Archive for December, 2006
Garbage Dump History
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, History on 12/19/2006
Our version of history developed because of the Bible. Christianity was already a huge group by the second century, AD. Even then people were going to Israel to find relics. Probably before that the same millions of Hellenic Jews who became the Christian Church had been making regular pilgrimages to Jerusalem.
When Constantine became a Christian the hunt began in earnest. The Emperor Justinian’s wife, Theodora, made her own travels to Palestine and she found the True Cross, the Birth Place of Christ and a lot of other things. A modern historian says, “I’m a PhD and my peer PhDs agreed this very convenient fact is true so shut up.”
Theodora said, “I’m the Emperor’s wife and this is the True Cross and you had better believe it or you’ll see what a non-true cross feels like.” Exactly the same thing, just different times, different mores.
But as atheism took over academia, they needed somewhere besides the Old Testament for everything to come from. They found it right next door. Mesopotamia was on one side of Palestine and Egypt was on the other. Do the arithmetic. What is the statistical probability that all things really originated within a few miles of where archeologists were already digging?
Nobody questioned it. It is still our official history.
My explanation is a bit different, and it is not cloaked in abstractions and details to show you how academic I am. Egypt and Mesopotamia had become colored lands and their advances had died. But if you just say that colored folks did all the stuff you are halfway to Political Correctness already.
But there is more to it than that. I have written about Garbage Dump History. I said that, if a catastrophe wiped out civilization tomorrow, historian of the future would say that everything was invented in the New York City Garbage Dump. Like Egypt, that would be the place everything would be found. We could get a theory that twentieth-century Harlem was the fountain of all greatness.
We find colored people in the dead, dry lands where nothing has moved for a thousand years.
Do you think there would be any WHITE people living in such places? The very absence of whites there should give you some indication of what REAL history is like. White Flight began a LONG time ago.*
But I am the only person who has made that observation.
And I won’t be here forever, gang.
The Garbage Dump History ofhte future would come to the same conclusion pesernt historians do. It would be found that huge garbage dumps were placed away from the ritzy parts of town. Anyway those ritzy parts would be built over and archeologists would be looking for OLD stuff. They would find it in the dumps. The population nearest the dumps would be largely ghettoes. So obviously civilization was a product of minorities.
An almost unbelievable amount of NEW history was found when they discovered one single Ice Man in Europe. His corpse date from the time the first pyramids were being built. History had built a whole story of hte deveopement of weaving from the fact that his clothes should have been invented over two thousand years later later in the Middle East. His tattoos, a method history had said developed in the Middle East much later, showed the needle-point therapy, acupuncture, that was supposed to be developed a couple of thousand years later as part of Oriental Wisdom in China.
That was ONE body. Instead of causing history to be questioned, it was tossed into a sort of “Ripley’s Believe It or Not” category in some documentaries and then carefully forgotten.
As so often happens, there is an alliance between Old Testament “Christians” and atheistic Political Correctness professors that neither one knows about. The Old Testament types want everything to be developed in Palestine. You will never hear an accurate description of where Mount Ararat is in a Sunday School class and no professor will talk about it.
So if you say that everything started in Egypt and Mesopotamia, the “Christians” will scream foul. If you say it all came from Palestine the atheist professors will raise hell.
But if you say that things came from OUTSIDE the Middle East, both groups will join the lynch party or the laughter at the idiotic theory, whichever mode is in fashion at the moment.
What is important about the Ice Man, for instance, is not the breathless news we hear. If anybody else will join me in CLEAR, BASIC thinking, he will see a whole new world of history opening up to him.
* There was a stele at the Second Cataract of the Nile, which survived into modern times to be photgraphed repeatedly before it was flooded over by hte Aswan Dam, that said, “No Nubian shall cross this line except to buy provisions and return.”
The Absolute Importance of BASIC Thinking
Commenters keep saying, as with what I said about St. Pail and Mani, “I haven’t heard this before.”
Of course you haven’t heard it before. Nobody’s SAID it before! You simply do not understand how RARE my kind of thinking, the KIND of thinking I am trying to pass on to you, is. And the urgency is growing for me to stop being modest about it. If you do not value it enough, I will be the last person who does it.
Two thousand years of history, billions of words of theology, history, and archeology, and no one else has made this CLEAR connection!
And the word CLEAR is the point. If you really want to you can go back and find some mumbling mention of this sort of thing. It is well known that Mani synthecized Zoroastrianism and Chrisitianity, but the CLEAR, SHORT connection is hte important one. Adam Smith did not found modern economics by a passing mention of supply and demand. Newton did not give us our present picture of the universe by a passing mention of gravity.
If CLEAR was not such an important word, you can say that every workman in Neanderthal days who noticed that something was heavy was an early Isaac Newton. Ten thousand years before Adam Smith was born every trader knew that a shortage meant high prices. They were NOT all Adam Smiths.
The word CLEAR is EVERYTHING.
Stop trying to prove thirteent hings at once. Get over your obsession with the IMPLICATIONS of where a comment goes. Scrub out of your mind hte Stormfront habit of mentioning things just to show how much detail you know.
I need to help develope some fellow CLEAR, BASIC thinkers before I die.
Drowned History
If people are on the move, the seacoast is a very good place to travel. There is food there all the time.
I used to think of the people who crossed into America in the Ice Ages across the Bering Land Bridge into America as all going on land across the western part of Canada and the US, down onto the deserts of Mexico, and a few of them going through Central America.
Now this seems naive to me. Central America looks like a bottleneck on the map, but it has jus as much coast as the coast-to-coast US or South America. In fact, it may have had twice as much, since travelers doing south in the west could not have used BOTH coasts as they could in Costa Rica. The deserted cities in the Central American jungles had access to two coasts, and people from two coasts might well have wandered inland enough there to meet each other.
But all that history is drowned. Coasts shift all the time while archeologists will only go to places like Egypt where neither new civilizations nor water have disturbed the garbage heaps they mistake for the places human development took place. That leaves out our Aryan, Iranian, Erin (Ireland) history, because we are still building on the locations we live on. It leaves out the entire Black Sea Valley. As technology advances, our present history is going to be a laughing-stock.
The Black Sea Valley
It now seems pretty beyond question that Atlantis and the Flood of Gilgamesh and Noah all were a fact of history. Plato says that wisdom and learning came from there, and that once it went down the world slowly began to regain some of the greatness that had been in Atlantis. It also seems more and more unquestionable that the Black Sea is the Urheimat, the original home, of the Indo-European race.
All this depends on what the Black Sea Valley was actually like before the Flood. And nobody, least of all historians and archeologists, has any incentive to find out what it was like. Like the blond mummies in China, it is big news and a big embarrassment which they try hard to ignore.
Atlantis
One of the major roadblocks to science is that the preternatural becomes the supernatural.
Preternatural means something for which we have not YET found a scientific explanation. Supernatural means a miracle, something that happens for causes we will never know and in defiance of natural law.
When we do not know the reason for something, it is open to exciting theories. Those theories end up making the whole thing look ridiculous. Atlantis is one of these things. One thing any scientist would have told you up to ten years ago is that, if there WAS such a place as Atlantis, it did not, as advertised, drown completely in a single day.
Plato is the only source we have for a short mention of Atlantis. Actually a whole civilization DID drowning a single day not very far from where Plato lived. In fact, in the very place where this disaster began, the official language was Greek until Constantinople became Istanbul in 1453.
The special value of the city that was Byzantium and then Constantinople and is now Istanbul is that it is the only way ships can sail onto the Black Sea. The Black Sea was created in ONE DAY. What I will call the Black Sea Valley, the area that was land before that fateful day, was far larger than Greece. It was probably very fertile.
The Black Sea Valley was protected from the Mediterranean by the land bridge that existed where Istanbul is today. The bottom of it is still sea water. That tiny land bridge eroded slowly. Then, ONE DAY, it broke. On that day it reached critical mass, and a deluge came roaring across it at about two hundred miles per hour. We are finding other places where this took place, some of them in America.
The most improbable thing about Atlantis is the one that did, in fact, occur. The whole country went down in a single day. The water rushed in, but it rocked back and forth for quite a while. About the only place anyone could have been while it rocked was on a high place on the very edge of the Black Sea, like Mount Ararat.
We have a complete history of the world that does not recognize that anything ever happened in the Black Sea Valley. If you ask over 99% of the population where Mount Ararat is, they will say it’s somewhere near Israel.
