Archive for April, 2006

Lisa– DUHHH! Again

Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 4/26/2006

Lisa shows the intellectual powers of the opposition by a one-sentence comment:

“What the f*** are you talking about?”

It would be the usual reaction for me to concentrate on the obscenity and her hostility.

But I try to notice the implications of the exact words people use.

When you hate somebody and you want to hit at them, you say soemthing about them or you condemn what they say. Lisa did netiher. Instead she used a form of condemnation which is common to “anti-racists.”

Her condemnation was that she did not understand what I said. If you think about it, that is a common “anti-racist” tactic. If you think about it a bit more you will realize that is a rather ODD tactic.

Obviously if she does not understand what I am saying I am supposed to immediately understand that that proves that there is something wrong with ME. You can understand a lot about those people if you think about this carefully.

In the 1950s, when all media and publishing was in New York City, it was not just assumed that New Yorkers were sophisticated, but that New Yorkers WERE sophistication itself. If you didn’t know your way around New York you were a rube.

In my teens I called that “New York provincialism” and absolutely NOBODY, even down South, could understand what I meant.

Honestly, they were mystified by the term “New York provincialism.”

Not just New York liberals but midewestern and Southern conservatives took it so much for granted that New York MEANT sophisticationthat they honestly could not understand what I meant.

Today everybody does. Then NOBODY did. Such is the gap I have to explain between now and then.

A lot of people would brag that they were just country boys at heart. They didn’t WANT to be sophisitcated New Yorkers. But it never occurred to them that New Yorkers who knew nothing about anywhere but New York, the people who later referred to middle America as “flyover country,” were not sophisticated.

Remember tha when New York began to recognize the West Coast as another sophisticated place, they used the term “flyover country” as a BRAG. They were sophisticated because they knew BOTH sophisticated places, the West Coast AND New York. Those who lived inthe flyover country in between were all hicks.

Can you put yourself into those times and understand exactly how they thought?

If you can, you can begin to understand why anti-racists think that the fact they cannot understand what I am saying should shame ME.

The New Yroker of hte 1950s took it for granted that if someone didn’t know his way around New York City, that person was a hick and a rube and should be ashamed of himself.

Believe it or not, the IDEAL sophisticate back then was someone who proudly knew about nothing BUT New York City. He had been sophisticated all his life. He knew nothing BUT sophistication.

Like people who said “flyover country,” someone who said he knew about nothing but New York City was BRAGGING.

I’m deadly serious here.

So the anti-racist always tells us that anybody who doesn’t agree with him is IGNORANT.

Ignorant of WHAT?

Everybody today who has been in the school system, and especially at the college level, knows all about the ideas the anti-racist, the proponent of “diversity,” is espousing. Anti-racists simply cannot believe that. They assume that the only reason we could possibly disagree with what they say is because we haven’t HEARD it all a hundred times before.

How on earht could anybody get a college degree witout being able to recite every single word the anti-racist says, from rote memory?

Butu they honestly don’t realize that. They believe we haven’t HEARD it all, at length, over and over and over and over, just as they hace when they were sitting in exactly the same classes. They couldn’t get a degree without being able to recite it all, but it never occurs to them that we couldn’t get a degree without being able to recite it either.

So they honestly believe that, degree or not, we never heard what they are parroting. They honestly believe we are “ignorant,” just as the person who proudly denounced “flyover country” genuinely believed he was showing that he was a Man of the World, a true sophisticate.

If you didn’t know New York, you were a rube. If you knew anything BUT New York, you were a hick.

That last sentence is IMPORTANT.

For the anti-racist, if you don’t agree with the line they are repeating, you must not have heard it, so you are ignorant. But remember the last sentence of that paragraph:

If you know anything BUT the “diversity” line they are repeating, you are a provincial, a hick, a racist, and a rube.

If you know anything BUT the “diversity” line, they take it for granted you should be ashamed of yourself.

So if you knew any place but New York or the West Coast, you were ignorant, a provincial, a rube and a hick to those who talked about “flyover country.”

So Lisa says that if I say anything outside of anti-racist orthodoxy, she is proud to say she cannot understand a word of it. She takes it for granted that we all know that I should be ashamed of myself.

So “What the f*** are you talking about?” for Lisa is exactly the same as the New Yorker in the 1950s who proudly proclaimed that he knew nothing about anywhere but New York City. It is a “flyover country” type brag on her part.

Someone who was raised in “flyover country” and knows a lot about it, like me, is proving that he should be ashamed of himself.

She thinks she has humiliated me.

She really does.

She HONESTLY does.

Today it is almost impossible for any literate person NOT to understand what I meant in the 1950s by “New York City provincial.”

Today it almost impossible for a literate person to belive that when a person referred to “flyover country” in the 1960s he was BRAGGING.

And if I am still around, I will trying to explain to people how, back at the turn of the century, when someone said he couldn’t understand anything that wasnt a repeat of hte “diversity” line, he was ctually BRAGGING.

Today we all take it for granted that New York City provincial who is proud of being New York City provincial is a moron. Nobody says “flyover country” any more, because they would be ashamed to be that provincial.

