Archive for April, 2006
Immigration Law IS Discrimination
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 04/29/2006
Jared Taylor said at the AR Conference that he was a liberal until he realized a simple fact:
The answer to “Can’t we all along together?” is
“NO.”
I LOVE short, straight statements like that.
I would like some American Renaissance member to judge whether this Bob’s Blog entry is a pretty good summary of AR’s view:
— Immigration Law IS Discrimination
President Carter’s head of the INS stated flatly that, is it were up to her, she would let everybody intot he United States without restrictions.
Nobody objected.
NOBODY objected.
Remember that this was in the late 1970s, when Pat Buchanan was saying that Americans died in World War II specifically to open Europe up to third world immigration, Joe Sobran was pro-immigration, and the official conservative doctrine was “free movement of good, services, and LABOR.”
What if somebody were being appointed to the Civil Rights Commmission and said that, as far as they were concerned, slavery was OK.
Do you think anybody would mention it?
They would say, as they have said in hearing after hearing, “You can’t enforce civil rights law if you don’t really BELIEVE in it.”
Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that, to be a true American, you must believe that we are a nation of immigrants.
Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that a true American agrees that all mankind is ONE.
In fact, the official doctrine is that we are ” a nation founded on the principle that all men are created equal.” That’s the PURPOSE of America.
Immigration law is founded onthe idea that WE have a right a right to be here and THEY don’t.
Immigration law is founded on the principle that there IS a “we” and a “they.”
So how can Real Americans and all the Little Americans in Europe who insist on the same ideas of “democracy” America does turn around and keep “them” out?
From the Wordist point of view, the “undocumented workers” marching to demand that all of Mexicobe allowed into the United States are true Americans.
All who oppose them are NOT true Americans.
We don’t BELONG here.
They do.
Remember, from the liberal and respectable conservatives’ REQUIRED view of what constitutes an American, there IS no “us” and “them.”
You cannot argue for immigration restrictions and at the same time be a “real American” from the Wordist point of view. According to liberals and respectable conservatives you are unAmerican if you do not believe that an American is somebody who sincerely believes that this nation is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created, that all men are ONE.
Immigration law is based on the Preamble to the United States Constitution: “We the people of the United States and OUR posterity.”
In July of 1863 Abraham Lincoln changed that preamble and substitute the preamble to the Declaration for it: “All men are created equal.”
For Lincoln, tha is what the Civil War was about: “We are now engaged in a great civil war to test whether a nation so dedicated can long endure.”
National Review practically has a hernia insisting that it is Lincoln Magazine. Liberals swear by Lincoln’s words.
Then NR expressses outrage and puzzlement that US immigration law is not enforced.
In Lincoln’s day, there were no immigration laws. In the Gettysburg Address, he tacitly promised there never WOULD be.
How in the HELL can Big America and all the Little America’s who insist they are just as multiracial enforce immigration laws?
Immigration law requires an “us” and a “them.”
There will be no “us” and “them” until we learn to DISCRIMINATE again.
Thank You, Joe Odin!
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 04/28/2006
Joe Odin took a look at my Partisan Dictionary and ADDED to it.
After all, all the Partisan Dictionary was was an addition to Ambros Briece’s Devl’s Dictionary.
More generally, joe odin did what I most desire my commenters to do: He started where I left off and went ahead.
I want you to use use thsoe of my insights you consider right as a basis to go on from, not as a guiding philosophy to just stick with.
I need you to repeat my points to others, and to expand on them yourselves.
Here is Joe’s CONTRIBUTION:
May I try:
Ignorant – Thinking outside the groupthinktank.
naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews – see above
Outsourcing – customer disservice
Radicals – reactionaries
SUVs – dinosaur killers
Comment by joe odin
ENCORE!
If Your Country is Stolen, You Must Get Out — NOW
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 04/28/2006
I just read another wail about the poor widdah injuns from an anti.
Antis know no history.
I don’t care WHERE you’re from, your ancestors came in and took the land from somebody else. You think slavery only existed in the American South and that only Americans ever came from somewhere else.
That’s pathetic.
If someone recieves stolen goods, he doesn’t sit around and whine about it.
If he really thinks the goods are stolen, he gives them back.
IMMEDIATELY.
NOW.
If you live in a country you think was stolen, you LEAVE.
IMMEDIATELY.
NOW.
Cut the crap and get out or shut up your whining.
If you don’t LIKE your country, you still have a right to live in it.
But if you really believe your country is STOLEN, that is entirely different. You do not have a right to keep stoen property for an instant.
