture.
It is true that NOBODY declares war any more. Britain and Argentina were blasting each other out of the ocean and possibility os declaring war never even came up.
Mark, you are asking us to join in the chorus a million voices have been singing for fifty years. Do we really need ten more opponents to the Iraq War?
You are all I have. When conservatives were theorizing about a Southern Strategy, handful of us went out and got the experience with working-class conservatives that made the big difference. Then conservatives went back to telling each other how brilliant they were and how brilliant the neoconservatives,who had as much to do with the swing vote of working peopple as a pig has to do with a porcupine were.
No, we will not fit into the Big Picture. We will very much have to do our own thing.
We have to stop talking about how bad some incidents are. We have to stop thinking this is a battle that will be won or lost tomorrow. If I hear, “This is our last chance!” one more time, I’m going to puke.
You will not have an easy time. You will not make friends or impress people by how what we say fits into the Big Picture. Only you will know WHAT you have won. We will not reach an earthly paradise.
No. No. No. No. No.
Derek said it best. It is called getting all of us on the same page.
It’s hard. I don’t see a whole lot of chance to be effective. But, here and there. I send to my sister-in-law, my older son is more or less on the same wave. So we’ll see what happens. I came to the conclusion that power in a white country belongs in the hands of whites, some time ago. And more specifically, predominately, white men. I think that kind of power would be influencial on others as well. Not the “power gives me a cruel chuckle” kind. The reason why agression against us is getting worse is because we’re not doing what we ought to, whether others recognize it, ot not. Other peoples have been set adrift, too, I think. Shari
The first two sentences have been killing us from the word go.
After fify years and two nervous breakdowns, I am am aware that it is hard. Changing the course of world history has never been al that easy.
But try not see this as just a bad time. Try to think of it as a stage of history we have reached over decades precisely because no one has done the real work we need to do.
The field is empty. No one is out there directed at doing this, as Derek says. If we can change teh basic dialogue from asssimilation and tolerance to genocide, which is its gtrue nature, everything will be made different.
It is almost impossible to get anybody to understand that.
I never discourage comments. If you feel like it, say whatever you want to.
But what I have hit you with here, and my plea for help in our seminar, puts a considerable burden on you.
When Peter hit me with his point that started all this, I took several days off from replying to him.
Finding something to add to a seminar is a lot harder than talking about the latest Bush lie or the Korean War .. sorry, I mean the Iraqi War.
So I will happily suffer time facing Comments (0) if you will spend the meantime thinking about our seminar the way I thought about replying to Peter.
We have the message. We need to spread it.
And somebody bcsides Bob has discovered the deep secret of all this, which is hidden in plain sight.
“Bob, My experience leads me to wonder if there is something congenitally wrong with our people and the only remedy is to tear power from their grasp.”
“A few years ago I lived in a loft with five roomates. There we were, five white kids living in Spanish harlem behind an iron fence and barred windows. One of my roomates was a New England Anglo Saxon who’s ancestor fought in the Revolutionary war. He made a good income and devoted his free time to teaching illeagal hispanic imigrants to read and write. To his amazement most of his students were illiterate in Spanish as well. Some couldn’t read the floor numbers in an elevator. He felt just terrible for them.”
“One day he was out walking in the Barrio with our pretty blond female roomate and some Latino Youths began yelling threats and insults at them. They kept walking. The girl said “Those lousey _____ want to kill us!” The guy replied, “No they want to kill me. You they just want to beat and gang-rape.” And he wasn’t joking. But he kept volunteering his free time to help educate the “newcomers” and give back to the community, not caring that the community hated him for being white. And he wasn’t alone. Another friend of mine teaches swimming and martial arts at the community center in the same neighborhood.”
“What do you do with people who are impervious to argument because they’re locked into a death spiral like some suicide cult member?”
Comment by Antonio Fini — 12/
Antonio, every soldier who has ever held a dying comrade in his arms has knows that, back home, tens of thousands of people were using the war for profit.
There are no exceptions to this.
In every single case that soldier has had two options. 1) He could encourage his fellow fighters to keep up the fight or he cold 2) obsess on the profiteers and tell them they should get out of way and let the enemy have theirmiserable homeland taht was full of traitos and opportunists.
Your mistake is that thinking that the guy you are talking is any different from the war profiteers because he is not making money off of his treason. There is NO difference.
There will always be us and the traitors. We must decide whether we will follow reaction 1) or reaction 2).
As for taking power AWAY from people, I have just engaged in a long explanation of why it is that no one HAS power.
We are steppting into a vacuum that I have very, very carefully explained.