It won’t be all that long before everybody will understand that somebody who BRAGS that he cannot undertand anything but the Politically Correct line will be recognized as feeble-minded. The process is already under way.

It won’t be all that long before everybody knows how silly a person is who simply cannot understand an idea that Mommy Professor didn’t cram down their throats.

I knew that going in. I knew that fifty years ago.

But it’s nice to see that I’ve lived long enough for the world to catch up.

3 Comments

Derek

Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 4/26/2006

Derek jogs the poor old man’s memory:

I just wrote of something similar on myspace. I did, however, touch on your ideas…but I wanted to get something started.

Have you seen the myspace site yet? You might want to look into it. It is immensley popular. While I think that it mainly geared towards the youngin’s that is where your focus should maybe be as well.

Just a thought.

MY REPLY:

No, Derek, I did NOT look at your site. I will and I will keep up with it.

Give me the url again and I’ll put it here again.

Anybdoy else who has a site PLEASE give me the url again.

I just let it slip.

2 Comments

That Last Article Was BORING!

Posted by Bob in Bob on 4/26/2006

I was just looking over the article below, “The Church’s War Against White Intelligence.”

It is long and it is BORING.

There is a lesson in that.

It is a perfect example of what happens when I try to cover all the basis.

I tried to touch on Theology and then spent a lot of time trying to explain why I dared do such a thing.

What I should have done was to say to hell with it and make my point.

The point of the whole thing boils down to one sentence:

For at least a thousand years, the entire white race lived under churches that bred against intelligence. Anyuone who could be taught to read would become a priest or a monk and take vows to have no children. For centuries that segment of hte population was HUGE.

Every time a child showed a quick mind, he or she was selected for Church and made sterile.

In the meantime, Jews bred for higher IQs.

We have no difficulty with the idea that Jews were successful in raising their innate IQ. They certainly did NOT breed ofr creativity, but they did breed for the kind of pedestrian thinking that gets IQ scores up.

We have no problem with a higher AVERAGE Jewish IQ.

But nobody ever even mentions the possibility that the centuries of church breeding for lower IQs could have had any effect at all on US.

5 Comments

The Church’s War Against White Intelligence

Posted by Bob in History on 4/25/2006

——————————————————————————–

PLEASE NOTE I DID NOT SAY THE CHRISTIAN WAR AGAINST WHITE INTELLIGENCE.

I SAID “THE CHURCHES’ WAR.”

I mean what is today called the Orthodox and Roman Churches.

But this is no polemic against them. They were the only churches there WERE in the first centuries of the Faith.

Protestant churches, and especially evangelical churches, are just as upset at the idea that Jesus could have been married as the most conservative Catholic priest.

Fundamentalist churches are infuriated at the idea that Jesus, who was wholly a man, could ever have had a sexual desire.

Those who cannot understand this distinction between “church” and “Christian” can now proceed to call me a heretic.

– The Church’s War Against White Intelligence

Too many Christian commenters don’t like the truth, so they deny it.

In my simplistic, non-theological way, I believe that Christ was hated becaus he simply would not bow to the Temple theolgians.

He could have beeen a famous Temple theologian.

Instead Christ kept going out among the masses and telling the simple truth.

Christianity soon rejected all that.

It was too sophisticated to talk about simplistic reality.

Where Jesus attacked adultery, the theologians like Paul attacked all sex.

I belive that, that because of its obsession with the decayed Zoraostrian hatred of life itself, which we now call Manichaeism, there was a two thousand year war in all white countries against the birth of intelligent children.

This is VERY relevant today, because the higher AVERAGE IQ of Orientals and Jews, neither of which were subject to Church hatred of intelligence, is constantly given as a reason for doing away with our race.

No, Elizabeth, they were NOT myths.

The early Christian ideal of a perfectly beautiful, moral and intelligent woman marrying a brilliant and moral Aryan male and persuading him to remain chaste and sterile with her WAS the Christian Ideal.

St. Paul’s ideal of sterility, which commentersw call “moderation,” came out of nowhere if you are the kind of personwho tries to find everything he said in the Old Testament.

St. Peter was a happily and unapologetically married man.

James the Just was Jesus’s brother, Mary’s son conceived of Joseph.

The DaVinci Code makes the point that one fundamental point of Judaism in Jesus’s time was that a father had to find a wife for his son and make sire they produced children by the time the son was twenty.

NOBODY, but NOBODY, knew about tghis historical point before it showed up in that book.

So why does everybody go ballistic when someone suggests that Jesus was married?

It is one of those facts of history that nobody knows or mentions, but once the secret is out, it makes very, very serious waves.

Where in the HELL did this Ideal of Sterility COME FROM?

And where in the hell did this idea that the ideal for a person with good genes was to be a human sacrifice in genetic terms?

First think about it: Where id this come from?

Is there a HINT of it in the Old Testament?

So why did Paul take it for granted?

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

REPEAT:

Why did Peter take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

REPEAT:

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

Answer that FIRST before you comment on this.