Pro-Misery Societies
As I said before, only when evolution reached the Aryan stage did a people begin to question the value of life itself. Suicide is common in the Orient, but it is always a sacrifice or an apology. Buddhism came from a blue-eyed Aryan named Gautama Buddha, and Buddha offered guidance on how one could avoid life completely. His goal, like the goal of the religion Buddhism came from, the Judaism to Buddha’s Christianity.
There is a similar historical relationship between Christianity and Judaism, but what makes me suspicious of the insistence that Christianity was ENTIRELY a product of the Old Testament is the fact that the GOALS of Judaism and Christianity are entirely different. Even in Jesus’ time, many of the Temple priests denied any kind of rebirth, and the concept of Heaven and Hell is vague at best in Judaism.
By contrast Buddha and Hinduism had the same goal: an escape from the eternal curse of the Wheel of Life, the misery of living forever as one animal after another, with respites when one’s karma got one TEMPORARILY into Nirvana.
A lot of people laugh at the Islamic idea of a bevy of renewable virgins, but in the Deep Wisdom of Hinduism and Buddhism, the first sign that one’s time in Nirvana was ending was that one began to have and smell bad breath.
Now let’s get back to basics. Aryans questioned the value of life ITSELF. They did not see life as a good thing, and the agonies of old age in those times was something Buddhism emphasized. This relates to those who think that hunting is bad. They assume that, if the hunter didn’t kill them, animals would die in a hospital loaded with painkillers and their family weeping around them.
An animal that dies from a hunter’s or is suffocated for five minutes by a lion is relatively lucky. A kudu killed by wild dogs on the African veldt is slowly eaten alive for an hour or two. Other kinds of death take longer.
So Aryans noticed that whoever ran THIS world was not kind. The Hindus and Buddhists wanted to escape the whole process. They did not want to die that way a million times and counting. Up in Persia, Zoroaster hit on a different formula. He declared that the god of THIS world was indeed evil. But the god of the NEXT world, Ahura-Mazda, was good:
“My kingdom is not of THIS world.”
But as ideas get discussed and people get paid to “interpret” them, Aryans tend to carry them to their logical extreme. Thus Zoroastrianism, which was the religion of the land Mani came from, Iraq, had by his time degenerated into a belief that this world was altogether evil, and everything about it was evil. Mani was a Christian, but he openly synthesized the two great religions of his time, the Christianity based in Constantinople that ruled Rome and the equally vast Persian Empire of Zoroastrianism.
Mani developed a Christian heresy called Manichaeism, which called for universal human sterility. But Mani was a latecomer. The same idea had been propounded in a modified form by St. Paul. Paul said it was better to remain sterile, but one could still attain heaven if he had sex AND a Christian marriage:
“It is better to marry than to burn.”
Some heretics wanted to get rid of the Old Testament completely, and each of them called for Manichaeism: “Sterility NOW!”
For two thousand years, the Church has struggled to separate Paul’s Zoroastrian hatred of this world from Mani’s doctrine. The problem is that they both come from the same source, and no one in any church can admit what that source WAS. They must maintain the hypnotic fiction that early Christianity developed entirely and solely from the Old Testament. Protestants have a harder time, because they must shoehorn every Christian doctrine into the Old Testament that most Jews in Christ’s time couldn’t even READ.
The Old Testament for the majority of Roman Jews was in Greek, not Hebrew, and Luther decided these must be false texts since everything had to develop from Hebrew and this was in Greek.
But, again, back to basics. Aryans have been trying to deal with the simple fact that, in those times, life was seldom worth living with a CONCEPT they realized: Something HAPPENS to you when you die. The concept of an afterlife was a major basis of Egyptian civilization, so that concept was certainly around a long, long time. But Egyptians simply provided for the next life the way they would for an extension of this one.
Aryans, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian and Christian, decided that THIS life was, on balance, NOT something they wanted to extend indefinitely. There must be a Higher State in the next world, because they could not bear to face endless repetitions of THIS life.
To repeat the old Spanish proverb, “If life were worth living, we would not need so many philosophers.”
But in white countries today, we are becoming less and less tolerant of misery. That is the reason Western Civilization has roared around the world the way the Mediterranean roared over our ancestors when their homeland became the Black Sea. Every other civilization is built on a stoic survival of misery. Western civilization has an endless list of valid criticisms, but it is not based on the idea that one must find a Deep Reason to lie down and let the world roll over you. That idea only returned with the World War II Generation.
Contrary to popular stereotypes, even the Victorian Morality was not based on a worship of misery. They saw the superiority of a self-disciplined white society over others and they insisted on it. In Victorian times if you ate a lot of sugar your teeth rotted. If you drank a lot you could pay a huge price. A girl who had a bastard child suffered tremendously.
In Victoria’s day, infant mortality was huge, and huge families were needed in Europe just to keep the population constant. There simply was not time for a young woman to have and raise the children needed and have an occupation as well.
In America this habit of huge families ran into the fact that, in America, children survived. We had all the population we needed, with a little more natural growth, when the cheap-labor mania set in in the middle 1800s. We could pick and choose a few more good immigrants, but immigration did NOT populate America. In 1850 some 90% of our white population probably descended from pre-1700 immigration.
So Victorian morality largely reflected the realities of its time, not a male chauvinist plot to “keep women down.” Compared to women in most other societies in Victoria’s time, women were wildly free in the West. Most Womens’ Lib spokespersons are Jewish, but have you ever heard them discuss all those wonderful rights Jewish women used to have in the ghettoes and in the Middle East?
Back to America after 1850. The Civil War destroyed a major segment of the population that would have been born to the old maids who proliferated after it, but our population was growing nicely anyway. In 1921 nd 1923 America passed the Immigration and Nationalities Act. These acts were aimed at keeping our population as it was ethnically, and the fact that more immigration for its own sake was no longer necessary.
These Immigration and Natruralization Acts provided for a MAXIMUM of 300,000 immmigratns a year into a population of over over 110 million. It formalized the fact that Ameriuca was NOT “a nation of immigrants.”
In 1965, the World War II Gneration got rid of this 1921 and 1923 rejection of hte idea that we somehow owe it to the world to destroy oursleves.
The Misery Philosophy did not come from the Victorians. Only with the World War II Generation did we return to self-destruction as an ideal.
Activity is NOT Productivity
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, History on 12/16/2006
Like so much else that dominated the twentieth century, Marxist “economics” was so ridiculous that nobody even talks about what it REALLY said. For example, Marx dealt with the “diamond-water paradox” by saying that if a person is dying of thirst in the middle of the desert, water is NOT more precious to him than diamonds.
The diamond-water paradox was an old challenge to supply and demand theory which said that, if diamonds are worth more in supply and demand terms, why is it that a person dying of thirst in the desert would rather find a ton of water than a ton of diamonds? Obviously, the value of anything follows supply and demand, and supply and demand depend on location and circumstances. Your demand for water is greater if you are thirsty, and it is absolute if you are thirsting to death and there is no water within a hundred miles of you.
Marx said that location and circumstances had nothing to do with the value of anything. The value of anything, said Marx, was the “objective labor time” involved in MAKING it. This is called the Labor Theory of Value. So the value of diamonds and of water is equal to the labor time each takes to produce. So if you stumbled on water in the desert, the water had no economic value.
This idea of value made some problems for Communist planners when it came to how many resources they should allocate to transportation. If goods are worth no more at one end of the railroad track line than at the other end, why build the track at all?
And, of course, this Labor Theory of Value REALLY screwed up statistics on economic growth. The hundred cars you build the first year are enormously costly. As mass production increases, each one costs less, at least in a market economy. But in a Marxist economy, all the later cars are just as valuable as the first ones.
And, of course, according to the Labor Theory of Value, there is no economic progress. If one farmer can feed a hundred Americans well and it takes seventy-five Russian farmers to feed twenty-five non-farmers, and both groups work the same number of hours, only the objective labor time, the hours, count. So the two groups are equally productive.
One should laugh out loud at “Marxist economics” the way we do at a “magician’s” spells, but many Western European scientific organizations declare Marx to have been a great scientist.
This objective labor time infested our society before Marx was born. Certainly Thomas Edison was no Marxist, but his “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration” is the same Marxist insanity. He wanted people to think that he did all his inventing because of his VIRTUE, which showed how wonderful a guy he was, rather than because he happened to be born smart in the right things at the right time. So if anybody else had been willing to work as hard as he did, they too would have invented thousands of things, including the electric light and the phonograph. There just had never been anybody as virtuous as Thomas Edison in all of history before.
