Archive for February 12th, 2007

richard and Simmons on “Pain Says Mantra Needs Work”

NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM

I think this is an excellent new edition! It solves some of the problems I’ve had with people who say, “I’ve never heard anyone saying those things”.

Like a classic song that gets covered in a hundred different styles, the Mantra will find its audience in many differing versions.

Comment by richard

NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM

Personally I have more fun with the Columbo method of persistent questioning. I view PC as a cult that works by force of personality and vehemence than facts or logic, hence my questioning clobbers the cognitive dissonance. I think of myself as the Aryan Therapist, and it makes my life fun as heck breaking down the prejudice of PC and instilling doubt about its metaphysical powers before I set the “patient” on a different course. I should recommend to the beginners hear to sound off at American Renaissance’s message board, because honestly the postings there are little but a bitch session as if Bob never existed. They could use some help.

Comment by Simmons

3 Comments

Sillier Than Houris

One thing “Christians” love to do is make fun of Islam because its Heaven includes a bevy of renewable virgins for every man, the houris.

Let us now look at what the ian heaven consists of. According to the Old Testament derivation, heaven is where the saints spend all of eternity shouting praises of God. No women for the men, no men fo rhte owmen, no food, no wine, nothing but song. And the songs are nothing but praise, explaining to God Almighty that he is Special.

If you’re going to make fun of somebody else’s Paradise, you have to be willing to take some discussion of your own.

As I rmemeber it, the reason Jesus gave us The Lord’s Prayer began with the statement, “It is enough that you calla fish a fish.” He then proceeded to show how one simply told the Father what one wanted: daily bread, forgive us IF we forgive others, and show us the way.

End. Schluss. Fini. It is enough to calla fish a fish.

Jesus NEVER ONCE told people to Read More Bible. And Jesus MEVER OINCE said “Praise God!”

That is STRICTLY Old Testament and pagan stuff. God KNOWS who he is.

There is little in the accepted biblical text more obviously nailed on than, ath the end of hta discourse about calling a fish a fish, the word: “For thine is the Kingdom, hte Power and the Glory Forever.” It’s beautiful,but it is absurd. But later writers could not let Christ get away with no PTL.

And that, boys and gfirls, is sillier than houris.

2 Comments

Pain’s Other Point

Cathar just means “Puritan.”

English Reformers and loyalists to Rome actually used the term along with “Precisianist” (in the 39 Articles) and other terms. I am sure they remembered the Albigensian Cathars who fought English knights in France 400 years before and that the comparison was deliberate.

“The Puritans did not condemn reproduction, which is the essence of Catharism.”

You are right, the Puritans favored reproduction but not what caused reproduction. The Cathars condemned reproduction but they populated large communities in the south of France. They each were sexually austere, and this leads to the sterility you speak about.

ME:

My understanding is that nobody is sure the Albigensians were Cathari. That is assumed. But the Ian Church was always good at wiping out traces of opposing theologies.

By the way, Alexander Whitaker’s Cambridge professor father was a major go-between for the Anglican Church and the Puritans. He was a very, very low church half-Calvinist himself, but inside the Established Church.

During a political campaign, one of my co-workers was a guy studying to be a very, very High Church Episcopal priest and he HATED Alexander Whitaker. He was the first person I ever met who knew who Alexander Whitaker was, since like all pre-Pilgrim history, this part of Jamestown is totally ignored.

American Episcopal churches have been overwhelmingly Low Church since the beginning. That is because Alexander Whitaker WAS the beginning.

4 Comments

Bruce: Mantra Needs Work

NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM

Bruce says:

I’ve been thinking about your mantra approach lately. It has merit, but I think
your choice of wording is flawed. Basically, it has a 1960s ring to my ear that
hints a need for refinement. For instance, in the crowds I’ve been exposed
to, I just never hear someone use the exact term “race problem”. Perhaps in some
other region or other times they did, but I always hear about the need to solve
the RACE RELATIONS problem or the need for MORE DIVERSITY or a more INCLUSIVE
society. Those are the Pavlovian code words I hear constantly. I seldom hear the
slander of nazi get slung, but often hear the slurs of racist, bigot or xenophobe.
For the mantra to be most effective, it has to strike with all its deprogramming
effectiveness against the emotionalist code words actually used by the universities
and media. The following is my attempt to make a modern sounding paraphrase. Rip it
up all you want:

”Purveyors of PC “wisdom” love to talk about this RACE relations problem and need for “inclusiveness” and “diversity”. They use the dreaded slurs of racist and xenophobe against anyone who opposes wide open borders or the so called assimilation via the “melting pot” of intermarriage.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan ought to prove they are “inclusive” by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“The PC crowd in every white country 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 an evil hate mongering bigot.”

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

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

“Those who scream “hate” the loudest harbor the darkest hatred.”

ME:

Bruce has NAILED IT DOWN. The first sentence is the one that younger people and non-Americans object to. Foreigners didn’t HAVE a “race problem” when WE were talking about it. They imported it WHOLE!

But the first sentence of the PRESENT Mantra we are using is perfectly understandable.

Because it is simple one assume that writing the Mantra it was easy. It WASN’T! It took YEARS to hammer it out! You would be astounded to know how much work and experimentation went into that Mantra that seems so obvious it sounds like I just tossed it down on paper one day.

But the first sentence is its problem AND its strength. Nobody SAYS that outside the US and young people don’t SAY that any more. But does anybody have the slightest difficulty in UNDERSTANDING it? In fact, that first old-fashioned sentence gives them something to pick at. It keeps their interest in what otherwise would be an obvious, devastating statement aht they want to get away from ASAP.

If you can hold somebody to talking about that first sentence for ten minutes, they will NEVER forget the Mantra! That is more important than making Bob look Up To Date or Sophisticated.

That is the sort of thing only a pro at propaganda would even NOTICE. Does it make ME look good or does it make the POINT?

Keep in mind that we are not developing a Whitakerism here. The Mantra is for you to try out for yourself and YOUR target audience. But keep in mind the difference between whether they are impressed with YOU, in which case they’ll forget your POINT veryquickly, or by your POINT, which may INCLUDE you.

I didn’t get paid for propaganda because it was easy.

Your first sentence strikes me as taking attention from the rest of the Mantra. But I am NOT your target audience. TRY both versions. SEE which on gets your point across. This is the fun side of our war. Slaving out the Mantra alone was not fun for me, but testing it was.

2 Comments

Pain Needs to Instruct Us Some

NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM

Cathar just means “Puritan.”

English Reformers and loyalists to Rome actually used the term along with “Precisianist” (in the 39 Articles) and other terms. I am sure they remembered the Albigensian Cathars who fought English knights in France 400 years before and that the comparison was deliberate.

“The Puritans did not condemn reproduction, which is the essence of Catharism.”

You are right, the Puritans favored reproduction but not what caused reproduction. The Cathars condemned reproduction but they populated large communities in the south of France. They each were sexually austere, and this leads to the sterility you speak about.

There were many splinter groups that fit under the Puritan umbrella. Most stayed loyal to England, but the Pilgrims abandoned England for Holland before setting sail to the New World.

Are you linking them to their descendants who abandoned the Union for Empire?

Comment by Pain —

ME:

“Are you linking them to their descendants who abandoned the Union for Empire? ”

The less important point here is my reply to y9our question: No, Pain, if I meant that I wold have SAID it.

INFINITELY more important is that you have grabbed what I said and run with it. This is what I LIVE for!

Go ahead and expand on this point for us! It doesn’t have to be profound, and it doesn’t HAVE to be but a few sentences., though more is welcome. We need demonstrations here of how to BUILD on my points.

1 Comment