Poverty, chastity and obedience.

I defy you to find any mention of any of those “Virtues” in the Old Testament.

They are absolutely, purely, and otherwise inexplicably a part of the degenereate form of Zoroastrianism which was overwhelmingly important during the first seven centuries when Christianity developed.

Why does this MATTER?

Because Zoroaster said that the Evil God, Ahriman, was the God of THIS World. The Good God, Ahura Mazda, was the god of hte NEXT world.

Early Zoroastrianism, back at 1000 BC, was limited to members of the Aryan (hence the word Iran and Erin for Ireland and Aryan in India) race.

Zoroastrianism was originally anything but racially suicidal.

But by the time of Saint Paul, anything of THIS world was evil. If you believed that eternal life had to do with your children, you were on the side of Ahriman.

This belief can come from nowhere else.

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

So if your ideal for a beautiful woman was that she should have children, you were evil. She should devote herself entirely to the NEXT world, not to the world of Ahriman.

The truly religious person would withdraw entirely from THIS world. The more he had to offer in this world, the more holy he or she was in denying it to Ahriman, the god of THIS world.

The Evil One.

The Church also found clerical celebacy useful for keeping Chruch property away from any heirs the priest might have. That is enough for the Practical Man.

“It’s all just money.”

How Macho can you get?

But Paul never claimed to be a Practical Man.

So any child who could learn to read was encourage, nay, pressed to have no children of his own.

For two thousand years.

And nobody today has the slightest idea that this could have had any genetic effect.

2 Comments

Rushton

Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 4/25/2006

Those of us who have been in this intellectual battle for a long, long time will find this interesting.

If you don’t know what we are talking about, don’t worry about it.

MY COMMENT ON THE ARTICLE BELOW:

You know what I am talking about because you were at the AR Convention.

Rushton talked about this article at the American Renaissance Convention.

He remembered me very well.

He always starts by greeeting me profusely and then quickly getting tired of what I have to say.

I get tiresome fast, and he lets me know it.

Jensen would never have the guts to speak at an AR convention. Rushton, like me and Carlton
Coon, will say what he has to say anywhere they will let him say it.

Rushton is a complete IQ nutcase. He really believes the Chinese and Jews are our superiors because they have a higher average IQ.

But what makes ALL the difference is that he sees us white gentiles as FAMILY.

People breed with those who look like them. The whole point of that article is the Real version of “We are Family.”

Rushton sees himself as part of OUR family, a family he will die for.

I finally realized that, as long as a man will fight for our survival because he is loyal to his race as a family, it doesn’t make any difference to me if he IS an IQ nut.

You and I know a world with no whites and only Jews and Orientals would be an ant colony, never advancing.

You and I knew that the loyalty of those conservatives who worshipped the Japanese in the 1960s could not be trusted.

But Rushton has drawn Jensen and his followers into LOYALTY to our race, something no one else could have done.

Rushton has drawn Jensen into a whole new category that you and I never thought of.

When Rushton talked about the superiority of the Orientals at Charles Martel Society convention I walked out. I had heard too many Jews hit the IQ argument and then go for the “assimilation” of our race out of existence.

It took me LONG time to realize that Rushton, despite his IQ obsession, was loyal to our
racial survival.

Rushton is loyal.

And that is all I ask of anybody.

You can quote this if you like.

THIS IS “THE ARTICLE BELOW,” A STATEMENT BY A HIGHLY INTELLECTUAL ALLY OF MINE THROUGH THE YEARS:

(N.b.: Elizabeth also cited this 1995 article as one of the breakthroughs of our age):

“I nominate April 25 as Rushton-Jensen Day, as it was on 1995 April 25 that
Eureka Alert! announced the issue of the 2005 June issue of Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, which contained J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R.
Jensen, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive
Ability, together with four responses (three critical), and a reply by the
authors.”

“Rushton and Jensen both have been arguing, at least since Jensen’s 1969
article, “How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?” in the
Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1-123. While the article summarizes
research since, it says little the authors had not been saying all along.”

“What is significant is that an issue of a major academic journal would
devote an issue to the topic. The reader will have to decide for
themselves whether the responses provide data-driven, positive evidence
*for* equality. That the article got published where it did is a powerful
indicator that the issue of equality vs. inequality is becoming less and
less salient.”

1 Comment

So MARCH, Will You?

Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 4/25/2006

——————————————————————————–

What if TEN Stormfronters hit the Newsgroups with the Mantra?

Ten of thousands of people would read it!

What if HUNDRED Stormfronters hit the Newsgroups with the mantra?

What if a THOUSAND Stormfronters took four or five hours and hit a hundred Newsgroups with the Mantra?

Some idiots would start to COMPLAIN about it!

A dream come true!

All you have to do is cut and paste.

There is no need for comment.

“Liberals and respectable cosnervatives say 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 am talking about 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 tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

No Comments

Mark, not Peter

Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 4/24/2006

Mark quotes me and hits on the real point:

“Get your fingers out of your ears. We must HARNESS the volcano.”