Another example of this kind of thinking is the idea that I benefit from fellow citizens who are good citizens “because they vote and pay taxes.” I agree that if they pay taxes it is probably good for me, because the government is going to get that money and if it doesn’t get it from them it will get it from me. But VOTE? Why in heaven’s name should I be grateful to someone else for watering down my vote with his own? If he votes my way, fine. If he votes the other way, I am supposed to admire him because he VOTED.
But the real kicker in this is the labor theory of value when it comes to things like “doctors and lawyers.”
People equate these two fields of endeavor, but one is productive occupation and the other is not.
Doctors are useful to me. At best, all the efforts of all the lawyers are a zero sum game. In fact they are not only valueless they clog up the system so much that it is estimated that each of the two and a half million lawyers in America cost us a million dollars a year apiece by impeding every kind of actual production.
There is not the slightest shred of evidence that good lawyers produce ANYTHING. Only a good Marxist or some other kind of idiot could say that forty years of detailed legal experience and knowledge produce anything anybody wants. This crappy reasoning is contained in the idea “You can buy justice.”
No, you can’t buy justice. You can buy ACQUITTAL, and it is scary to have people serving on juries who say that acquittal is the same thing as justice.
A lawyer who gives you a long, impressive spiel about cases and Latin phrases in case law is exactly like an ancient Egyptian priest who could recite the complete service for making the sun come up in the morning. All the effort, all the time, all the experience and he is less useful than a child taking out chamber pots.
And Marx would say that chamber pots should still be used. They required objective labor time, you know.
Al Parker, the Integrationist
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 12/16/2006
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
No, I have to disagree with this. There are non-whites — Asians, Arabs, Hispanics – that are indistinguishable from whites except by appearance and last name. Some are good friends of mine.
(As for the logic, there’s no telling that if we were tossed into third world barbarism and given dark skin that we wouldn’t resort to acting like the people around us, especially from a young age.)
This is the problem with white racialism. I can sympathize with it, but I don’t see how in a multiracial society, you will convince your people to exclude others who are just like you and live among you but merely don’t look like you. Even the Germans admitted they were made up of several white races and while Nordic was favored (eg: waffen ss recruitment posters), it was but one element.
Even where the non-whites are not fully assimilated, the goal of nationalism is to assimilate them and forge them into one people. Case in point: at the EURO conference Bob attended, the French nationalist speaker concluded, “We have to assimilate them [the non-whites].” Consider the numbers: 25% of French school children are Muslim. What should they do?
If you do not assimilate the people who already live among you in a multiracial society, you end up with some racial supremacy that is divisive and is ultimately untenable. (As we are well aware, all it takes is for one generation to drop the ball to screw everything up). Another option is convincing your people to pack up and move somewhere, like a white Zionism. That usually takes a cataclysmic event (think holocaust) to set it into motion. As a last resort, and the most comfortable state for folks in our community – you can become a nutball who looks forward to a race war that is to be fought when the day when the “shit hits the fan” — a day that never seems to arrive in the lugubrious decline into darkness.
Comment by Al Parker
ME:
I have made the point over and over that a brown-SKINNED world is a stagnant world, an ant-heap. Parker never heard a word of it. He thinks it’s all environment.
That French assimilationist should never have been at the Euro Conference, and if another Latin “My- daughter-can-marry-anything-that-breathes-if-it-speaks-good-French” type ever speaks at a Euro Conference, I will leave. I am not a nationalist, I am a RACIST.
Parker, you and I are enemies. You want a Wordist nationalism, which is as alien to me as a Wordist Communism. You act like one of us, and therefore you are more of a danger than a fanatically anti-white Jew.
Take your filth elsewhere.
Znother Basic
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 12/15/2006
What really throws us about non-whites is htat they “act white.”
Ted Bundy’s friends were largely made up of lawyers, who dealt with psychopaths all the time, but none of them had any inkling that Bundy was completely unable to feel guilty about anything. About one in fifty of the people you know is a complete sociopth, but I would be astonished if you knew who they were. I can only suspect, because I look for it more.
Very, very few sociopth know htat theyu are sociopaths. They act like everybody else.
So a person in a brown skin, if he is raised in this society, will act like a member of this society. But are the feelings inside him the same as mine?
Every respectable conservative and every liberal will tell you that their non-white “friends” feel and think the same way they do.
I wonder if it’s true?
Semi-Adopted Jews Led to Adopted Jews
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, History on 12/13/2006
Right now Jews are in such a population collapse they that are jealous of the European countries that are demographically the worst. Practically nobody who talks about neoconservatism really knows what it is.
One of the wellsprings of neoconservatism was a discovery Jews made. Just before neoconservatism got going, in the late 1960s, a few Jews began to discover that all the filth and self-hatred they were putting on the screen to “get” the society they were in — Jews always regard the gentiles around them as enemies, and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy –all that sick crap did in fact hit at the youth. But the youth most drenched in it were THEIR children.
When Jews sponsored Zero Population Growth for gentiles, its first and most fanatical adherents were their own Jewish offspring. So they did get whites to reverse their population growth and adopt third=world children instead of having their own, but there was another effect non one even noticed. The JEWISH population took a nose dive.
Israel’s population has boomed, but it has boomed with “Pajama Jews,” Jews are pouring in from non-white countries. Jews are now the ones with the highest percentage of third world adoption.
If we are doomed, Jews are doomeder. And that was one basis of the rise of neoconservatism. If you will read Commentary Magazine, it keeps harping on the damage liberalism is doing to JEWS.
This family adoption is a natural result of Franz Boas’s Hate Based Initiative against white gentiles. Boas came to America from Prussia in the late nineteenth century and proposed that all the minorities unite against the white gentiles. In fact, what Boas proposed was the exact equivalent of Marx’s idea that all the poor people should unite behind the “intellectuals,” and I don’t think it is mystery what group 90% of those “intellectuals” would come from.
Jews of the Boas persuasion, which is the absolutely dominant Jewish attitude since 1945 when the Hitler phenomenon gave Jews a license to stop pussyfooting and kill openly, are able to identify with anti-white minorities the way Jews have been raised to stick together through the millennia. They are as fanatical about anti-white black initiatives as they are about Jewish survival. The result has been that anti-white initiatives have completely destroyed Jewish survivalism.
And Jews are so busy hating us that they really don’t know it. Neoconservatives have an inkling of this reality, but they cannot see it, so they are hitting at acceptable targets the way neoconservatives do. Neos and respectable conservatives are looking at words and philosophies while their respective worlds, white gentile and Jewish, are collapsing behind them.
But no one is ALLOWED to notice this. If I say this on Stormfront, I will get the usual shrieks about the infallibility and power of the Jews.
Why can’t people see reality? The blacks have already signed their death warrant. Hispanics are now the biggest minority, a status that was once a monopoly of blacks. There is nothing a black can do that a Hispanic can’t do better and nastier.
Why can’t people see reality? Why spend all your time hating Jews when they have already committed suicide?
How did they commit suicide? They did it by hating US so much that they paid no attention to what they were doing to themselves. A lot of our people want us to concentrate so much on them that we make the same mistake.
Why can’t people see reality?
Simmons and Alan B. On Target
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 12/13/2006
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
While we are tearing each others throats out our enemies are continuing to destroy our race,
lets focus our energy on them and not on each other. This situation we have here is common,
we run out of steam so we bicker amoungst each other, its what tears all groups apart and
they just give up. Bob’s is showing the way, now we need to take the torch and go with it.
When we continue to ask Bob for permission to try something it is like a child asking mommy
if they can play with Billy, he doesn’t care what we do, he wants us to take the lead and go
at it along if we want to. lets just do it to it.
Comment by Alan B.
ME:
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
No one is less enthralled by a cult of personality than me a born existentialist. I
mentioned Dave perhaps adding material to your site so you could relax and produce at your
highest levels and we still have something to chew, keep up the mo so to speak. Now Bob do
you really want us to take up the slack and run with our new ideas or just yours? Now I like
your mantra and all, but I have my own way of operations different from your blunt trauma
methods. I understand the need for repetition, but in my book the faithful need to have
their moment of doubt before the new idea will sink in to their skulls. Hell I even got
thrown out of Baptist Sunday school for asking questions, and from that day on I found my
calling, making sausage out of sheep. Now that the PC flock is the largest and most powerful
in the hills let us work together in letting them fufill their true destiny.
