Archive for July, 2006
Mark seems tt think I confused him with Joe:
My name is Mark, not Joe, Bob.
Comment by Mark — 7/31/2006 @ 10:55 pm | Edit This
Not Spam Not Spam
“So Joe, the Tough Old Guy Let’s Surrender approach…”
I didn’t say we should surrender. I believe that for whatever reason the white race dooms itself instinctively and that we as a race will have to face far worse than we are facing now BEFORE we begin to fight back and win territory.
The basic point I try to make, as an agnostic and sometimes even as an atheist, is that much of our problem comes from the fact that whites tend to believe in a neo-jewish religous system which is, if one views the absurdities of christianity w/o making up excuses for it, fundamentally jewish. Since the elite jewish power brokers are committed to destroying the white race, it is diffucult to do battle with these jews as long as we are tied to a jewish form of superstition/religion.
Comment by Mark
When I talked about Joe, I was talking about JOE.
Joe has openly taken the position that we should give up.
I seem to have convinced Mark that HE says we should surrender. I didn’t mean to.
Whites DESERVE to lose. Nobody despises them more than I do. But the new generations do NOT deserve it.
Please read what I said, Mark.
I keep writing about what is TRUE.
People are always telling me that the world of truth is not one they want to live in. Joe would say, “Bob, hwat do YOU get out of being right?” In a practical world, in the world of a truly Tough Guy, it is absolutely absurd for a guy to keep harping on that is simply true. He gets nothing out of it.
Which is why Bob’s Blog is unique. I couldn’t care less about whether I look tough. I couldn’t care less about looking practical. I just want to be right.
Respectable conservatives make their livings by saying that what the media want to be true is true.
Christians expect to avoid eternal unbelievable agony by being what the preachers tell them is right.
So what incentive do I offer?
They tell me, “I cannot live in a world without faith.”
But what is we live in a world you cannot live in?
Then, you say, I refuse to live in it.
And that, ladies and gentleman, is what Bob’s Blog is about. I do not offer anybody what they WANT to believe in.
Mark is in here fighting for the opposite of faith. Mark is saying what I believe. Mark is respectful of Shari but he objects to my expression of respect for Shari’s IDEAS.
This puts me in a bad position, because while I have the good reasons I expressed below for praising Shari, it is the Marks and the Pains who represent what I want to pass on.
Mark represents uncomprising adherence to what is simply true. Shari us loyal to the Old Testament. Once again, I don’t think you can be in doubt as to where I put my chips.
Cut me some slack, Mark.
As a matter of fact, my REAL belief is that we need, a diamong hard belief in REALITY. I am more monmaniacal than you are, Mark. Mark is a rainstorm in the middle of a desert to me. In the perfect world, I would do nothing but urge him on.
The problem here is one you may have noticed: This is not a perfect world for those who believe in the simple truth. The world is full of Sharis and Joes. Mark is a rare bird.
So I am in the position of urging Mark to get more monomaniacal while I am praising Shari.
The woods are full of worshippers of the Old Testament and the Big Book. The world is NOT full of this kind of people who understand the importance of race. I have to deal with the world as it is.
Which does not mean I APPROVE of the world as it is.
Shari and Joe have different loyalties from mine. In our day, it is generally accepted that my job is to make them think like I do.
Shari (ladies first) and Joe and I cling to a distinction here that is alien to accepted ideas today. I think I have some intellectual exercises that Shari and Joe can use. They agree.
But what I have to offer them is not to turn them into tape recoding of what I believe. They use me as an unfortunately unique opportunity to hone their OWN thought.
This, as Shari and Joe would be the first to tell you, is called education. They consider me a qualified teacher. They can learn something from me, I can learn something from them. That’s why they like the blog. That’s why they consider it worth their while to trade thoughts with Bob and his commenters.
LibAnon considers Bob’s Blog, written by a Reagan appointee, to be a godsend. I have a very useful WAY OF THINKING. Joe and LibAnon and Shari want to make use of that way of thinking. In an age that seems alien today, that is what education MEANT.
Education is NOT indoctrination.
On the one hand, to a rational person this is obvious. But in today’s society, it involves a kind of thinking on the part of LibAnon and Joe and Shari that is as alien as visitors from Mars. They are not here to become Bob clones. If you read the comments nobody here comes close to being a Bob clone, though I feel that would be the height of brilliance.