Ok Bob, I might be simplistic in my thinking, but HOW do we harness the volcano? Do we organize marches, do we start yet another 3rd. political party, do we go knocking on doors inviting neighbors to boycott select businesses, do we create a massive mail campaign to our congressman???
What exactly do we do?

Comment by Mark

A Bob’s Blog commenter is asking the exact question, hitting hte BASICS.

Mark, Papa Bob is so proud of you he even got your name right this time!

This is the exact thing htat puzzles most of our people.

They’ve seen revolutions on TV. Revolutions are huge marches, torchlight parades. Their non-TV contact with acrtivists consists of getting up from their computer and TV screen to answer a knock onthe door.

Practical Men keep urgig us to get out from “hiding” behind our computer screens and go out in the streets.

They’re tough, macho, and silly.

The other side can get half a million Hispanics, blacks, and Mommy Professor’s pet “revolutionaries” out on the street in a heartbeat.

If you will read this Blog and THINK about it, I have told you what we must do. Hit on the points I make that WORK, wherever you can.

There are HUNDREDS of relevant Newsgroups out there, but only a handful have been exposed to Bob’s Mantra:

” Liberals and respectable cosnervatives say 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 am

talking about 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 tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the

white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a

naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

On the media you hear more and more bitches about something “that’s making hte rounds in the Internet.”

They do NOT bitch about this because the Internet is harmless.

If you have never done a Newsgroup before, it might take you an hour to find out how through Google.

Then the cut-and-paste involved in putting Bob’s Mantra on each one takes about two minutes each.

In one day’s work, less thant he time it takes to get to a march in another city, you could hit hundreds of newsgroups and tens of thousands of readers with this message.

How many doors would you have to knock on to accomplish THAT?

If several commenters did that, it would begin to really irritate our opponents.

It would be “making the rounds on the Internet.”

They won’t mention it on the media, though, because they’d have to REPEAT it.

Every time a person is exposed to the fact that all this “anti-racism” is only aimed at one race, it changes the whole question.

You can DO that.

You can do it anonymously.

And you can do it NOW.

4 Comments

The Smell of Rebellion

Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 4/24/2006

I talked about the 1992 phenomenon of Ross Perot going from saying on the Larry King show that he would be willing to be drafted as president to a majority in the polls before his crazy withdrawal from the race.

I talked about the fact that the churches that that do exactly what everybody says they should not do are skyrocketing in membership while the get-along-go-along mainline Protestant churches have been steadily dying away.

Now I will tie them together with this, the point that is that is important to US.

As I said, what is important to us about the growth of evangelicals is the POLITICAL lesson there.

The lesson of the sudden collapse of the entire Soviet Empire almost overnight, when everybody suddenly said, “This is SILLY!” has been completely ignored while we whimper and sob.

What is important about Perot is not Perot. It has nothing to do with his big ears or the fact that he is a nut or even his political message.

From our point of view, the ONLY important thing here is the smoldering rebellion that is obvious in all of this.

We are always weeping and wailing about how passive everybody is.

Centuries-old churches are falling in America. In Europe they’re already GONE.

Both of our all-powerful political parties were terrified by a little nut from Arkansas.

Every Sovietologist in 1980 agreed that the Soviet Empire was there to stay and by 1990 they all agreed it was bound to go.

And we are still besieged by Wise, Practical Men who tell us, “Everybody is happy with things the way they are!”

“OH, WOE!”

I find it hard to believe that all those whiners and criers are holding forth while I seem to be the only one noticing that Mount Vesuvius is boiling up all around us.

In Iceland, alll their energy needs are satisfied by harnessing the live volcanoes that made the island and are still going strong. But they didn’t do that by waiting for the volcanoes to produce lots of heat for their houses.

Get off of talking about Perot’s ears. Get off of worrying about the theology of evangelicals.

The volcano is going, and it is slightly less subtle than an A-Bomb.

You have to stick your fingers in your ears to hear yourself scream “All if lost!”

Get your fingers out of your ears. We must HARNESS the volcano.

And before you can harness the thing, you have to, for God’s sake, NOTICE that it is there.

2 Comments

War Story

Posted by Bob in General on 4/24/2006

A former German flier was giging a speech about his experiences in World War II to a church audience in the United States:

“Vee vass on a mission. There was me and Hans und four other fokkahs.”

The embarrassed sponsor of the speech broke in:

“Ladies and gentlemen, you may think he used a dirty word.”

“Actually there were several models of German planes. There was the Stuka dive bomber and two types of combat aircraft, one called the Messerschmidt and one called the Vokka.’”

“Sorry to interrupt, Fritz. You go ahead.”

“Ja, ja,” Said Fritz, ” Deese fokkahs vass flying Messerschmidts.”

No Comments

Drumps

Posted by Bob in Bob on 4/23/2006

If you have a fragile ego, you need to avoid intelligent small children like the plague.

My two-year-old niece had heard what people were saying about me, but they wouldn’t say it.

So every time she saw me with a beer in my hand, she would say,

“You’re a DRUMP, Uncle Bob!”