If you think there is something congenitally wrong with us, you may not believe that the Jews in Nazi Gemany and the Russians under Stalin reacted even WORSE than we are reacting.
The South African Boere are truly pathetic.
Please stop hitting on Reaction 2) and get in the battle with me.
This is a critical moment. I need a seminar, not a bitching session.
I have met you, Antonio, and I need you desperately to jump in here right here and right now.
For every ten thousands bitchers there is one person who can actually THINK.
You are the one in ten thousand. Knowing that is the only reward you will get.
But as you approach my age, you will learn that all the praise in the world means very little compared to the approval of what you have done by the one person in the world whose approval means everything to you.
If you have read the pieces below, you will understand that what we are after is not making a living at politics. What we are after is not entertainment.
Lastly, since our whole aim is to make our arguments so common that no one knows where they came from, we are certainly not after fame.
What we want is the most fundamental human motivation of all:
They can have the money. They can have the excitement. They can have the fame.
All we ask is one small favor:
We want the world to be the way WE want the world to be.
What has always astonished me is that nobody has ever objected to my having that one drive.
Which is, to put it bluntly, to rule the world.
They want fame, they want money, they want excitement.
Wouldn’t it be hilarious is we ended up being the only real conspiracy on earth?
Before I continue, let me state my gratitude that my plea that you not abandon me to Comments (0) has already been answered by two comments.
In our last exciting chapter, I explained:
1) Why my first book in my own name was such a success;
2) Why I got no credit for it; and
3) Why writing the book taught me WHY I would get no credit for it.
As usual, the epiphany that came to me was so obvious that I was astonished it hadn’t gotten to me before:
We live in a world of human beings. Human beings are motivated by some pretty obvious things. If a philosopher wants to be really popular, he maages to obscure this obvious point in a thousand pages of abstractions.
So now we come to why I am so astonished that we have gone from a lecture to a seminar here.
If you spend all your time in politics, you have to make a LIVING at it. If you have to make a living at it, you don’t do what I did, spend two eyars writing a book that will make you hated by everybody who could give you a job.
So if you have to make a living at it, how do you do it?
Let’s take one example: fundraising. If you run an organization you have to send out regular appeals for cash.
Try to imagine sending out a fundraiser that says:
“Bob Whitaker wants to spend the next two years writing a book that will cause a political revolution a few years from now.”
While I was writing my book those who were making a living in this game were sending out weekly fundraising appeals about the meat shortage, how Gerald Ford had lied about something, about why, if we didn’t win a fight over a big bill in congress, we were forever lost, so pour in money RIGHT NOW.
In fact, just as you would wonder if you read Plague what all the fuss was about, you would not erecognize one single subject that fund-raising letters in 1975 said were the crucial issues of all time.
Today, if you want to make living, you talk about the Mexicans pouring across the border. You talk about Iraq. You DO NOT talk about the fact that we have more enemies of everythng we care about coming out of the universities than we have coming across our open borders.
Intellectually I did what I did ALONE.
But a lot of people helped me because they understood that what I was doing was so EFFECTIVE. I dedicated both of my first two books inmy name to my former wife, the second AFTER we were divorced.
Other people came to my aid. We were running press conferences nation on joint marches by working class people who were fighting the educational establishment about dirty textbooks and busing, when my press man was riding with the Independent Truckers blocking DC traffic at ruch hour, and other things.
I had a full time job on Capitol Hill to pay for my expenses in doing all this.
When the few people who were doing all this came together, I would regularly say, “So what we have concluded what Bob will write.”
What we were doing was shaking the earth, but everybody thought only I had the secret formula.
They could never understand that the secret was in THEM. They were furious loyal people who never questioned the fact that they wanted the make the world right.
Well, hell, that’s what every fund-raising letter tells everybody.
I said that there is a motivation for those who want to make a living at politics. There is also a motivation for those who give the money.
It’s called entertainment.
When you get a fundraising appeal, you want to be entertained. Entertainment is not hearing again and again that Ole Bob is writing a book that will have a big effect in the future. Entertainment is having something shocking to say about Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter or President Bush or Laos or Vietnam or Iraq.
When we had something exciting to offer, like thousands of working people paying their own way to come to Washington for a joint march against busing and textbooks, the people who wanted in on it were in the thousands.
But when the excitement ended, there were only three or four of us gathered in a room planning the next step. Everybody else was concentrating on how to become spokesmen for the last excitement.
I got a laugh out of the fact that the Communist World, which couldn’t galvanize working people the way we could, declared that my little group of several people which didn’t even have a bank account were a highly financed group a bunch of capitalists were bankrolling.