Comment by Simmons
ME:
Right! I want you to go ahead and I want you to try it out in any way you think may WORK.
The two things that drive me nuts are, 1) as Dave said, “Why can’t people see reality?” and 2) “Why can’t people do things that WORK?” There is an awfully lot of overlap in those two questions.
Simmons, not only do I not demand that you repeat things as I do, there is the simple difference in individuals. What works for you may be something I can’t handle, and vice-versa. In the end what I have to offer will seem as simole, in retrospect, as supply and demand. But Adam Smith got economics started, not completed.
I am getting pieces from Bob’s Underground Seminar fairly regularly now, and I plan to give those some attention. This Iran thing r eally took it out of me. I had to make a decision that others followed, and every time I have to do that I spend some time kicking myself, whichever way I go. Decisions are HARD, and for some reason they always seem to end up in my lap.
It’s kind of a weird feeling to struggle internally with a decision, and then tremblingly make it after debating iwth yourself for a long time, and then to hear people trumpeting it about as if it was Something From On High. I wish I were a tenth as confident about my own judgement as other people are.
If I’m, wrong, people don’t blame me,and a sociopath would wonder why it bothers me to make these decisions. The end result is that sociopaths end up making most big decisions while people who have consciences to hurt them avoid making decisions.
Anyway, I am about at the end of my deciding and self-kicking phase, and I did have the effect on the Iran Conference I wanted to.
Dave Read My Mind
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 12/11/2006
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Well, I don’t about that one, taking on that role. But Simmons gets to the very heart of things in his comments about BW taking on too much by thinking it is his duty to save the entire white race.
You see my problem is coping with the very fact I suspect it may be true, that it may actually be true that BW does bear that responsibly.
Now that sounds preposterous, but is it?
I have empathy for that fact that someone like BW may get up in morning, look himself in mirror, and say to himself, “Darn it all, if I don’t do it, it is not going to get done, and unfortunately, it’s me that’s got to do it.”
The problem is that God doesn’t pull punches, and at times in course of human affairs, the whole damn thing DOES ride on one person’s shoulders.
Now I know a lot of people don’t believe that, but I can’t help thinking of the old Navy advertisement trying to lure young (and dumb) engineering grads into the Naval Officers Corps: “In the Navy, you get responsibility fast!!!”
That’s called truth in advertising, because I fast forward in my mind and see this young dumb kid who bought into Navy’s come-on on the deck of some Naval vessel manning one of those one-time use only machine guns that are your only hope of shooting down an incoming Exocet missile.
Here’s the arithmetic: You have got ten seconds to shoot that sucker down from time you see that missile on the horizon and one burst of machine gun fire to do it and if you fail, you and everybody else on board die and horrible and violent death.
I wish to God life were not like that, but unfortunately it is.
Comment by Dave
ME:
Dave, in the late 70s when Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran both supported open borders, the slogan of the right was, “Free Movement of Goods, Capital, and Labor.” I kept trying to explain to all of them that this was insane even as an economic proposition. The PEOPLE of a country make up the country, so a politically unstable population that comes in makes a country unstable.
Obvious, right?
Wrong. I spoke ont his in place after place, I put it inthe Congressional record, I did a piece on it in The New Right Papers, and they kept saying “Free Movement of Goods, Capital, and Labor.”
ALL of them, Dave, every ONE of them. NOBODY mentioned my point, even in the hundreds of reviews around the world that The New Right Papers got.
One of the triumphs of my life was about 1988 when I was listening to my car radio and a congressman was asked if there shouldn’t be free movement of goods, capital and labor, and he answered what I had been saying for two decades, in my exact words: “Labor VOTES.”
During the Cold War, every time somebody said something abot the Communists that amounted to, well there is hte West and the East, and both are more or less the same, I would ask, “Why is it that every Communist states has to build a wall to keep its people IN, while America has to build walls to keep people OUT?”
It never failed. I remember once saying, “For the eighteenth time,” because each time the person ran off with some attempt to avoid hte subject, I repeated it for the nth time, “Why is it that every Communist states has to build a wall to keep its people IN, while America has to build walls to keep people OUT?”
Nobody but me EVER used that argument.
Let me repeat that: Nobody but me EVER used that argument.
I developed the Mantra decades ago. Nobody but me EVER used it.
Let me repeat that: Nobody but me EVER used it.
Remember, I was the one who ORIGINATED these thunderously obvious sstatements of the reality that is at the bottom of an entire world view. Let me repeat: Nobody but me EVER used them. I had to use the congressional record and then a complete anthology I invented for a major publisher to get one point out.
I NEVER persuaded anybody to use the Communist argument, and nobody expected the Soviet Empire to simply dissolve because its people were sick of it.
As for the Mantra, I have been pushing it for decades, and only Stormfront and years on WhitakerOnline have ever gotten anybody to use it.
So I look in the mirror and I know damned well I am unique.
It is NOT a comfortable uniqueness. Why can’t people SEE reality? Why can’t they recognize an argument they can SEE working, that is the fundamental truth of everything they are talking about?
And when I am no longer here, will my species of humanity simply disappear?
LibAnon’s Non-Fuhrer
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 12/10/2006
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
I’m not sure what you’re asking for, Bob. If you need help with any specific task having to do with writing, proofreading, factchecking, technical stuff, etc., I’m sure a request for help here on the blog will elicit responses that accord with the particular schedules and abilities required.
If you’re seeking to build a staff in general, however, I’m not sure what our race needs is yet another far-right groupuscule organized according to the Führerprinzip. I was halfway serious in my last comment — what we need is not yet another party or pressure group, but a true deliberative body. A “White National Congress”, if you will. Right now, Bob’s Blog is the closest thing we have to that. By comparison, every other “white forum” on the Internet right now is only a glorified bathroom wall.
Comment by LibAnon
ME:
LibAnon, you must get your mind out of institutions!
Everything I have said about acting like senior staff has been that a senior sstaffer is NOT an organization man. He goes ahead and DOES things. He does not fit into the leftist, European, academic idea of an institution or a bureaucracy. You need to get your head out of that kind of thinking.
Robert Townshend, who turned Avis from an iunknown little company to Hertz’s major competitor in the 1960s, wrote a short best-seller about how business worked. He talked about people who write job descriptions for executives making a hundred thousand dollars a year, a fortune at the time.
He said that if you had had to WRITE a job description for him, the guy shouldn’t be at that level. He goes in and finds out what he should be doing. He asks for and gets the authority he needs.
BUT:
The JOB comes first. The bureaucratic definition of a job is what European companies thought of first and foremost. They couldn’t compete with Americans who just went ahead and DID things or got tossed out.
Nothing I have said even hints at an organization of any kind. I am saying that each person should go ahead and DO it. Does that sound organizational to you? Does that sound bureaucratic to you?
Simmons suggested that Dave might help me out. I said great, so who will make the next move? Obviously this should not be handled the old European way, while everybody sits there while His Majesty maketh up his mind. In European thought, Dave would now ask me what Simmons has in mind. In old Europe I then call in Simmons and he explains to me what he has in mind. Then I tell Dave what Simmons has in mind.
In bureaucratic terms see have now justified the time and pay of three executives, me, Dave and Simmons. And we haven’t accomplished a damned thing. As I heard one person say at the top, “Meetings beat the hell out of WORK.”
That is the way European institution work. Everybody stands frozen until the idea gets cleared at the top. While they’re sitting there frozen, serious professional go ahead and work out the suggestion. Dave asks Simmons what he has in mind.
Wow! That’s mind-numbingly complicated, isn’t it?
Yes, it IS. Most people simply can’t think that way. They had to learn it because it was learn or fail.
Until white people got to China, they didn’t have the wheel. Until Americans got back to Europe to use what they had learned conquering a continent, Europeans actually lived below our pauper level until we drove their businesses out of business.
Yes, below pauper level. I SAW it.
European business got run over and now they operate the American way. That is why the European standard of living is, for the first time in history, comparable to ours. You would not believe how poor the average European was when I first went there inthe 1950s, and they were richer than than pre-War.
So let me return to the steps I mentioned above:
1) Simmons suggested that Dave might help me out. I said great, so who will make the next move? Obviously this should not be handled the old European way, while everybody sits there while His Majesty maketh up his mind. In European thought, Dave would now ask me what Simmons has in mind. In old Europe I then call in Simmons and he explains to me what he has in mind. Then I tell Dave what Simmons has in mind.