It turned out she was perfectly correct. I WAS a drump.

Big time.

I ended up a couple of decades later in alcohol and drug recovery.

Everywhere I went i was surrounded by other drumps. I gloried in the week-long Afrikaaner braaevleise (?) which put the wildest Texas cookout to shame. They drank what any objective lab would testify was a toxic amount of alcohol and ate steaks held in their hands like hamburgers. For a week or so we all just passed out from time to time and came back to to gorge more and return to the smashed condition.

In Malawi, sort of neutral territory, I took care of a Cubano Commie who was out of his mind drunk. Blantyre, Malawi was neutral territory then. I wouold have killed him and he would have killed me in our normal occupation.

But if you get drunk together, that involves a mutual agreement any other Drump will understand.

During the American Revolution when french officers were over here, several things kept cropping up.

One was the fact that, to a French aristocrat, taking care of business was what your stewards did. It was always curious to them that George Washington knew exactly how each ofhis plantations was doing. He knew the name of eachof his slaves, and he also knew how well they worked.

The idea that a French aristocrat should know how well each of the peasants he lived off of did workwise was as alien to them as moonmen.

Contrary to stereotypes, Frenchmen didn’t drink all that much.

At least by the standards of the Founding Fathers.

Those were pretty heavy standards.

The Frenchmen were always appalled by the constant toasts in hard liquor.

Just as the stereotype is that Jesus never had a sexual thought in his life, the unspoken subtext is that the Founding Fathers never drank to intoxication.

Meanwhile back on earth, it wasn’t unusual for a prominent man in the community to be found son the couch or even on the road smashed out of his mind.

I doubt that Washington ever allowed himself to be seen drunk. But Washington worked hard to be the soul of dignity.

And the record shows that even HIS intake of alcohol would have put us modern mortals in the drunk tank.

In the third world, the people at the front line drank very, very hard.

I survived to end up in recovery.

Most of the people I was with didn’t live long enough to end up in recovery.

It is well known that Adams and Jefferson died on the same day, July 4, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

That is not as much of a coincidence as you might think.

In the old days, a man in his eighties would live until he saw no point in living any more. One of my uncles lived alone, took care of himself, and drove his own car until he was 86. He smoked heavily.

At age 86, Dr. Bruce, my uncle, tried to marry for the third time. He had been married twice before, his beloved wives had die, and he had six children by them. But that year he was rejected by a 75-year-old woman he loved.

So he died.

Obviously Jefferson, who was in his eighties, and Adams, who was in his nineties, were living until July 4, 1825 precisely because it was the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration, an event that was being celebrated all over America.

Adams’s last words were, “Jefferson still lives!”

Jefferson, hundreds of miles away, had just died.

All this strikes people as a hell of a coincidence.

Actually it was as natural as gravity.

Both os them had lived until that day. Adams’s last word simply show that he knew that.

The record shows that, by today’s standards, even Adams was a “drump.”

Let me end this aimless set of observations with a final one.

One biography of George Washington I was reading said, “Washington loved fox hunting. But any sensitive person who saw what his dogs did to a fox he had hunted down would never have fox-hunted again.”

I beg to differ. George Washington was also perfectly aware of what that same fox did to a rabbit every day of the week. Unlike the suburbanite historian, Washington was up on the front line of life.

People who condemn hunting are always under the impression that, if it weren’t for the guy with gun, a deer would have died ina Old Deer’s Home.

I am the last person to praise the Tough Guy that the average member of the group that calls itself The Greatest Generation thinks he is.

They are NOT tough.

The French followed Rousseau, who never left Europe and theorized about Noble Savages. The Revolution they made led to terror and Napolean’s absolute rule

Our Founding Fathers had damned few illusions, least of all the illusion that they were The Original Tough Guys.

And their Revolution worked.

3 Comments

LibAnon — Bob’s Seminar!

Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 4/23/2006

LibAnon says,

“this is a seminar, not a lecture”
Then call it “Bob’s Seminar”! “Bob’s Moot” sounds too much like “Bob’s Irrelevant”, which Bob clearly is not.
“I feel terribly let down.”
You’re not going to find equals here, Bob. You are an authentic genius, and since there’s only one of those per two million or so, the odds are unlikely that another one is going to turn up here. Geniuses are always let down by their followers.
So what keeps our race going forward, to the extent that it DOES go forward, is not genius but the Golden Rule. Simple, but not easy. If you’re going to ask us to make a greater EFFORT to understand you, you’re going to have to make an even greater effort to understand US. One of the biggest problems here is that your responses to people are often so out of line with what they actually SAID that it simply boggles the mind.

Comment by LibAnon

MY REPLY:

LibAnon has just explained the problem I have, but he has also justified my coming to you for help.

“Bob’s Seminar” is perfect!

It is also something I would not have come up with, but it is an exercise in the basics I am talking about.

I am a genius, and that is a problem.

I am a genius in the area I cover because I was not only born with a lot of mental equipment, but I have added half a century of hard thought and hard-won experience in the area I am trying to teach to my mental endowments.

