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

Unsigned

Posted by Bob on March 16th, 2007 under Comment Responses, History, How Things Work


NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
You’re wrong. Aryan genetics is the result of selective breeding, which is culture. Lose that culture and there soon will be no more Aryans. That’s what Yockey meant, and he was right. For proof, look around.
Mother Nature, unaided, produces insect societies. It does not produce Aryans. Everything that we Aryans are, including our genome, is the “work of man’s hands.” Leave the divine creation myths to Jews and other aboriginals. Let them believe, as all savages do, that they’re the creature of some Sky God. As it goes, they’re more or less correct. But Aryan genetics, unlike theirs, is a clearing made in the forest, wrested from nature by means of hard work both physical and spiritual, and we need to keep our axes sharp if we are not to be reclaimed by the jungle.

ME:

If Aryan genetics is the CAUSE of selective breeding, then what is the CAUSE of selective breeding?

Yockey is slightest less subtle than I am. He said what he MEANT. Read the very first pages of his book, not the intro, and you will see that he is talking about a Great Spririt that comes down and causes Great Civilizations. It is mysticism. It is ANTI-racial.

To us, the book is racial, because we can see what Yockey could not in terms of genetis, as one commenter pointed out yesterday. Yockey said what he said WHEN he said it, and we don’t want to become thologians trying to put words in his mouth, mistaking what he DID say for what he SHOULD have said, so we can have a Saint to quote.

So if it isn’t a mystical Great Spirit, how do explain, USING OCCAM’S RAZOR, why whites are what they are? Remember that Occam’s Razor, the basis of Western Science and the enemy of Eastern Mysticism, favors simple explanations, obvious explanations. That is why the word “simplistic” is the main weapon of social scientists.

Here is an Occam’s Razor answer to why whites are what they are:

Have you ever noticed that many animals survive by not being noticed while a skunk or a poisonous snake can be seen a mile off? Orientals have epicanthic folds on their eyes as an adaptation to extreme cold. As one writer put it rather well, “You do not survive and reproduce if you wake up in the morning with your eyes frozen.”

Blacks have enormous physical adaptations to their horrible environment, including the deadly sickle cell trait which is an adaptation to prevent diseases in the infested areas they evolved in.

Whites are white because they have no such adaptations. While blacks and Orientals were developing adaptations to the cruel environments they developed in, whites were getting PRETTIER. There is absolutely no survival value to blond hair. It is simple to make men and women prettier, more competitive in mating. That is why, in the very midst of all the worldwide bullshit about “Everybody’s Beautiful in Their Own Way,” Baywatch became the top TV show ON EARTH the minute it was aired.

A lot of people like to say whites are the PRODUCT of cold and the challenges described in The Ice Man.

But I found something in the book African Genesis that changed my thinking on this completely. Audrey was talking about Rousseau’s idea of The Noble Savage in the first few pages of that book. Rousseau pointed out that people living in isolated places tended to be gentler. The Bushmen of the Kalahari are famous for their sweetness. They even apologize to the animals they have to kill.

Then came a sentence that opened my eyes: “Maybe,” said Ardrey, “It is not that people who live on the ice fields or in that land beyond argument, Tierra del Fuego, are not gentle because they live there. It maybe that gentle people tend to live at unfashionable addresses.”

Where a human group lives is the area it can TAKE and HOLD. You do not have to adapt to Europe. You don’t need epicanthic eye folds there. You put on furs and light a fire. Whites developed things like blond hair because they had to compete with each other, not with the environment.

That, and not a series of historical accidents, is why Asian masses have repeatedly, in recorded history, run over the rest of Eurasia, but they always stopped at Vienna.

Is it the COLOR of a snake that makes it poisonous? Or is that color the result of the fact that that snake wants you to KNOW it is dangerous?

White is supremacy is obvious to everybody, anti-whites most of all.

That is NOT just culture.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Simmons on 03/16/2007 - 12:37 pm

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM

    If anyone on our side would like to create some space between us and the other races, and increase the size of our coalition I’ll tell you how, go back to the basics. Ask the other races and the antis about what they think of whites. We all literally assume white supremacy both us and the antis and their faithful brown companions, but we never explore the details. Let us ask the little brown Meztizos why their TV shows are nearly all white, let us ask the orientals why they use so many white models in their advertising, and most of all ask them what they think of us. Go back to Stormfront and instead of trading insults ask the kooks these very questions, and I’ll bet what you get for an answer is pretty much what we say about ourselves or a mirror opposite.

  2. #2 by Pain on 03/16/2007 - 1:58 pm

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM

    “Read the very first pages of his book, not the intro, and you will see that he is talking about a Great Spririt that comes down and causes Great Civilizations. It is mysticism. It is ANTI-racial.”

    Actually you are both off target.

    Yockey is getting at what makes the white man tick by looking at what he has done. What he has done is so great and so wide-ranging that who we are is more than what we see when we look in the mirror.

    It only sounds mystical because you cannot see who we are, we cannot divine what great things we will do, without knowing what we have done.

    It is mystical because Yockey is deifying us to an extent. He is saying that the white man of all nature is most clearly made in the image of God.

    The paradox is that we cannot physically SEE the creative Will that works great deeds, yet our soul is as much a product of our physical bodies as it is of our invisible Will.

    This paradox is that there is something of the self that cannot be uncovered in a dissected brain, yet the abilities and inclinations of the self are nonetheless physically transmitted from generation to generation.

    This is the meaning of the “resurrection of the body” in the creed that you, Bob, say you believe in. The body — holding our genetic material — must be preserved (or rather divinely reconstituted/resurrected) for us to keep our self. God gave his breath into the dust of man and he became a living soul.

    This is why reincarnation is a curse. Without the body, any ethereal substance of the man slowly dissolves into the fluid of breath. The River Styx is the shedding of the body whose genetic material imparts our identity. A new incarnation into a new body means an alteration of the self — a loss of who we are and the taking on of something new and temporary.

    Yockey sees culture as an expression of our racial self, body and soul.

    Without culture, we are left with describing hair, eye, and skin color, length of the skull from front to back, length of limbs, strength of muscle, and height. It takes both body and Will to create culture; thus culture gives a fuller picture of who we as a race are.

    Dixi.

  3. #3 by Twin Ruler on 03/16/2007 - 9:23 pm

    And, to think, there are those who actually advocate racemixing the White Race out of existence. They claim to want to cause “The Browning of the Races”, or whatever they talk about in College, nowadays.

  4. #4 by Peter on 03/16/2007 - 11:58 pm

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM

    Thank you, Bob, for explaining this; I have been wondering about it for quite some time. The reason being that EVERYONE who admits the realities of race tends to come out with the statement that we are genetically superior because of our environment. It seems to me that this argument denotes an abrupt turn around on the part of its author, who has suddenly decided to put nurture/environment over nature/genes.

  5. #5 by Peter on 03/16/2007 - 11:58 pm

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM

    The above comment is from me, Papillon.

You must be logged in to post a comment.