Archive for January 11th, 2007
Where the Excitement Is
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 01/11/2007
This piece is complementary to the one below on Social Surgery. It starts with a rhetorical question:
There are two countries, A and B. Country A has been wide open to tourists and scientists for a century. Country B has been completely closed to all outsiders for half a century. The question: Which would be more interesting, to be one of the first hundred people allowed into a newly opened- up Country B or to be the millionth visitor to Country A?
Which is why you and I can have FUN. We are going deeply and mercilessly into questions that are as closed as B’s borders. Most of you do not remember the absolute ban on ALL discussion of genetics and race. What has happened is that the explosion of knowledge in this area kept mounting up, like a flood against a dam, until it overflowed and is breaking the whole dam.
The most routine discussion we have is infinitely ore interesting than the ten thousandth talk about standard topics. That’s why I am so disappointed when someone replies what I say with a standard, tired old canned opinion.
ENJOY it. BUILD on it. The border is down, the land mines are up. Let’s GO!
Social Surgery
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 01/11/2007
When someone says “Cut out the cancer” it sounds like a quick deal. But if you watch surgery, it is meticulous. The surgeon very, very slowly cuts between the cancer and the healthy cells. He has spent years learning 1) what cancers look like and 2) exactly what the organs in which the cancer is growing have to do.
That is one reason my approach to thought is so hard for people to catch onto. Instead of telling people I read fourteen books last week, I will read the same book over and over. I will watch the same documentary over and over. I don’t believe you can really GET the message in one go. So when I make a comment, it’s not just the usual “intellectual” statement where everyone then spills out whatever they were thinking on the same subject.
Once you get used to going with me on this, you will surprised how enjoyable it is. You are spading over earth that no one has looked at CLOSELY. In fat, it is like the first microscopes. Few people in history have had more sheer fun than the first people to look through microscopes.
But we are looking very, very closely at, for example, 1) Why did he say that? Why did he say that right now? Everybody else is just looking at the information, “So and so said so and so…” But if you put things together and you demand of yourself that you figure out why the simplest things get said, you begin to feel the thrill of a person looking through a microscope for the time: I didn’t know those little things EXISTED! They are fascinating.
To give one of hundreds of examples, I noticed that the line on the Neanderthal suddenly changed in all the documentaries. For about two years, everybody absolutely agreed that “modern humans” don’t have a drop of Neanderthal blood. Now I remember that before that, for decades, this was an open question. Where id t his conclusions come from?
So I first went back over the documentaries, I enjoy the second time more because I am doing analysis, to find out if there were any NEW FACTS that would lead to this suddenly universal conclusion. Several documentaries and several repeats of each, and I found no change in the facts to justify this sudden, drill-like about-face. Of course, if there had been “facts,” I would have wondered about them. I am always suspicious when the Party Line changes so suddenly.
So my antennae were out for a Neanderthal connection.
I found that a guy wrote Ice Man, which was anti-white and a real sensation. He was a new writer and hadn’t been checked out ideologically by the media, but this was too good to miss. Then he wrote a follow-up book which connected Jewish traits to Neanderthal traits, arguing they had a greater proportion of Neanderthal genes and not being flattering at all about what it did to God’s Chosen People. On the day of that book’s publication, it because official doctrine that no modern man had ANY Neanderthal genes.
It was inconvenient when it was recently discovered, through serious genetic study which is not too difficult now that we know DNA, that we have about 5% Neanderthal. But I was the only one who even noticed that all the documentaries switched back and forth with a precision that would make an SS drillmaster green with envy.
Pain is doing a particularly good job of extending what I say. If we are going to cut the cancers out of our society, we are going to have to make a whole new study, in extreme, microscopic detail, if all of the assumptions, where all the information comes from, and try to keep from simply throwing out an old canned opinion.
We are the only ones so far who have this microscope. That’s a hell of a responsibility.
NOT SPAM Continues
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 01/11/2007
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Firstly, now that we have to log in to comment, is it still necessary to mark messages as not spam?
ME:
Absolutely. I cannot tell whether you reregister or not, and the spam is coming in in a flood. I simply cannot read all the spam carefully enough to be sure it’s not a commenter, though I try and I do rescue most of the real comments that forget the
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM.
At least I THINK I do..
