Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

If I Could Take You Back …

Posted by Bob on July 30th, 2006 under Coaching Session


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.

So what?

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.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Twin Ruler on 07/30/2006 - 6:34 am

    The only reason that Leftists think that the Holocaust was “Uniquely Evil” is this: they do not realize that the Soviets and the Red Chinese had similar concentration camps, and were atleast as fiendish and savage about how they had captured, tortured, and killed their victims. Leftists probably assumed that Soviet Russia and Red China really were places where everyone was equal and shared everything.

  2. #2 by Shari on 07/30/2006 - 10:15 am

    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.

  3. #3 by Dave on 07/30/2006 - 12:45 pm

    NOT SPAM

    In my community there are two opposed trends:

    Mexicans are invading in their multitudes, many of which are of low racial types. Good people morally speaking, but many are simple minded and of low intelligence. Many seem to belong to the level of the black mutts, but they lack the viciousness of the black mutts.

    Great numbers of Russians and peoples of the lower Danube nations (plus many former Yugoslavian nations and also Baltic nations) peoples are coming. Blond and blue eyed, these people are intelligent and handsome.

    I say to these blond blue-eyed people whether Christian or Muslim, come, your very welcome!

    The thought that these blond blue-eyed people, most of whom are very young, could succumb to the interracial lies and hideous ugliness of American pop culture is a horror to me. (At present these bond blue-eyed immigrants are hanging out among themselves).

    There cannot be cachet in ugliness, but that is the very thing our corporations promote. How can ugliness drive sales? What kind of sickness drives a trend to celebrate ugliness?

    I just have to believe it cannot possibly succeed. I just have to believe that human nature will not permit it.

  4. #4 by Shari on 07/30/2006 - 1:15 pm

    Does anyone here know what Heifer International is? And is it jewish?

  5. #5 by joe rorke on 07/30/2006 - 2:10 pm

    NOT SPAM

    NOT SPAM

    Whoops! Shari got here first. Hebrews 11 is called “the faith chapter.” I’ve always thought this was a good definition of faith. Didn’t say I had any. I’m losing it by the second. I have just about none left. I can’t see Christ endorsing this Lebanese slaughter. It’s OK with John Hagee and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell I’m told. But it’s not OK with me. All I said was that I think Hebrews 11 has a very good definition of faith. I agree with Shari. Mark Twain was a fine writer but I have to disagree on his definition of faith.

  6. #6 by Al Parker on 07/30/2006 - 2:32 pm

    So have we humans evolved above tribalism (other than in the Middle East, of course) or is this multicultural, multiracial system just a phony construction that can crumble at any moment?

  7. #7 by Mark on 07/30/2006 - 3:11 pm

    NOT SPAM –
    LACKING A CROSS ON IT OR ANY OTHER RELIGOUS SYMBOL

    “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.”

    No, it’s called reasoning with that thing between one’s ears god supposedly gave us.

    Twain did not believe in the christian fairy tale because it did not make any logical sense to do so. Anyone who has read and mulled over “Letters from the Earth” would realize that. Of course many christians curse Twain without ever reading what he wrote about religion. They inhale the half truths that Minister So-and-so exhales and take it as gospel.

    By the same token, outside of reading religous tracts and mumbling prayers to a silent god, most christians don’t even realize god’s infallible word, the bible, foretold christ’s 2nd coming to take place during the day of the apostles, not 2000 years later.

    But that is a blasphemous point for me to be making, I’m sure.

You must be logged in to post a comment.