The others in my group got a laugh out of it, too, but theirs was a little sadder. They still had the idea that we should have the financing that the smallest group devoted to passage of Senate Bill 29207, whateverthehellitwas, had.
It never occurred to me that we would.
I knew what we were doing. They only knew that it WORKED.
They proceeded on faith, I proceeded on knowledge.
They are likely to get to heaven before I do.
The bottom line is that I am not used to having anyone else understand what I am doing.
But I am HOPING this will be like A Plague on Both Your Houses. In a few years everybody will be puzzled by how hard I was trying to push the obvious.
It’s happened before. It can happen again.
Today the very Wallace Democrats that I personally taught the right how to deal with are now referred to respectfully as the Reagan Democrats. Just one of my achievements was that the press now recognizes those once despised “Wallace Democrats” as the key to electoral victory.
But the next change we need is more fundamental. And we need more than one “Bob will write…”
Bob can’t do this one by himself.
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 want 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?
But if I say that, I’m a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
The first part of explaining where this transformation from a lecture to a seminar is for me to explain my attitude towards how we got here.
As I have said, the real money in writing is in ghosting. I have ghost-written everything, from books to articles to off-hand quips to short replies to news releases to endless numbers of speeches.
The most cathartic experience of my life was when I sat down in 1975 and wrote my OWN book. It made me no money, and I wrote put it under my name because no one else could take responsibility for it. The reason for this is in the title:
A Plague on Both Your Houses.
If you look at Plague today you will wonder what all the excitement was about.
Which is precisely why it was, to my mind, such a success. National Review had a review of Plgue called Read This One! by one of its senior editors. Its publisher did the Foreword.
But Plague was such a vicious attack on conservatives that the publisher of NR had to exempt himself in the Foreword from my acidic comments on William Buckely, founder and owner of NR.
Right after NR’s publisher wrote the Foreword and a senior editor demanded that NR readers “Read This One!” National Review had a cover article attacking me and the book called “To the Nashville Station,” an illusion to Lenin’s arrival at the Finland Stattion when he came back to Russia in 1917. The idea was that I was leaing conservatives into a working-class revolution.
And that was just the confusion on the right.
Leftist reviews poured out, saying that while the book claimed it was damning both liberals and Democrats and the Republicans and the establishment right, it was really only aimed at the left.
Noneof them mentioned National Review’s front-page attack on me. None of them mentioned the number of conservative congressmen who would walk up to me at a cocktail party and then ostentatiously turn their backs.
More than one historian has pointed out that Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense was as necessary to American independence as Washington and Bejamin Franklin were.
Plague was as influential in making the Reagan Revolution as Paine was in making the one two centuries before.
And the reson Plague was so successful was precisely because if you read it today, you would wonder what all the excitement was about.
That is because everybody now takes for granted what I was considered such a heretic for writing.
It drove my loyal wife up the wall to see writers stealing whole blocks of my ideas without any acknowledgement. I was proud of it.
A major part of the reason I was so tolerant was because the book was, as I say, cathartic. What I did was spend two years writing and rewriting a book that simply explained why human beings act the way they do.
As I wrote it, I learned from it. I began the book by thinking of condemning PEOPLE. I ended up condemning the HOUSES conservatievs and liberals had built, and how they had come to build them in usch an awful way.
So it came to me as no surprise that people who made a living writing and commenting would us what I wrote and never mention my awful name. Most of them picked what I had to say third-hand, and had no idea I had come up with it.
By the time I finished, I was mad at hardly anybody. In the end, my reaction was to laugh at people was being so shallow and unquesioning.
That is why the book was so successful that its success wasn’t even noticed.
And that is also why I was the least popular person on Capitol Hill. People can take a diatribe. But when a professional exposes them naked to the world the way I did, they never forgive.
Explaining this to my loyal German wife, who wanted me to have the credit I deserved, was not possible. Even now, long after our divorce, she is still angry about it.
A couple of years ago I received an e-mail from her with another of my filched ideas in it.
But as you become older, you can either become bitter or you can achieve understanding. And if you are becoming a bitter old man, I would highly recommend that you try skydiving without a parachute.
This long enough for one piece. I hope what I write above will explain how it fits into the general picture I am trying to draw.
“Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.”
Suddenly, after half a century, I have what I wished for. Suddenly there are other active minds who have grasped the basic, effective points I have worked on all my life and are running with them.
This has left me both delighted and confused.
It is going to take me considerable explanation to explain exactly why this leaves me in such a state of confusion. But the explanation isnot to tell you about me, but to explain what a breakthrough this is.