I have repeatedly apologized for misstating what people say.

I MEAN those apologies.

I am very often ashamed of what I said.

But you put up with it because you know that what I am doing is very, very hard. It is WORK to explain all that I have done, and I often screw it up.

I will try to do better. You will put up with me.

I always want more out of my students than they can do. I certainly always want more than you can do EASILY.

No dedicated teacher has ever done the job perfectly. The best teachers at our level are almost invariably a pain in the ass.

No one but a professorial bully WANTS to be a pain in the ass.

But every successful student is always glad his best teacher WAS a pain in the ass.

A great postgraduate-level teacher will be a pain in the ass. So naturally the half-wits conclude that if you are a pain in the ass you are a great teacher.

I am not self-righteous about misinterpreting you. It is a failure on my part.

I don’t LIKE failure like that.

I will keep trying to overome that failing. My hope is that what you get from me makes it worth the grief.

1 Comment

Bob’s Moot

Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 4/23/2006

Do you think it would be a good idea if we changed the title from Bob’s Blog to Bob’s Moot?

This would emphasize the fact that this is a seminar, not a lecture.

Bob LEADS this Moot, but it is no fun and little intellectual profit to ME if I am the only one doing the talking.

In the usual course, the professor feeds the students and then tests them and gives the final judgement whether they have absorbed HIS points. I hope Bob’s Blog has moved beyond that.

Yes, I want you to stay on subject. But I do NOT want this to be just absorb and regurgitate. I want to PLANT a way of thinking in you. When I die, I want you to go ahead and improve on a base I set.

When I am just plain wrong, I want YOU to tell me so.

When I’m no longer here, I want you to tell each other how to proceed.

I want ideas popping up that needed my basic way of thinking to get started, but which I would be amazed at.

It scares me when, as in the congressional debate on renewing the ban on the IRS setting racial quotas for private schools, the people on my side forgot all the basics as soon as I was not there.

Why can’t somebody else tell a TV interviewer who saysd it is critical that immigrants and Americans getting together in this country,

“They’ve GOT a country.”

Nobody else seems to remember that.

Basics, basics, BASICS!

And from basics, you PROCEED.

I get a bit desperate, gang.

SOMEBODY besides me has to STICK to the basics.

And “basics” mean something you PROCEED from.

I can’t do all the proceeding.

I CAN’T DO ALL THE PROCEEDING.

So every time a commenter goes back into the standard stuff, I feel terribly let down.

Don’t talk about stuff here that you can talk about just anywhere. Let’s concentrate on OUR basics.

Are there any comments, questions, disagreements?

5 Comments

The Blog is not Complete Without the Comments!

Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 4/23/2006

I got a wonderful set of comments today.

Every one of them represents what the commenter, the person sitting in on this seminar, was made to think of by my statements.

Every good comment is something that needs sayinf. Each is as integral a part of Bob’s Blog as what I say is.

PLEASE read the comments.

No Comments

The Judgement is not Just Theology

Posted by Bob in Bob, How Things Work on 4/22/2006

A German once said to other Aryans, “If you said the things to other people that you say to yourself, you would be a sadist.”

Those of us who have a conscience are very cruel to ourselves.

One commenter says he feels guilty about nothing in his life and he is not a sociopath. He is an enormous exception.

I do not need the Bible to stand before Judgement all the time. To me, this is Aryan morality. It is a cruel master.

I have never considered heaven-and-hell Christianity to be Christian “morality.” What Christianity says is that if you are good you will be rewarded forever. If you do evil you will be tortured eternally.

This is religion, but it is certainly not morality.

I wonder if a person who is not bound to morality regardless of reward or punishment can be saved when the real Judgement Day comes?

Action based entirely on punishment and reward is not yet morality, but many a person has been frrightened into acting morally by a fear of Hell. But as he thinks in terms of morality year after year, his conscience will develop.

CS Lewis says, “If you are not yet sure the Faith is true, pretend as if it WERE true”

A dog who obeys because he will be whipped if he doesn’t is obedient, but he is NOT moral.

In the movie “A Man for All Seasons,” a Duke who was a friend of Thomas More urged him to say he was for Henry VIII’s divorce even if he didn’t believe it was right.

He said, “Say it, Thomas,and I will stand beside you.”

Moore answered, “And when we both face the Judgement, and God says you will go to heaven because you endorsed the divorce because you believed it was right, and God says says I am damned because I endorsed it though I believed it was wrong, will you THEN stand beside me and walk into the Pit of Hell with me?”

I think this is profoundly true.

The only difference is that I don’t need the Pit of Hell to make me do what is right.

My own conscience, my Aryan conscience, is all the punishment I need to make immorality painful.

4 Comments

Real Prophecy Doesn’t PAY

Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 4/22/2006

I put this in Stormfront:

I remember watching “Crossfire” in its original version back about 1978.

Pat Buchanan and his liberal had a young “racist” on, and Buchanan was trying desperately to prove he was a respectable conservative.

Buchanan said that Americans who died in World War II gave their lives to open Europe to third world immigration. His pet liberal praised him to the skies.