And every country was stolen from the natives if America was stolen from the Indians.
So shut up or get out.
Women Have Breasts — Learn to Live With It
In the Stormfront the discussion naturally got around to how owmen today are supposed to be terribly upset is some men like big breasts.
Not just if we are offenseive about it, but we are supposed to believe in our hearts that they aren’t there or we are “objectivizing women.
This led me, as usual, to a mre general point:
I am 65, and I got my sexual imprinting in the 1950s. So I like big breasts.
Women did not consider it insulting for a man to notice she had them.
In the 1940s pinups, legs were emphasized.
By the time you get my age, unless you are hypnotized by Poltiical Correctness, you get a laugh out of how Modern Opinion is a repeat a past Modern Opinion fad.
In the 1920s women tried to have the “flat look,” trying to look like boys from the waist up.
This was because until then women had worn long dresses and emphasized their upper torsos. So the Liberated Woman of hte 1920s had a short skirt and flattened breasts.
Now women wear clothes designed to make them as indistinguishable from boys as possible.
They are reacting against a reaction, which makes them just like the reaction before.
And therefore very, very Modern.
In the South of hte 1950s and before, we routinely referred to a woman we did not know was maried or not as “Miz.” Other parts of hte country considered that quaint, so they carefully used Miss and Mrs.
But Women’s Liberation, the Ultra-Modern view, insists on Miz.
I get a kick out of this nonsense.
Return of the Killer PD
Aristocaqrcy — naciocracy
Professional — A title which entitles one to get paid without producing anything
Consultant — See “Professional”
American — Somebody who is part of a nation of immigrant, i.e., everybody and therefore
nobody.
Constitution — The Supreme Court of the United States
Modern — Becoming dated
Knowledge — See “Law”
Wisdom — Drivel which is taken seriously
More From the Old Partisan Dictionary (PD)
Shari
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 04/27/2006
Shari says,
Do you think that testable IQ has been skewed by the feminization of education? I remember being one of those “smart” little girls who learned to read quickly, was good at memorizing,etc. But after I grew up, I found out that I actually wasn’t very good at figuring things out. I’m impressed with Peter’s psychology professer doing what she did.
Comment by Shari
MY REPLY:
I warned you that what you will get for your comments is not necessarily a reply to what you said.
You will get what you made me think of.
I also said that that is what I want from you.
What Shari made me think of was request from my sister, the one who actually reads this blog from time to time.
She wanted me to record here the regular piece I wrote for The Southern Patrisan for so long, “The Partisan Dictionary.” It was an Ambrose Bierce type of definition, which uses definitions to make a point.
Bierce, from Texas, called ie “The Devil’s Dictionary.”
For example, he defined the word “mulatto:”
“Mulatto — n — A child of two races, ashamed of both.”
So when Shari used the word “feminization, it reminded me of a definition I used in the Partisan Dictionary:
“Feminism — n — a movement dedicated to the diea that being feminine is a sign of inferiority.”
Shari makes it clear that she is a female. She makes it very clear that a more male approach is necessary in leading a white society to the stars.
But aren’t all women just like men?
That is what feminism is all about: women can do everything men can.
I have read astonisahed articles written by the few feminists who actuallly had children. They tell us, breathlessly, that by the age of eighteen months the girl child is DIFFERENT from the boy child.
They discover that, after a few hundred million years of evolution, the girls’ function and the boys’ function is actually DIFFERENT.
Girls are not people who, given the proper upbringing, would be boys.
Once again I am in the peculiar position of explaining to you something you will not believe about the ruling attitude I remember just a short time ago. Like all those outdated attitudes, it is required on campuses today.
But on planet earth, the idea that boys and girls are the same is laughed.
You brats simply cannot believe that this idea was required belief for most of my lifetime.
Women PICK the leaders. In every part of nature, it is the females who decide whom they will mate with. Male peacocks do all the strutting. Female peacocks are the POINT of all the strutting.
Feminism says that what is important is the strutting. Femals don’t get the big colored fantails male peacocks get.
This causes the female peacocks irreversible ego damage.
You think I am joking, of course. You didn;t live through decades of this orthodoxy.
So Shari uses the term “feminization” as derogatory.
How one earth could a WOMAN use “feminization” in a derogatory sense?
She uses it because that particular feminization is in the wrong PLACE.
There are places where being feminine is absolutely essential.
That’s not rocket science.
There are places where being maculine is absolutely essential or evolution would have produced no males at all.