2) In bureaucratic terms see have now justified the time and pay of three executives, me, Dave and Simmons.
3) Der Fuhrer Whitaker, Dave and Simmons get kicked out on our asses by somebody like Townshend and he finds somebody competent.
Believe me, what I am suggesting is as far from ” I’m not sure what our race needs is yet another far-right groupuscule organized according to the Führerprinzip” as you can get. I am trying to persuade YOU to get out of this Fuhrer or bureaucratic mode of thinking.
If Shari wants my speech reprinted without the repetitions she should copy and paste it, do the cuts, and hand the result to me. If I approve the basic idea baout Dave that Simmons suggests, Dave should go to Simmons and talk it over.
I do not expect you to grab all this at once. I did it far too well.
I terrified other senior staffers on Capitol Hill to the point that when John Ashbrook died I had a hard time finding a new job. When I got there, John had had an Administrative Assistant and a Legislative Assistant. They always talked iwth him and brought things to him. Two years after I got there, they both had left. I did their jobs incidentally. I figured out what John wanted and I didn’t go to him and tell him what I had done and then ask for more directions. I didn’t see him once a week. His earlier staff saw him every day.
In short, his organization was not necessary, and the very idea of having me in THEIR offices scared the crap out of staff members whose life was justified by talking to their boss daily. When my boss went to China, he demanded that I be there every day. This was pre-cell phone, and he needed someone there who would simply DO it in his name.
Does that sound rigidly organizational to you?
Someone just did a fine job initiating and setting up our yahoo! fall-back page. I said, “Go with it!” Then he asked me if he could stay in charge. What in the three words “Go with it” does he not understand?
I love his suggestion about expandingonthe buddy system, and I said so. Now he wants ME to propose it specifically. I am NOT your Fuhrer. If you have a proposal, PROPOSE. If I say it’s a good idea, you have my opinion that you should go iwth it. But, Hell, even if I don’t like it I am NOT your friggin’ FUHRER!
I REFUSE to be your frigging Fuhrer. I ahev repeated this until I am turning blue: I have some ideas that you can use. I have an approach that *****YOU****** repeat ***YOU**** repeat **YOU***** can use.
Whew! Have I made this obscure hint a little less obscure?
I want to make myself no longer ESSENTIAL to you. I am always happy to be useful, but being the essential one is the fear of my life, a point on which Dave hit in his comment that was like reading my mind.
Tomorrow I will expand on Dave’s wonderful commentary to show how DESPERATE a necessity it is to me to become if not unnecessary to you, at least not ESSENTIAL to you any more.
Right now I am going to go to bed with my frustration and hope to God some of this sinks in overnight.
Simmons and Shari — Dave?
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 12/10/2006
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Sometimes you are too negative. Like other world improvers you take on too much, like you think it is your duty to save the entire white race including the Mommy Profs and their opposites the WalMartians. Instead you are the Mother of Pearl the nucleus to which to build upon. From here it is our job to bring back to the worthies of the white race that sense of Inquiry that took us to the top of the world instead of this funk best described in “Apocolypto” being ruled by Wordists and their pet word “racism.” So when you are feeling depressed (My guess like many talented people you are Manic/Depressive) put Dave in charge.
Comment by Simmons
ME:
Dave, would you be willing to do that from time to time?
Simmons is senior staff at its best, and if you really want to know the difference between SENIOR and regular staff, imagine giving your boss the kind of advice Simmons just gave me. The only person who can tell a congressman he went too far is his wife and his senior staff, and he won’t take his wife seriously.
In fact, that is what happened to me and my boss after I left Capitol Hill. He was a PAS, a presidential appointee with Senate approval, like a member of the Cabinet. But I cramped his style because I would tell him when he was about to step into the bucket with a cutesy trick. He was professor who had never been in DC politics before. All his other staffers were similar, no DC experience. They encouraged his getting cute and had nothing but praise.
He ended up being the only PAS reappointed by the president that I ever even HEARD of that the Senate voted out of office, refused to reconfirm. And the Senate was Republican and Reagan had just won reelection by a landslide! He tried a trick and lost his job. You see, I had been treated to his cold shoulder so I went on to a job as writer for the Voice of America. He had no one to throw cold water on him.
So he drowned.
Shari wrote a comment that I should reproduce my Iran speech without the repetitions. Had she been serious, she would have taken them out and given me a sample. Don’t worry, Shari, very few people would do that, But that is the kind of extra oomph senior staff has to put in.
And no, Shari, none of your comments are below par. Your problem is that you are a lady in a roughhouse here. Stay in here with us and you will finally understand that we hit each other hard, and you take comments about yourself too personally. Elizabeth is about the least apologetic person here, so she is obviously used to this kind of give and take that is a lot like mutual kicks in the teeth.
I need you HERE, Shari.
And you can take a lesson from Simmons. He grabs the old bastard by the beard and says sometimes he needs a rest. Why? Not just for my good, but for HIS. I hated to tell my boss things he didn’t want to hear, but he was my product. I am the major resource of this which blog has been made. Simmons wants the blog to do its job, so he doesn’t shrink from telling me how to do mine.
Of course the only person left out of our little threesome here is the man Simmons tapped. Dave, you ready for more? Peter, Mark? Senior staff is not bashful, unless you consider me an example of bashfulness. Whoever wants to do some basic pieces and take up more slack is invited to contact me, here or at bobw...@yahoo.com
Needles to say, this offer only extends to those who have been readers and commenters for some time.
For the first ten years I wrote, I would write for anybody and I would read my stuff over and over.
How to we proceed? We start by seeing whether this appeal is met with silence.
I don’t do Whitakerisms any more. I see how things are developing and THEN I make plans, as I explained to LibAnon.
Alan B. and MY By George
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 12/10/2006
In the article below, Alan B. made an excellent point about how my Mantra and other solid, condensed material I produce is useful. Which made me think of think of how the Blog can use YOUR thoughts.
Here we have a place where you can get that small select audience that reads the comments, too, to see what is buzzing around in your head, exactly the way I found an audience here to listen to the bees in my bonnet.
There really are no other publications for simple good thinking or logical concepts people have overlooked or simply can’t find anywhere to put. If you get too far off the beam, or if you forget NO SPAM, NO SPAM, I may delete it, though that almost never happens. If so, you can mail me at yahoo.com and ask why I did so.
We have a goal in common. But we also have a group of people with minds which have somehow escaped the chains this society has locked on the others. Let’s use them.
Alan B. — By George, I Think He’s GOT It!!!!
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 12/9/2006
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
I continue to post the Mantra when ever I can because I feel its important to get the ideas out. What keeps me going is this, just having somebody read the mantra will at least expose them to the fraud of muticultrialism. I am not concerned as to whether somebody is pro or con non white immigration, my main goal is to plant the seed so that eventually a little light bulb will pop on in somebodies head and they will begin to see multicutrialism for what it really IS, white race genocide. Just keep posting the mantra and let the truth do the rest. It’s more productive to post the Mantra in 10 locations, than it is to post it in one and spend 30 minutes trying to convince a retard to look at it with an open mind.
Comment by Alan B
Jumped-Up White Trash
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, History, How Things Work on 12/9/2006
The “society” column is not what it used to be. There is a section of the paper usually dedicated to “Society,” but now it means society in the anthropological sense. “Society” used to be run by certain people who were known as uppah clahss.
The major last book about this kind of Society was written by Cleveland Amory in the 1950s. It was entitled, “Who Killed Society?” Amory was a New York-Washington liberal — no other writers let their politics be known in the 1950s — so one of his conclusions was particularly surprising. He concluded that the only place where an upper class “society” existed was in Charleston, South Carolina!
He almost said it in plain English, “Charleston has an aristocracy. Everybody else has turned into jumped-up white trash.”
One of the most amusing (and least emphasized) examples he gave was when the Four Hundred Book Publisher came to Charleston. There had been a book describing the four hundred families who made up Society in New York, then another on the four hundred families who made up Society in Philadelphia.
Being popular, this Four Hundred Book idea spread to Chicago, Boston and on down the population scale. Then they showed up in Charleston. The scout who was to find out about the four hundred in Charleston was directed, of course, to a little old lady on the Battery. He went to her and he told her about the book, which every where else had met with gushing enthusiasm.
The Charleston lady was not grateful, she was puzzled, “Why are you doing this?”
The man replied, “So people in Charleston will know who the leading families here are.”
The lady replied, “We know that.”