Two decades later, Pat published the best-selling book he ever wrote, “The Death of the West,” which said just the opposite.

In the intervening period I talked to Pat a number of times.

He and Joe Sobran moved steadily — not because of me — into the anti-immigration camp by the early 1980s.

For fifteen years or so after his conversion, Joe and I and others tried to get Pat to write a book about it. He kept saying a book like that would do more harm than good, that it would ruin him.

I repeat, when he finally did write it sold like hotcakes.

So today, when you talk about anti-immigration leaders, the top of the list is Pat Buchanan.

And David Duke, the man Buchanan crowded out of the Republican primaries against Bush, the man who was ALWAYS on the side Buchanan claims for himself?

He is STILL called “Former Klansman David Duke” by the media.

Liberals and respectable conservatives call me some things, too. But what they call me is less public and a hell of a lot less publishable.

David and I were right from the word go. In fact, we right at least twenty years BEFORE the word Go.

In order to destroy Communism, I was advocating, –before 1960! — that Republicans stop their “moderation” and their hopeless pursuit of the “The Negro Vote.” I said Republcains go after the socially conservatives Democrats who were against “civil rights” in the South and the “ethnic” areas up North.

By 1963 I had won elections with that strategy.

It took us twenty years to get that idea into practice.

In 1968 those “Wallace Democrats” for ten million votes in the general election. But respectable cosnervatives wouldn’t touch them because they were called “Wallace Democrats” and would stain conservative respectability.

So Republicans continued keeping their respectability and being moderates. They kept going after what was now called “the black vote.”

And they kept losing.

Finally, in 1980, Reagan went after “the Wallace vote” and smashed the Democrats.

Overnight nobody ever heard about “Wallace Democrats” again.

They are now called “Reagan Democrats.” You have not heard “Wallace Democrats” since election night, 1980.

Since election night in 1980 every single Republican says he was ALWAYS for appealing to the “Reagan Democrats.”

So who got credit for going after the “Reagan Democrats?”

Credit went to every Republican and respectable conservative who fought me every inch of the way for two decades, that’s who.

And who gets credit for trumpeting the danger to the white race posed by open borders?

Former Klansman David Duke?

Of course not.

Pat Buchanan, the one who said Americans died in World War II to make Europe brown, gets the credit.

This surprises neither David nor me in the least.

In fact, this is what David and I both signed on for. We knew this would happen from the get-go.

David and I have been in this battle since we were very, very young.

To say that we ever expected credit would be an insult to our intelligence.

One of the first things a political revolutionary learns is that there are those who fight the fight and those who take the credit. The minute our vital job is really done someone who is a professional credit-taker will cash in on what we have been pushing for decades.

This is routine.

We are willing to settle for this because we know we are the ones who make real history.

There are planty of people available to take credit when the time comes. They are not really important.

But there are NOT plenty of people who are willing to keep plugging away trying to light the match the way David and, to a lesser extent, I do.

We are VITAL. We know we are IMPORTANT.

We know that if we keep trying to light the match, no matter what it costs us, the match will eventually be lit.

There are plenty of credit-takers. We who light the match are critical and indispensable.

Pat did us a favor when he finally, at long last, cashed in what we had been trying to get SOMEONE to cash in on for so many years.

Reagan was useful, too. He did destroy the USSR.

FINALLY.

I was glad to see it when big-time, big-pay political consultants FINALLY cashed in on what I had been pushing since before 1960.

What do David and I get for it?

We get the knowledge that we exercise POWER.

None of the credit-takers have any real power. If one credit-taker was never born, history would not be changed in the slightest.

But if there were no Bob Whitaker, no David Duke, no James Kelso, no Don Black, history might be entirely different.

The Pat Buchanans can make money hand over fist.

The Ronald Reagans can go down in history as Mister President.

We are willing to let them have the titles.

We are willing to let them have the money.

We are willing to let them have the fame.

All we ask is something the average person would consider to be a minor matter:

We just want to change the course of world history.

This may seem silly and irrelevant to those who are proud of calling themselves Practical People.

But we will settle for nothing less.

2 Comments

The POLITICAL Lesson in the Death of Mainline Protestantism

Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 4/22/2006

Shari says,

“Are you saying that the Catholic church will not defend and even promote the notion that whites ought to mate only with whites? If so, I can say that I have noticed this and been puzzeling about it. I don’t know where it came from other than confusing nice and good. Our bishop said,in relation to illegals, a while back,”be kind, be kind,be kind.” Which I translated in my head to be nice, be nice, be nice. But, I have to admit that I don’t know how to be good rather than nice either. Other than that my husband and children are white, but my children are adults and struggling.”

Comment by Shari

MY REPLY:

Like every other large church, the Catholic Church has done all it can in recent years to destroy the white race. All the churches today are simply one more branch of respectable conservatism and liberalism.

The most horrible example of this in recent times has been the Reformed Church of the Afrikaaners in South Africa. The Methodist Church did this to me when I was a child.

But as usual I am going to veer off into what your comment made me think of.