In fact, since females do all the judging and raise all the offspring, it is a bit of a relief for us males to realize that we DO have a place.
None of which answers the point Shari made.
But I think she will find it a relief that somebody else understands where she is coming from.
Living in a world where nobody seems to understand the basics is no easier on Shari thanit is on me.
Her basic point is right.
I wish I had been able to address it at length, Shari. But because we live in a world where the difference between men and women is a mystery, it is hard to get down to other essentials.




Tim
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 04/29/2006
I’m just going to steal what Tim said and ask for comments on it.
I will have a couple on it myself.
“UNA. “Born again?”
MONOS. Yes, fairest and best beloved Una, “born again.” These were the words upon whose mystical meaning I had so long pondered, rejecting the explanations of the priesthood, until Death itself resolved for me the secret.”
I rarely venture into religion on this blog. Once I realized our race is our religion it became pointless for me to post on what I viewed as redundant topics. I realize that these religious topics are nevertheless important to hammer through BW points to newcomers here. As well as to pound Christians who cannot get it through their thick heads that they do not have to love brown people to achieve salvation. But today I am going to take a stab at this and post about Christianity.
The quote above is something most readers will have read in their childhood. It is from Edgar Allen Poe’s The Colloquy of Monos and Una. I read it the other day by accident. I got to thinking about the concept ‘Born Again’. This concept has perplexed many people and has been argued time and time again. Baptist have one view. Catholics and Lutherans have other views on this–and so on, so forth etc. But what if “born again” is not a religious concept at all?
We know that the New Testament is a radical departure from the Old Testament. We know the New Testament is NOT Jewish. BW has enlightened us time and time again with the obvious Zoroastrian themes presented in the New Testament. We know that Zoroastrianism was an Aryan racial religion. We know the Aryan religion was the dominate religion of Persia. We also know that “Semites don’t invent”. So where did Christ grab the concept of ‘born again’. Simply put —to be ‘born again’ is not a religious concept but a racial concept rapped in a religious package.
The concept of ‘born again’ is another Aryan concept. We all know you can be be an Asian with just an Asian momma or even just an Asian father. The whole planet knows if one of your parents is African —–you are BLACK. However, whites are the exception to this rule. You cannot be white with just a white mother. You cannot be white with just a white father. To be Aryan, your mother and father must both be White. Of course, you are saying that is silly Tim—everyone on earth KNOWS THAT. Yes and so did Christ. The Hindus referred to this as born twice. Your first birth was to the mother. The second birth was to the father.
One birth to an Aryan mother did not make you an Aryan. You had to be born the second time unto the father. You had to be born twice. Or as Christ said:”Ye must be born again”. Every other sentence out of Christs mouth was “I think thee father” “I think thee father”. This of course is Christ showing a constant state of gratitude to his father. But gratitude for what?? This is also a constant Aryan theme. Only through the father can you be born again or born the second time to make you an Aryan. Whether in Persia or India. They had two different takes on the same theme –”keep us white”! Just like our theme right this minute in America! “keep us white”.
Christ went on and on with these themes of ‘born again’. He said it was only through the father. “Not by works or deeds lest any man should boast”. Go back in time and ask Buddha if you could be a Brahmin by works or deeds! The Hindus may make light of it now. The Zoroastrians may say they are just a ‘tribal’ religion now. But any white man that reads there actual texts knows better. Jews did not come from JU-piter. They have been on earth for quite a while. There education establishments in Rome were teaching a lot more than just Judaism. This is well known. They were learning everything about everybody. Christ did not grab these concepts from thin air. He grabbed them from Aryan religions and his non Jewish Zoroastrianism buddies. There is nothing new in the New Testament.
I have heard many smart racialist say that we need a Racial religion. We already have a Racial Religion. In fact, we have so many of them that we do NOT need another one. What we need to do is recognize it. Am I saying we should all make the New Testament into a Racial Religion. No. I am saying it is already a racial religion and like all Aryan Religions it has gone astray. Like I posted before –now that Jesus does not have blond hair and blue eyes White folks have no interest in him. Christianity is resigned to the third world like all other Aryan religions before it. The key idea is that Aryans are already born again. You can Universalize Christianity. But you cannot Universalize being White. The Davinci Code is doing a good job of getting people to questioning Christianity. I used to say we should leave Christianity alone. I know have changed my mind. We should keep taking it apart so Aryans can understand it before it completely kills us.
Comment by Tim — 4/27/2006 @ 11:07 pm | Edit This
RSS feed for comments on this post.
4 Comments