There was never a South Carolina Four Hundred.
When integration came, our Charleston Society led the fight against it. When Mississippi was invaded by Kennedy, the Charleston paper said, “We should fight on the campus, we should fight them in the trenches. This is war.”
The New York Times took the other side. The Atlanta Journal took the other side. Charleston didn’t give a damn. And being so confident of your loyalties that you don’t give a damn what others think is one of the major factors that separates aristocrats from naciocrats.
Everywhere else, the “upper class” in Atlanta or New Orleans fought for integration. They wanted the kind of approval that comes from New Yorkers who published the Four Hundred.
In Britain, the Queen says all you need to live in the UK is to be loyal to HER. Her birth as Queen is important. The average Brit being born on the island doesn’t mean a damned thing. All peasants are equal.
The son of the Prince (Elector) of Liechtenstein came to America and married a black woman.
Charlestonians, the only real aristocrats left, were leaders of THEIR people, which is what aristocracy is all about. Louis Andrews, an old ally of mine who publishes the web page, “Tracking the Wild Taboo” is one of the last of that breed. I am sure that the rest of the Charleston “upper crust” has joined Atlanta and New York.
So what we call aristocracy and the uppah clahss today is jumped-up white trash.
SOCIETIES are RACIAL
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, History on 12/9/2006
According to every selective breeding theory about humanity, the Middle East should have the greatest geniuses on earth. The top man was allowed to have four wives and before that any number of concubines. The best genes would have proliferated, the way they do in the animal kingdom in most social animals, where dominant males have herds of females.
I do not think that anyone can look at the societies where harems and concubinage proliferated and detected a Master Race there. But all the theories that say that society is just a bunch of individuals with Family Values, the Work Ethics, and high IQ’s would find all the geniuses there.
Not only is that not the case, NONE of the geniuses in those countries stands a chance.
Before we butterfly off this base, let’s take a look at how BASIC this is. Let us see it CONCEPTUALLY. Building societies on individuals has been tried. It has not only failed, it has been history’s main disaster. One Chinese designer of computer ware may be a useful citizen, but China as a society, without white CONCEPTS, is a stagnant ant heap.
A melting-pot building on individual qualities is not only not successful, it is catastrophic. If there were a single society where it worked, the Bell Curve would tell you it would have a hundred times as many geniuses as any other country.
One more time: It is not that this just didn’t WORK. It was, in every single case, a catastrophe.
It doesn’t matter how a society respected personal merits to the detriment of being WHITE, the result was ALWAYS a catastrophe.
I want some concepts as to WHY that is true. There are a million people getting paid to prove that it isn’t. Nobody spends that kind of money trying to disprove and outlaw something unless it is an almost impossible job.
DISCUSS Institutions Here!
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 12/9/2006
I do not want to give the impression that I discourage discussion of anything here. LibAnon asked me a general question and I gave him a general answer.
But, as usual, my reply was more to what he made me think of than to his specific question. I refuse to spend any more time telling people that, when I do this, it is not aimed at THEM, and thank God LibAnon is one of the few who never takes these things personally.
But the last article was, I think, a good example of what your talking makes me think of. We need to discuss things, and in the end my product is YOUR developing concepts and planting ideas. Ideas on what?
That’s the point, I have no idea “on what.” All we have is a goal. I am no more going to the moon than the editor of Amazing Stories, William Campbell, ever went to the moon. Amazing Stories was published in the 1930s and changed its name to Analog, which is the biggest sci-fi mag today.
But while the rest of the world was fascinated by the latest words of Joe Schmoe in 1936, Campbell and his editorials talked about EVERYTHING. He got replies about EVERYTHING. Campbell will never be mentioned, because the New Wavers took over sci-fi in the 1960s, but he is one of the most influential people in all of history.
In fact, if you look in the files of Amazing Stories and Analog before Campbell died, you will find that it covered more territory than any other magazine was even vaguely interested in. In Campbell’s publication, you could say it out loud in a letter if you couldn’t get an article published. What magazine would talk about rockets and space or a completely self-contained environment or the speed of gravity back then?
The Germans made a CONCEPT of Stoddard’s work and developed the v rockets from it. A science fiction writer took the CONCEPT of the German V-1 and V-2 and developed the satellite CONCEPT in 1947. That is what the Orient does NOT do.
If you just build a Whitakerism out of what I say, I have failed.
Basics, concepts, a really Aryan, wandering mind, screw the herd. That is what this Blog should be about.
LibAnon
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses, How Things Work on 12/9/2006
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
“Now comes the critical word: PERIOD.”
I think the critical word is HOW, not PERIOD. Otherwise, you and I agree on all points.
Institutions are merely tools, the means to an end. Of course! But tools don’t build themselves, nor is it beneath our dignity to build them.
It’s fine for you to say “My aim is to destroy all traitors within our race and to preserve our race,” just as NASA once said “Our aim is to put men on the moon before 1970.” But if NASA had simply followed that up with slogans like “PERIOD!” and “Screw rocketmaking tips!”, they wouldn’t have made it there.
Comment by LibAnon
ME:
“Our aim is to put men on the moon before 1970.”
That is the PERFECT example!
The moon shot began in the 1930s and earlier with science fiction writers. Our entire satellite communications system was invented by one science fiction writer in 1947 in one story. But in 1950 no one thought much of it.
Even Goddard himself was only shooting better rockets and realizing their portential, which Germans took and made into the CONCEPT of the v-1 and V-2. I don’t know if Goddard would have mentioned going to the moon — he would have been laughed at — but I KNOW he never mentioned a satellite system. He just shot better rockets and saw their potential while everybody else was talking about the most modern propellors.
In the Orient, Goddard’s rockets would have been like their invention of the first mechanical clock. In obscure writings, Goddard’s work would be traced as his rocket design floated around for two hundred years and finally disappeared.
We would be raving about how the Chinese had better rockets earlier. We would not ask, “So what?”
If you want to see how Wordist thinking of the future looks to me, watch the 1937(?) movie, Things to Come. The ultramodern plane of the late 1970s in that movie has not four but EIGHT propellors.
Please note that the goal of reaching the moon by 1970 was announced in the 1961 inaugural address. There was no mention of a rocket, much less WHICH rocket, which men, or HOW. There was no mention of anything BUT that goal. One year later we were no closer to the moon than we were then.
I am following up on the program with the Mantra. I am in a tiny, unpopular outlet like 1930s science fiction proceeding the best way I can find toward my goal. I am writing to try to entertain you as well as get some ideas across.
This is because I found out something early in my career that others never discovered: SPECIFIC complex plans for the future seldom work out. I say seldom in case it worked for somebody else because for me it was NEVER. I tried libertarianism, John Birchism and conservatism because each of these isms had a PLAN and a GROUP. But in the end they all failed because, even when they got part of their goal, the enemy, a bunch of pros, simply diverted them onto side-issues.
The problem with the future is that you cannot really work with it until you are IN it.
That is why things like the Mantra work and all those institutions you want will NOT work. We went to the moon because the ideas got planted in tiny little fun publications which were laughed at by the literary committee. In fact, science fiction only began to lose its cutting edge when it began to take literary opinion seriously. I can communicate with anybody on earth by satellite because of science fiction stories written BEFORE that time.
Once Asimov started getting the big bucks writing for Playboy, the old days were over and science fiction was mainstream.
“Mainstream” means co-opted.
Then science fiction came up with a PLAN. It went New Wave in the 1960s and science fiction got a huge boost. New Wave Science Fiction meant, as I put it, “Putting a sociologist in a space suit.” That was With It. It predicted a future where everybody looked back on the Vietnam War as the height of viciousness in all history. I said then that thus was like someone in 1854 saying that you and I would think about nothing but the Crimean War today.
In fact, New Wave had waves of blacks going into space and all the rest. It was really the Wave of the Future. It is forgotten completely today. It sought to build the future out of today, which is the staple of Wordists and Modern anything. Have you noticed that all the churches that tried to “modernize” in the 1950s have half their old membership from back when the population was half as large?
But this is not just modernization. It is ANY attempt to build a rigid plan for the future, because we cannot see one hour into the future. If you could, you could go the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and be a billionaire in a week.
Nobody would look at MONEY that way, but all the amateurs look at POWER that way. If you announce you’ve got The Plan, the rubes will make you rich and you will lose. That’s how power politics is played right now. Washington is full of people living high off the hog, and the hog belongs to the rubes who believe that, while somebody who told you he has The Plan to Make a Million is an obvious fraud; no one can play real power politics UNLESS they have The Plan for Gaining Power.