YF, I Refuse to Explain a Third Time!
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 01/11/2007
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
I read this post twice, so I will attempt to comment on it — at the risk of sounding like an anti.
We are dealing with the unknown, but I think if the other races had a higher sociopathic element it would be noticeable in a generation. It would also be noticeable in their nations of origin. You might be able to make a case for blacks, as they riot from time to time. Maybe Mexicans too, considering what I heard about them in the past year. What about people from the large, diverse continent of Asia? Any reason to believe their sociopathic rate would be higher than 2%?
You seem to be considering them more than non-White — actually non-human — like they are zombies living among us. I’m not sure you could get many white people to believe that non-whites are Ted Bundies that are gonna get them one day — except the ones who look forward for that Race War. We could make a lot of What-if scenarios — what if they have some superpowers or some other nonsense? Any reason why your scenario should be taken very seriously?
In your 12/25/2006 post you say, ” the astounding number of psychopaths in our society and the Politically Correct view of skin color. I pointed out that two percent of the people who look just like us are psychopaths, and we don’t know it until too late.”
Well, you might be suggesting that separate races living among each other will awaken the psychopath within the introduced race. Possible, or it could be ethnic conflict — since neighbors tend to fight. Or could be more race war fantasy.
Continuing, you say, “Now here is the point. If you cannot tell that a person who has his entire evolutionary history in common with you [is a sociopath], how do you then turn right around and insist, “No matter what the color of the skin, all humans think and feel alike.”
This has to be a strawman. This is not even said by politically correct multiracialists. Even they admit differences among the races, although they describe the qualities of the non-white races in complementary ways (ie: in the workplace, blacks are empathic, asians are methodological, etc).
To be fair, here is what one politically correct multiracialist says: “Most of this racial-differences mumbo-jumbo is wormed over human genetics stuff that was analyzed, dissected, and ultimately deemed irrelevant to running a compassionate democracy about two decades ago. Sure, books like the Bell Curve have brought the subject all over again. But, for most Americans, it’s a big yawn.”
Anyone find Bob’s argument compelling? I have trouble understanding it.
-Al Parker
Comment by YearningForFreedom
ME:
This has nothing to do with relative racial sociopathy. You are so tied up racial quibbles that you are incapable of understanding my larger point.
If some commenters could get over their laryngitis, they may be able to explain it to you.




Al Parker, NOW You’re Useful!
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 01/11/2007
Commenters have broken their silence and are answering Parker. Parker is answering them.
That, boys and girls, is what the blog is for.
Parker says Peter is hinting that human beings are animals. I won’t hint. Humans ARE animals.
Have you ever watched “rap” music?” Look at their THUMBS! The first sign of humanity is the opposable thumb. Rappers hold their thumb right against their forefinger and never move. Every movement they make is suggestive of monkeys, and I cannot believe this is accidental. Is this a reversion to the monkey? I don’t KNOW.
For decades, the MMPI has shown that blacks have a much, MUCH higher rate of sociopathy than whites or Orientals. That’s a matter of record as much as IQ tests are. But this was not the point of my piece. It’s just that Parker said that if a race had a higher rate of sociopathy it would be obvious. It is, and has been, which is why the MMPI went out of popularity with IQ tests.
Black babies, and this has been tested endlessly, are able to move their heads at birth. White babies take quite a while to get there. Monkeys are able to do a great deal at birth. There is a steady, repeatedly shown curve which shows the human baby getting smarter and the monkey getting smarter, but MUCH more slowly. With both black and white babies and humans and monkeys, there is a crossover point at which the white gets smarter than monkeys, and another similar one for white and black babies.
The crossover between an African baby and a white baby is at forty weeks.
Now, can anybody guess how this was used? The big thin a generation ago was that there is nothing inherited. It was newborn nutrition and infant experience that made ALL the difference. They demonstrated this by showing that blacks were SUPERIOR to white and Oriental babies until about ten months old, when malnutrition and differential treatment kicked in.
If you said anything else, you were saying that blacks were like monkeys. You were anaziwhowantedtokillsixmillionjews. One Canadian, Dr. Ertel, got a huge fortune in research money to show how similar the EEGs were of black and white children at ten months.
This argument about human beings can be exploited that way. But reality does not yield to this kind of rhetoric.
6 Comments