So I am delighted and I am confused.
You see, for half a century I have worked, intellectually speaking, alone. Now there are suddenly three or four Bob Whitakers here who understand exactly what the work needed is.
I am also apphrehensive. I am TERRIFIED of Mark and Peter and Hollywood professional and the man Peter has found and all the rest of you fading out on me. My terror is now that horrible Comments (0).
We are now, for the first time, conducting a SEMINAR on the whole purpose of my life. Readers know what I have gone through to finally reach this point.
But I am very vulnerable here. To my delight, we have gone from a lecture to a seminar. I can do a lecture all by myself, but a seminar cannot be done by one person.
Get in here!
For the first time in my life, I am no longer lecturing on basics.
Peter went out and started WORKING on getting our points out, and Mark has some in with advice as a professional salesman.
Here are Peter’s latest two contributions:
I saw the man yesterday inside church before we went home. Two nice old ladies came by to listen, because they “like history so much.” I’ll try to give you a summary for you to think about. I am including longer details so you get a clearer picture.
As I was speaking to the man, I recalled that he hadn’t slung the Nazi thing at me, but used it to explain why HE avoided racial loyalty. This is HIS fear. I decided to use your response anyway. He said, no when he thought white loyalty would lead to killing, he didn’t mean that I was the kind of man that would do that. Because I believed him, we were in a church with excellent acoustics, I have the loudest speaking voice known to man, and the two old ladies and others were listening, I decided it would be bad to go on the attack.
I did, however use most of your arguments (multiculturalism, genocide, the PC religion). He REALLY liked your arguments, since they were phrased just like his own thoughts and he caught the good humor in them.
However, the trick may be tailoring effective arguments to the situation, and seeing what is the central questions in the other man’s mind. I ran through a litany of other answers to his objections. I said racial genocide is murder, but love cannot be hate, love does not lead to killing, race is part of God’s creation, man is created in God’s image, etc…
But the central issue was his fear. I have encountered the identical fear in both liberals and conservatives and it all comes down to the PC version of WWII, the Jews’ great blood libel, which covers up their own genocidal crimes against humanity.
Fear does not well respond to reason. The fear had already led to a rationalization: that the only real race is the kingdom of God. I said that this was much like the gnostic heresy (he knows quite a lot about that and the problems it has led to in American religion), that Jesus came down into history to make our lives better now, before we die, but countering what he said does not work because the real issue is his fear.
Actually, though the conversation was very encouraging. Here is a good man and intelligent, who probably represents the overwhelming majority who think just like us but are waiting for a strong man (or anything viable) to come along and show signs of success. And the masses will through their weight in.
He told me, too, that when he was first hired as the legislative aid on the staff of the assemblyman, he was asked at some kind of a board meeting what he thought was the most important issue of the age. His answer: race. When he was met with total silence, he knew he had hit upon the right answer. But his fear kicked in, too.
So, the only thing I could think of to address the issue of fear was to return to the Scotch-Irish. He was interested in a bit how their history began as Anglo-Saxons in the old English kingdom of Northumbria. The two old ladies listening liked that. (One has red hair.) He accepts his heritage with pride but is guarded because of his fear that ethnic pride leads to killing.
At some point when I first talked to him, he had said UNguardedly, that he did believe there was one race that did deserve extinction, but at that point, he looked terribly embarrassed and I did not twist the knife. I can only guess what he meant.
In any case, I can’t say I have had a conversation like this before. He is fascinating to listen to. He had interesting things to say, such as: Westerners living in the dry West developed strong bodies, but weak minds (and Northeasterners have weak minds and weak bodies). I said he hit the nail on the head. He often has long friendly conversations with people after the service, not surprising for a man who used to travel around a district talking to strangers.
Comment by Peter
Until Film Industry professional or Peter or Mark or somebody else gets back to me, I am reduced to discussing sex.
This is embarrassing.
It is true that people have told me that they enjoy it when I discuss politics or sex. It is true that they are interested in the depth of my knowledge on both subjects.
But their enjoyment of the depth of my familarity with sex is somewhat less flattering than their reaction to my knowledge of politics.
In the former case, I dislike their tendency to giggle at me.
People take my knowledge of politics seriously, and it makes me happy that they
enjoy what I say about that subject.
People enjoy my attempts to discuss sex, too. But the giggles ruin the fun.
So you see what I am reduced to when you don’t promptly provide me with the input I ask you for.
Because you have no provided me with the input I need on politics, I must discuss sex.
So here it is:
The latest remake of King Kong did not do as well at the box office as the two former versions.