Neither money nor power works that way. Respectable conservatives are rubes who belong to the neos, who are pros.
I plant IDEAS. I have done more than a million conservatives. If you go for power OR money, you have to stop predicting disaster or organizing for the Final Victory and get in there on the ground floor and do what needs doing. The Mantra is the SORT of thing that needs doing now.
We’ll get to the moon later.
LibAnon, There is no Whitakerism
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses, How Things Work on 12/8/2006
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Your answer is that Jews can indeed be white, but they can’t be trusted. That’s a good answer, but I phrased my question in the wrong way.
What I’m getting at is this: how do we institutionalize genetic morality, and can this be done simply on the basis of skin color? We’ve already agreed that it can’t. Not only must the whites be separated from the browns, but the loyal must be separated from the traitors. Then we get into the classic problems of institution-building, familiar to anybody who has ever run a business, a platoon, a religion, or a political party: credos, mission statements, founding myths, mascots, demonologies, patron saints, heresies, and (most of all) a set of terms upon whose definitions all agree, starting with “us” and “them”.
I’m bringing up the institutional question because I suspect that it’s either a weak point in your thinking or in mine. You seem to be an enemy of all institutional trappings (clear thinkers usually are), but I believe they’re indispensable, especially to a race like ours in which the instinct of self-preservation is, as you point out, weak or absent.
Comment by LibAnon
ME:
The fundamental difference in our thinking is that my basic premise is a very, very unusual one. I believe that institutions are like work tools, that is, they are a product of the people, designed for particular uses at particular times. You see institutions as one of the determinants of the future of humanity.
The future of humanity is entirely a matter of genetics and race. It doesn’t matter if a white society is libertarian or Nazi, because that will pass. For humanity’s future all that matters is what COLOR they are.
Institutions bother me not in the least unless they affect race. Worrying about institutios is like building my world on a partciular method of agriculture. There is no doubt we will have to have food and there is no doubt we will have to have institutions, but I do not address methods of raising food here.
WHITE people will eat well. Dark people will starve. That’s all I need to know.
I am not going to write down here what tools carpenters need to develop in building houses or what institutions each country needs to deal with its particular problems. I AM going to say that if they are WHITE, they will develop the tools and institutions that will keep humanity from turning into a miserable, stagnant brown anthill.
Institutions are a dime a billion. But the instant a person starts to build his thinking on institutions, his attention deviates from race. My aim is to destroy all traitors within our race and to preserve our race. Now comes the critical word:
PERIOD.
Any tool, be it a saw, a gun, or an institution, that keeps us white is good. Any tool, be it a saw, a gun, or an institution, that makes us nonwhite is bad.
We have our race to save. Screw homemaking tips.
LibAnon
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 12/8/2006
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
“History is repeating itself. I have been this way before.”
I believe that this recurring “plague on both your houses” pattern in your career, and the consequent isolation, results logically from your definition of race. If I recall correctly, you define “white race” as “white skin”. Although that definition is admirably non-Wordist, the logical consequence is that you must consider most Jews, at least most of those who reside in the United States, to be white. That, I think, is the real issue: not whether Jews are angels or devils, but whether they’re white. And to that question there really ARE only two viable answers: yes or no. If your own answer is “no”, and I believe that it is, then your definition of “white race” needs more work.
Comment by LibAnon
ME:
I can’t believe you can’t figure that out for yourself!
White Jews are enemies because they are TRAITORS to my race. I don’t care if you demand the end of my race in the name of Jesus, as most people today do, or in the name of Moses.
As you damned well know, Dante’s Inferno said that the worst part of Hell was SOLID ICE. It was the Tenth Circle, the worst of all. But what few people notice is that that part of Hell was RESERVED for only one class of people: Traitors. Dante had an old European mind. Many a time Norsemen would die around the body of their leader rather than surrender. Loyalty was the highest virtue of our blood.
Treason is the worst crime to our blood.
That is why it can honestly be said that anti-Semites can HATE Jews, whereas the idea that the average segregationist HATES blacks is utterly puzzling to him. They don’t HATE smallpox viruses or mad dogs or “dumb niggers.”
I find a Jew who LOOKS like a Jew harder to hate than an anti-white Jew who looks more like ME. An obvious alien is different, by definition, and that is my natural way of thinking. The more alien he is the less a traitor he is.
A white traitor is a disease. He is a disease if he betrays us in the name Islam or Christ or Political Correctness or Judaism or Vegetarianism. The disease was located largely in New England and among the Jews, but it has metasticized, it was cancer of one part of the body but it has spread to others.
Tell me, which do you like better, an original cancer or one that metasticized? I have no preference at all.
In practice, the fact that a person is a Jew means I do not TRUST him not to be my race’s enemy.
EVER.
But at Joe Sobran’s house I met one of his closest allies who was anti-Semitic is a thoroughly religious Catholic way. I distrust that type in the same way, thought not as much, as I do Jews. It turned out that he was anti-Jew and anti-white.
He was white.
That does not change the definition of the word “white.”
What Jews DIDN’T Do
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, History on 12/8/2006
The British Governor of India ended the practice of burning Hindu wives alive when their husbands were being cremated. Even back then protests sounded Politically Correct. “You are interfering in our customs.”
The Governor replied, “No, I am not interfering in your customs, I am simply practicing ours. In our culture, if a man burns a woman alive we hang him by the neck from a gibbet. So if you build the structures for your custom of burning women, we will simply build our gibbet beside it.”
Apparently the ancient and honored practice was not worth the price and the practice of suttee ceased. By the way, the Brits also did away with the customary thugees who strangled people.
But both suttee and thugee had one thing in common: You killed somebody else, not yourself.
Suicide in old Japan was an apology for a mistake. In post-War Japan a son who had failed the examinations that determined his entire future would often commit as public a suicide as possible, and his family would gain face by it and celebrate it.
I know a lot about Africa, and I have never heard of a suicide cult there.
Then there is Aryan suicide. The Old Norse sayings, the words of wisdom before the arrival of Christianity, contain many, many statements discouraging suicide. One of the reasons Christianity prevailed in the Indo-European world is because it sends the suicide straight tot Hell forever.
Hinduism did much the same thing for white India. Hindus are not dedicated to Nirvana. That is a notion we brought with us. The ideal of the Hindu is oblivion Both the Hindu and the Buddhist speak of The Wheel of Life, but what we are protected from understanding is that the Wheel of Life is not come wonderful philosophical piece of poetry like the Druidic egg. The Wheel of Life is the curse, the Hell, from which Hinduism and Buddhism seek to rescue humanity.
“Christianity” in the West seeks self-destruction in a different way, a non-violent way. But you are just as dead in the end. “Christianity” seeks sterility via chastity. What St. Paul said was “It is better to marry than to burn.” This does not, despite what commenters may say, constitute a rousing twenty-one-gun salute to the institution of marriage.
When a ship fires a twenty-one-gun salute to the Commander in Chief as he comes on board, it does not mean, “Well, we can either be burned alive or we can have you on board, so we have decided to let you get on.”
I was appalled when some of my commenters maintained that St. Paul was just preaching Family Values. His advice was to UNMARRIED women. It stated in the plainest language anyone can muster, 1) It is better for an unmarried woman to remain chaste for life, even as Paul did, BUT, if she MUST have sex, do it within wedlock, “It is better to marry than to burn.”
That is NOT an announcement of Family Values. It reflects the mentality I have seen all my life among liberals and respectable conservatives. I can quote the Mantra, which is their prescription for white suicide as the solution to the race problem, and they, like those commenters, will try to find a way to doublethink their genocide out of existence.
Buddhists are big on chaste monks. They a re seeking to end all human existence, that is their ideal. So was St. Paul. And this is a basic tenet of Political Correctness: do away with your race, humans in general are an evil inflicted on the world.
The Jews did NONE of this. New England was the center of American anti-Semitism at the time when sterility and self-hatred, from New England school marms to those who rooted for the Indians against white people in the West, rook root there on American soil for the first time.
Jesus taught that ones should treat others as one would treat oneself. It does not take a logician, if he is not brainwashed, to figure out that Christ expected on to treat oneself decently. But with St. Paul and later Mani, this ceased to be a doctrine of doing others good and became a monomaniacal, fanatical dedication to giving oneself the most horrible tortures imaginable, compared to which a quick suicide would be the mercy that oblivion is to a Hindu.