Naturally I consider that you are wrong and I am right. But just as naturally it never occurs to me that YOU need to take it for granted that you are wrong and I am right. This is so obvious that I feel a little crazy just SAYING it. But underlying this ishte siple fact that we live in a society that is nuts.
In the present world it is the mark of an “educated” person that he BELIEVES all the things an “educated person” is supposed to believe. Today you judge whether a person is educated by whether he can recite the beliefs that “educated people” are supposed to have.
To me, a person who recites Political Correctness is a RE-educated person.
A human robot.
During the Korean War, the group that calls itself the Greatest Generation was still a unch of youngsters and ost Americans had a pre-WWII mentality. At that time, we kept hearing about our POWs being sent to “reeducation camps.” Back then the average American’s hackles went up the moement RE education was mentioned.
Today, no one ever hears the term “re-education.” The Greatest Genration simply cannot see any difference between education and reeducation. So when any aocial problem comes up, everybody agrees that the solution to it is “education.” So when it was discovered recently that babies discriminate racially, everybody, especially respectable conservatives, instantly agreed that “education” was the “solution” to this “problem.”
Note the words in quotes. Is this a problem or a natural phenomenon?
Commmunists agree that what they call Greed and what others call self-interest is a PROBLEM. In te eraly 1950s every Intellectual had to agree that greed was unique to human beings. It was absolutely agreed that no animal desired more food than it could eat, more females than any other male. No animal held territory and kept others off of it. No animal tried to lord it over any other member of his own species.
In fact, it was taken for granted that a peson who believed that races or men and women were different was a product ofhis training, of his education. It was taken for granted that he needed RE-education.
Then there were the Americans who had not yet become a product of The Greatst Generation. The objected to the concept of REeducation because they felt that THEIR training was NOT warped.
As “The Greatest Generation” took over, this idea was denounced as prejudiced. By the 1960s “everybody who counted” accepted the idea that our prejudcies were warped. Those who did not admitted they were “just old fashioned.”
So today we accept the idea that when an animal sees some things as natural and other things as innatural, that is a statement that somes from the soul of said animal — or aborigine — that we must listen to. But when a white baby prefers its own kind, that is something that needs correction.
The American population that passed the GI Bill of Rights which gave money to vetereans to go to college was the same group of people who reacted violently to the very word REeducation in Korea. They were happy to pay for education but the very concept of REeducation turned their stomachs.
I defy you today to find one American who understands the difference between education and reeducation.
Mark and Shari are fighting it out over faith, and that is welcome.
As I said, I don’t agree with Shari, but she made some good points. But Shari has made it clear, up front, that her loyalty is not to her race, but to a book. But we need these allies, and Shari spoke for a very large group of them.
She did it eloquently.
It is a regrettable fact that if we limit ourselves today tho those who are driven by loyalty to their race alone, we would indeed be preaching ot the choir. Now I happen to know that Christianity succeeded by insisting on preaching to the choir every single Sunday. It is essential.
But you can’t succeed by peaching ONLY to the choir. Shari and Joe give us needed input from other points of view. In time, as race becomes more nad more obviously central in America, when the illusion that we are the ruling majority which should be “objective” disappear, the Old Testament is going to be less and less a convenient excuse for avoiding this loyalty.
This is what happened inthe Deep South. We were also the Bible Belt, but race never eased to be central. Whites ere never a comforgtable majority, so it is only recently that we have had the comfortable illusion that we live as part of a country where whites dominate. We are simply behind the times.
At the moement when the rest of the country is gradually coming to grips with the central nature of race, Southern suburbanites are absorbing the outdated idea that race is NOT important. I see all this movement, and when someone says, “But it’s all HOPELESS! Everything is mving in ONE direction!” it makes me tired. Things that will make our future are happending all over the place.
So Joe, the Tough Old Guy Let’s Surrender approach and Shari, the Old Testament loyalist, are part and parcel of the people we have to deal with. The crew is always telling each other Deep Wisdom and superstition, but they would be appalled if the Captain paid attention to anything but the charts and his sextant.
That’s the ONLY reason he is the Captain.
Shari made the kind of comment that makes this blog worth while. I do not subscribe entirely to what she says, but it is a unique contribution. Besides, the one thing I hope we all know about Bob’s Blog by now is that it is NOT dedicated just to Bob’s opinions. We are a SEMINAR, not a lecture. That is the exact disctinction between a lecture and a seminar.