I have mentioned before, both here and in my radio program, the fact that when I was entering my teens, every single advertisement for a horror movie showed a beautiful woman being the victim of a monster or a vampire or an evil man.
The same generation that would have fought anyone who attacked a real woman obviously had fantasies of lovely women being grabbed by monsters. One of the big hits of my youth was called The Woman Eater, a title which lacks a certain sublety but makes my point.
I was talking about this with a woman whose profession had been organizing Sunday Schools in large churches. Her reaction included none of the astonished horror she would be expected to show. She calmly pointed out to me that the audience for the movie King Kong was half female.
Actually, fandom for King Kong was well over fifty percent female. That movie was the ultimate rape fantasy, the lovely tiny blond woman that the fifty-foot gorilla was fixated on.
The first King Kong came out in 1931. It was box office smash.
Valentino was the smash before that.
Shortly before 1931 Rudolf Valentino had been the object of female worship for films like “The Sheik,” where he played an Arab who kidnapped a white woman.
The white woman screamed all the way through the film while the female audience pretended to be horrified at her plight. Actually they felt jealous of her every inch of the way.
Men’s fantasies tend to be aggressive, as in the case of The Woman Eater and dozens of other horror films.
A lot of women seem to have rape fantasies, of which King Kong is the ultimate.
The fact is that men and women are different. A statement that Politically Incorrent would get me a prison sentence in Europe, but I can get away with it here.
No woman would admit to the fact that she LIKED Valentino’s rape fantasy in the Sheik. They talked about how “romantic” he was and what a great actor he was.
It was a little hard to say what a great romantic actor King Kong was so no one discussed the sexual fantasy involved.
In the 1950s no man would admit that he was attracted by The Woman Eater type movie. All those ads were aimed at somebody ELSE, you see.
No woman would say she was jealous of the women who were the objects of the Sheik’s or King Kong’s somewhat aggressive actions.
Is everybody telling it like it is?
Politics has made me a bit cynical. Could it be that somebody might not be telling the exact truth?
This leads me back to the lack of success of the latest King Kong Movie. The 1931 version and the relatively recent versions were box office smashes. This new one was not really a bomb, but it didn’t live up to expectations.
I have a theory as to why that is.
My thesis is that the ultimate rape fantasy is not as fascinating to women today because real rape by real gorillas is no longer a matter of exciting fiction.
In the old days women were surrounded by white guys who wouldn’t make a move. They were not only safe, they were BORINGLY safe.
Now women don’t go out on the streets alone at night. Now women are in physical danger as a matter of course.
Rape is no longer a fantasy. Being attacked by a large male of a different kind is the reality every white woman faces.
This could have taken a lot of the charm out of the latest verion of King Kong.
I asked, not to say begged, for more INPUT on the subject of the technique of how we can spread our message.
Mark broke the ice, starting with a quote from me:
“’This is not sales, this is revolutionary politics.’”
“Bob, in sales we have an interesting belief that EVERYTHING is sales, meaning, if we are arguing a point — even though we are not getting paid for it in monetary terms — we are still selling our ideas. The payment comes, in our case as white nationalists, in the conversion of another lost soul to our side.”
“BTW, I didnt’ mean to sound like I was criticizing your way of debating. I was just putting in my two cents worth at how I change people’s perspective in a ‘conversational sales’ approach. I like for people to say what I want them to say because it comes from their mouths. As they say in sales, ‘If I say it they can deny it — if they say it, they have to accept it.’”
Mark, you couldn’t be righter, everything IS sales.
People love to say that sales or propaganda is persuasion, but the alternative to mere persuasion is force. In this world-view, sales and persuation are merely effeminate approaches, but warfare is the Real Man’s alternative. the Real Thing.
In fact, one of the basic rules in military strategy is that THAT is a form of sales. Even when an army twice the size of your forces is beaten, it remains much bigger than your forces even when it is full retreat.
The enemy is not defeated because it is weaker than your forces. It is defeated becuase it is CONVINCED that it is beaten.
Even war is a form of sales.
Which leads us to your second paragraph. We are in a battle. You are, to some extent, suggesting an alternate strategy. The question is not whether you agree with me, but which strategy WORKS.
Or, more likely, which combinaton of strategies works.
Believe me, I would infinitely rather see the enemy in retreat because we decided you were right than I would to be sitting around in defeat with you admitting you were wrong.
I have been in both positions, and I know the feelings involved.
We are comrades. The ONLY question is how we will win.
Right now our problem is to get Peter back into our discussion.
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.
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.
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!
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.