Thinking about what you said, I realized that I see three major branches of today’s Western Christianity:

1) The Catholic Church,

2) The mainline Protestant Churches,which includes the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterian, Lutherans and so forth

3) The evangelicals, a category that exists in my own mind. They are what the media refer to as “Bible-thumpers.”

I say this because some Baptists are just more mainline churches, while the Bob Joes types are in the category of evangelical.

You can tell which is which not just by their theology, but by a more obvious measure.

ALL of the mainline churches are dropping steadilyi n membership.

The harcore evangelical Baptists are all taking large numbers of converts, and have been doing so since the 1960s. The respectable Baptists, those who do not call themselves Southern Baptists, are stagnating along with every one of the mainline Protestant denomincations.

There is a giant growth of evangelical churches in South America. It is one of the least reported historical turnovers in history.

Please, please, PLEASE understand I am not talking theology here. When it comes to the numbers and major conversion, this ia matter that is vitally important to a political pro.

Politics, real politics, is about what people WANT.

If the militant vegetariansim had had a steadily increasing membership for two generations, I would discuss it and look at it very carefully.

This would NOT mean that Bob takes vegetarianism seriously or that I am sympathetic to it.

I am trying to sell some ideas, so I want to know why ideas, any ideas, sell.

I haven’t gone into this because I was afraid everybody would get all tied up in theology.

But the simple statistical fact is that category 1), the Catholic Church, is still a net gainer in the matter of CONVERTS, not juts in its birth rate.

Every single church in category 2), the mainline Protestant, is going steadily down.

Every single church in category 3) is heading upwards in CONVERTS, and has been doing so for most of my lifetime.

I am NOT interested in this as a matter of theology. This is a critical POLITICAL phenomenon.

There were practically NO evangelists in South America when I was born. Now there are tens of millions of them. They are heavily into the politics of Central America.

The media almost totally ignore this.

They are NOT our friends. But they are important, because they are doing something RIGHT in a matter of practical politics.

Here is a major lesson I get out of this:

Conventional wisdom is dead wrong.

Conventional wisdom tells us that the way to succeed in any kind of politics is to go along and get along.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the mainline Protestant denominations are the ones who do absolutely nothing BUT go along and get along. Every political fad becomes part of the official doctrine of every church from Methodist to Lutheran to the more respectable branches of the Baptists adopts Politically Correct dogma as the Voice of God the minute some sociologist comes up with it.

The Catholic bureaucracy in Rome tries hard to do the same thing, but the Catholic Church can thank its lucky stars that it so rooted in old, “outdated” theology.

While evangelicals sell US out, they do run the “Christian” right.

In fact, the only reason the Catholic Church gets as much grief from Political Correctness freaks as evangelicals do is because the Catholic Church is so much BIGGER than they are.

So if you look over what I just said, you will notice that on critical rule over thepast two generations has been that churches are growing in direct proportion to the amount of grief they are getting from the PC freaks.

Or, to put it in even more basic English, churches are growing or dying in direct proportion to how much grief they are getting from mainline liberals and respectable conservatives. The more they “with the times” the more they are DYING.

To the extent that churches “go along and get along” they are DYING.

We do not approve of the politics of any of them on race. That is not the point.

What IS the point is that, in the long run, the way to die is to go along.

Think about the conclusion the media would be trumpeting if the opposite were the case. What if churches that go along with fashionable oopinion were growing and those the media disapprove of were dying.

Do you think THAT trend would be ignored inthe media the way the real trend has been?

If the opposite were the case, every magazine would have an article in every issue about how traditional Catholicism is dying out. Every issue would have pictures of the empty churches “out of date” preachers were talking to.

There is NEVER a media picture of the ever-emptier churches where mainline, government-supported preachers in Europe are talking to churches.

In a really respectable Anglican Church in England the congregation each Sunday is smaller than the choir used to be.

When was the last time you saw a picture of THAT in the media?

4 Comments

Mainline Protestantism

Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 4/22/2006

Shari says,

Are you saying that the Catholic church will not defend and even promote the notion that whites ought to mate only with whites? If so, I can say that I have noticed this and been puzzeling about it. I don’t know where it came from other than confusing nice and good. Our bishop said,in relation to illegals, a while back,”be kind, be kind,be kind.” Which I translated in my head to be nice, be nice, be nice. But, I have to admit that I don’t know how to be good rather than nice either. Other than that my husband and children are white, but my children are adults and struggling.

Comment by Shari

MY REPLY:

Like every other mainline church, the Catholic Church has done all it can in recent years to destroy the white race. All the churches today are simply one more branch of respectable conservatism and liberalism.

The most horrible example of this in recent times has been the Reformed Church of the Afrikaaners in South Africa. The Methodist Church did this to me when I was a child.

But as usual I am going to veer off into what your comment made me think of.

Thinking about what you said, I realized that I see three major branches of today’s Western Christianity:

1) The Catholic Church,

2) The mainline Protestant Churches,w hich include the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterian, Lutherans and so forth

3) The evangelicals, a category that exists in my own mind.