Reacting to my quote from Mark Tawin, “Faith is believing in what you know ain’t so” Shari tied in our themes here in rejecting it:
Well Twain’s definition of faith is just the opposite. It’s the definition of no faith. Faith is not closing your eyes tight and repeating I believe, I believe. It’s opening your eyes and taking alook. Certainly we can see that western civilization has been based on very different things than the ant heap. The notion of social distinctions was not based on me am the sun god and the rest of you are cattle. It was based on the notion that a leader serves his people. A very Christian notion, even if men failed. As for territory, it wasn’t called “fortress Europe” for nothing, we believed in defence, but not cannibalism. After taking a look, faith has the imagination to take the next step. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the realization of what is hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Twains definition is the one used by college professers, which is then followed by their antheap history with lies thrown in. This is the jewish problem, no faith.
Comment by Shari
Mark Twain said, “Faith if believing in what you know ain’t so.” Today, this is so true it’s funny.
I thorughly enjoy “documentaries,” but I get an extra kick out of them that is denied to modern young people. Documentaries discuss the lastest information about history, about DNA analysis and the finding of fossils and carbon dating.
There are lot of different people watching these documentaries. What young people do not know is that there are a lot of us older people watching them. Most of us were raised in a world of certainties which every documentary makes look sillier and sillier. Let’s start with one example.
In our day it was absolutely proven that man was vilent whereas chimapnzees and apes were peaceful. We now have documentaries showing how chaimpanzees hunt down monkeys and tear them apart for meat. To a young person this is routine. To us this is a violation of our whole mentality.
It is quite impossible to explain this today, but in our time it was taken for granted that only men fought over territory. The beasts of the field ignored territory. In nature, there were no borders. Marxism and Christianity explained to us that borders were something the fallen nature of man or capitalism engendered in us. That sounds a nit nuts today. We now that ALL social animals are territorial.
But there is a lot more to this than a simple factual correction. All of our philosophies were based on the innocence of animals and aborinigal peoples. In nature there were no borders and no social distinctions.
Once again, these ideas were more than just factual conclusions. They were the basis of our entire philosophies of life. Asbolutely no one, from Ayn Rand to Karl Marx to evagelicals, made any room for the idea that man was not a uniquely fallen being. Only humans had social disctinctions. Only humans had borders.
One thing we all agreed on was that humaity was unique in patrolling borders or maintaining diffferences based on class.
I cannot take you back and rub your nose in it, and that is a shame. If a young person today could really see what all of our present orthodoxies are based on, he would laugh himself silly.
We BELIEVED that crap!
In the 1980s one required statement was that “Men and women are the same.” Outside of genitalia the only difference between men and woemn was the way they were raised. Everybody had to BELIEVE that.
Now let us go back to the documentaries. What young people and older folk with corrected memories donot realize is that every single documentary contains material that is alien to my generation. At the end of many documentaries on PBS or BBC is a discussion which explains why the foregoing was not REALLY a contradiction ofhte line we were raised with.
One example. One thing that was absolutely agreed on in my day was that American Indians never practiced cannibalism. Spaniards had reported cannibalism among Mexican and Central American Indians. The official line was that the Spaniards were just trying to excuse their conquest of Native American Civilizations by claiming this.
Recently I saw a documentary which reported some analyses of the feces of fifteenth century southwestern American Indians which demonstrated that they were eating people. Tha took about fifteen minutes. The restofhte show was devoted to the following point:
1) This cannibalism was imposed on wotuhwester Indians by the stronger civilizations invading from Mexico. Those were the civilizations that we had been taught had never practiced it:
2) The next fifteen minutes explained that the word “cannibalism” was introduced into Europe by a Spandiard who said it was common and overstated it. He just wanted to justify the Spanish Conquest;
3) The next half hour was devoted to saying that Euroipe practiced cannibaism because people ate parts of the human body as medieine against illness. I have studied medical history on and off for fifty years, and I never heard of such a thing.
Today, it is taken for granted that all social animals are territorial and that all social animals have a rigid heirarchy.
Like chimpanzees, Native Americans needed some meat in their diets. Like chimapanzees, Native Americans had a shortage of meat animals until the horse was brought from Europe so they could hunt buffalo and the like. So the chimapnzees tear monkeys apart and NA’s tore other humans apart.
Young people today cannot even UNDERSTAND the last forty-five minutes of that documentary. Why did a discussion of southwestern Indians require a forty-five minute talk about the sins of Europeans?
Young people will never ask. And older people will never explain.