And that, in turn, came from the degenerate form of Zoroastrianism. Two thousand years before Islam took Persia, Zoroaster said that there was a force for good and a force for evil. The force for evil was the god of THIS world, and we must fight that evil in the name of the god of the NEXT world, Ahura-Mazda.
It took a long time for Aryans to turn Zoroaster’s championing of the good into a demand for suicide. But by the collapse of Z Persia, Z was thousand years old, and as brainwashed and degenerate as “Modern Christianity” today. It went from Zoroaster’s very specific preservation of the Aryan race, VERY specific, to the last Z shah Islam drove out being a mulatto.
Christianity took less than a century to go from Jesus love to Paul’s self-hatred. The reason for this is basic, obvious, and therefore utterly ignored. There was one great empire that was the equal of Rome and that was in constant contact with Rome. It was the one the Magi came from, Persia.
Millions of words of commentary had transformed Zoroaster’s demand that men fight for goodness into a demand for total self-destruction. If the god of THIS world is evil, said the theologians, then THIS world was evil. So it must END.
That is NOT what Zoroaster said, any more than Christ said it, but in the first century after the birth of Christ every learned man knew that theology. It is no accident that the semiliterate St. Peter was a married man and the scholar Paul was chaste for life. No one then asked why Christ should demand human sterility because everybody then already knew.
No one asks the same question today because we take it for granted that SEX is evil. But that is NOT what St. Paul or the Buddhists or degenerate Zoroastrianism were aiming at. Today sex is the big deal because we had to reinterpret what St. Paul stated baldly and plainly and what Manichaeism has said ever since: that LIFE ITSELF is the enemy, not sex.
So how did Aryans end up with this constant tendency toward self-destruction?
The answer is basic and simple. No animal asks whether life is worth living if it is healthy and not in agony. It simply stays alive.
Orientals do not commit suicide because they question the value of life itself. They do it for dramatic purposes, and as a sacrifice. But they are not great on concepts anyway. They had gunpowder and turned out some fireworks. They had movable type and printed some playing cards with it. They had life and did not question it.
Aryans DO question it. We are UNIQUELY cursed with the ability to make giant leaps in comprehension. Gun powder got us on a road that had us on the moon in half a millennium. The printing press QUICKLY caused the Reformation.
The Spaniards have a saying, “If life were worth living, we would not need so many philosophers.” Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and the bastard “Christianity” Z brought us all seek self-destruction, of yourself and of your race.
To prevent Aryan from committing suicide, you have to make it worth while. Guilt is the weapon all of the above faiths have used to turn the Aryan mind against its own existence.
And this is another basic. The Aryans ability to empathize and feel guilt is also unique. Our conceptual ability, our making of giant leaps intellectually, makes us able to throw off the animal inability to ask whether life is worthwhile. But without that conceptual ability the world is doomed to an endless anthill of brown-skinned misery.
Our conceptual ability is precious, but so is our empathy. But that same empathy is used to our destruction. Guilt kills us genetically.
Our two greatest qualities, not the Jews, are fundamentally responsible for the fact that our philosophers, our Wordists, always find the guilt-suicide mix an easy sell. America has watched New England use it long before there was any appreciable number of Jews on this side of the Atlantic. We gave both New England and the Jews that sword.
If you bleed in the water, there will ALWAYS be sharks to take advantage of it.
Jews as Devils, Jews as Angels, and Me
Posted by Bob in Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session, History, How Things Work on 12/7/2006
All of my musings, beginning with my endless aimless talk about Zoroastrianism a year ago, is beginning to form a picture. It is not a picture that will make me popular anywhere.
The situation is a lot like my position of grouping liberals and respectable conservatives together. If I took either group seriously, I would fit it, I DID fit in. But once I became independent, I became anathema to both.
Just as there are two positions in respectable politics, there are two positions in on Jews, Jew Are Angels and Jews are Devils. The Jews Are Devils group is now in the same position as conservatives were in the 1950s. It is hard for anyone today to realize how weak that position was.
But liberals went on to make their name anathema, and Jews are doing the same thing now. So, like conservatism, the Jews are Devils position is more likely to grow to where it must be harnessed into some kind of race-mixing anti-Semitism.
So there are the Jews are Angels, which is law in Europe, and Jews are Devils, which, despite how you may see it now, is growing exponentially. So here I am back in the 1950s. Back in the 1950s I kept trying to get it across to conservatives that RACE was the only long-term issue, and all their free market stuff was good filler, but not the thing that was undermining America.
They told me it was all about free markets. Get free markets and all would be well. Well, not all of them. Some told me get Jesus and all would be well. Forget this divisive stuff about race.
To repeat, all of my musings, beginning with my endless aimless talk about Zoroastrianism a year ago, is beginning to form a picture. It is not a picture that will make me popular anywhere. I always seem to end up here. And so far I’ve been right every time.
I am in the peculiar position of being able to see Jews as enemies who SAY they are the enemies of my race, but not as the ONLY basis of all evil. This proposition is so deeply embedded in our society it is hardly noticed. If you look at any drawing of a demon or of Satan, that is meant to be truly evil, he looks like a Jews, even when it is drawn by a Jew. Lately the cover of the most desperately anti-anti-Semitic publication in America, National Review, featured the picture of a Mullah, “When the Mullahs Go Nuclear.” But if that turban were not so carefully on top, what was drawn there was the classic caricature of The Devil, the Evil Demon, or The Evil Jew. It is the way we see evil. That never occurred to those doing the drawing.
Here I am in the position of knowing very well that the Jews are our declared enemies, just as the socialists were in the 1950s. This put me on the out with the in crowd, the liberals. I knew that socialism was a tool of the enemy and that, before they co-opted the “Religious” Right,” our enemies were the enemies of the untamed religion of the time. But I knew these were the enemy’s preferences. The bottom line was race-mixing.
You see, then as now, I could COUNT, a talent which seems to escape almost everybody else. The world had always been mostly colored, but the trick was to get those non-whites into the West. I would say that sit-ins at lunch counters were a step toward total integration and “the solution to the race problem” liberals talked about all the time.
Whitey had to go if this “race problem” was to be solved.. But conservatives keep saying and believing that this was not a race war, starting small at lunch counters and five black students at Little Rock backed by Federal troops. All that was crazy theorizing, they said. Look at the REAL fight. Will the budget be balanced next year or not? Will God be driven from the classroom? These were issues you could TALK about.
So now I see the Jews are our enemies. Elliot Gould said in his Playboy interview forty years ago that, “I always saw my enemy as the tall, blond Nordic.” Susan Sontag was too blunt when she declared that, “The white race is the cancer of history.”
Too blunt. That’s the point. Every integrationist said the solution to the race problem was intermarriage, but no conservative would face the fact that that is what they said. It was not a religious problem. It was not a socialist problem. It was a RACE problem.
You may think that, on this second try, we could get it right. But no, once again, it’s not a RACE problem, it’s a JEW problem. And one day all the neo-racists will take over the paleoracists and denounce Jews. They will all agree that we old bigots were wrong, but that the Jews have gone too far.
The first thing we must do, they will tell us, is to stop gentiles of every race from fighting against each other and get them to come together in an integrated, Wordist society based on Family Values and “Merry Christmas” and stuff.
History is repeating itself. I have been this way before.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for December, 2006
Bob’s Books
Bob's first book - 1976 
A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES
Bob's second book - 1982 
THE NEW RIGHT PAPERS
Bob's deadliest book - 2004 
Why Johnny Can't Think
America's
Professor-Priesthood
The Al Parker Lesson
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 12/17/2006
I am hoping you will get a stark look at how this war must be fought.
Parker (I DON’T want anyone confusing him with Alan B.) has read these words a hundred times:
“Liberals and respectable conservatives 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 anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
Please note I didn’t say genocide is bad ONLY if the nonwhites don’t use deodorant or speak French, sorry, I mean English and you like them. I said GENOCIDE is bad.
Al Parker has read this over and over and over, and then he says, “Gee, it’ll all be OK if we assimilate.”
It doesn’t matter whether the assimilation is peaceful or not. It is GENOCIDE.
I am repeated over and over and over that every brown-skinned country is a place where no decent person would wish brown children to be born.
But Parker has gotten you completely off these two points. He talked about how peaceful his genocide would be, and you went for it, hook, line, and sinker.
BASICS, gang, BASICS!
2 Comments