The article below was, as is usually the case, not the one I sat down to write.
What I WAS going to write about was a sign of real progress. Then I made two regressions. First, I was going to explain that OUR message is showing up in every mainline article about the white movement. “A plot against the white race” now appears in every sneering article. It USED to be “Hate.” Now it is a crazy idea we have about this “plot against the white race.” That is a MAJOR change.
But I realized that I was going to have to wade through all the “You are looking at THAT tiny thing while we are fighting Israel’s war in Iraq” or “NEWS ITEM: Illegal aliens are flooding in’ or “This doesn’t affect the Powers That Be” and on and on and on. My point gets lost in all that muck.
Outside the blog I cannot make a point because it gets lost in the swamp of muck, stuff others want to rant on about. So I made a SECOND regression: Why is the point I am making more important than the ten thousandth repetition of a standard theme.
Well, to begin with, I made TWO regressions, two starts, before I found the NEW points I wanted to make. That should be worth something. But I wrote the article as a result of the second regression: Why should you pay special attention to the point ***I*** am trying to make?
A change in media wording certainly isn’t in the same league with someone who thinks he is going to expose and bring down a world-wide conspiracy.
How do I DARE say that my observation is so critical that you must ignore tomes of material and concentrate on it? Because I have one field of expertise, and this is a seminar on it. If you are a freshman ad the professor mentions a point, you can afford to privately obsess on it. But in a real graduate seminar, your professor is following a CHAIN OF THOUGHT. It is an IMPORTANT chain, or you would not be in his seminar.
That means I am saying that I am a valuable resource AND that your Conspiracy is not as important as my expertise. That is one HELL of a claim! So how did I get to the point where I would have the chutzpah to make a claim like that?
Which is what I ended up writing abut.
And that, boys and girls, is how a SEMINAR should be conducted. After years of trying to poke supply and demand or the fact that congress has two houses down the throats of bored, hung-over and/or horny students, he FINALLY gets a chance to talk to people who are INTERESTED in his subject and who do not have to be spoon-fed.
That’s what seminars USED to be and what MINE still is.
Intentional repeat:
That means I am saying that I am a valuable resource AND that your Conspiracy is not as important as my expertise. That is one HELL of a claim! So how did I get to the point where I would have the chutzpah to make a claim like that?
Which is what I ended up writing about.
What I have to say is a result of a lot of mental WORK, as you can see. I do not APPRECIATE it when somebody decides to get off the very, very subtle and complicated track I am trying to lay out by expounding on The Grassy Knoll or something.
Today, what is called “seminar” is like any other class: You learn to repeat the Party Line. So there is no ORIGINAL anything. Your notes have everything you need to know. But HERE I am not just TEACHING. I am trying to get you to JOIN me in critical thinking. That means feeling down through all the muck and finding the POINTS.
This is not your only source of mental stimulation. You can Google up tome after tome on any subject that mucks up this intellectual swamp I am picking through. PLESE NOTE: Only HERE is Covington or evolution or anti-evolution theory an intellectual swamp. There is nothing wrong with talking biology, but you should seldom do it in a physics seminar.
What I have to say is HARD to explain. I am engaged in a seminar that results from a LIFETIME of practice. I made my living figuring this stuff out. I had to CREATE this seminar at huge expense to myself and work my doctor says is more than I should be doing.
We have changed the mass media in a way THEY are not aware of. That Village Voice article would have looked VERY different a decade ago. All the swastikas and Confederate flags are incidental to our paranoia, not the result of “Hate.” The THRUST is different.
AND it so happens that a lot more readers every day find the “plot against the white race” line a lot easier to accept.
That is a PRECIOUS bit of truth. But you can’t SEE it until you drain the intellectual swamp before you look at it.
#1 by Mark on 06/20/2007 - 8:08 pm
Bob, where I come from we talk about people who can’t see the forest because of the trees, which is what you are saying. The forest is the BIG picture: GENOCIDE OF THE WHITE RACE, while the trees would be Iraq, Illegal Immigration, Isreal, etc.
Our job is to make white people look at the forest instead of all of the squirrels throwing nuts at one another.
#2 by Al Parker on 06/21/2007 - 2:42 am
With regards to the article, I noticed it too. And the cartoon was a little bit too cute.
Speaking of white genocide, I discovered Peter Shank’s new website WhiteGenocide.net from his home page. Take a look at it. Nothing but the latest news. I told him by e-mail that it does not do a service to convert the matter of white survival into a crime issue. But he insists they are important examples of genocide.
#3 by Bob on 06/21/2007 - 5:43 am
Al, you’re right, He ought to change the name.
#4 by Mark on 06/21/2007 - 9:37 am
Bob and Al I beg to disagree. While there are numerous ways to kill of a race of people, the most basic and instinctive for blacks or browns to use against us would be outright murder.
Also keep in mind that the white race in general is oblivious to the genocide issue and the easisit way to get them to listen is to cite “news articles” where whites are gunned down for being white. After they are used to these facts they will be swayed to our way of thining. Incrementalism put the present tax code on our backs. Incrementalism will save the white race if there’s any saving to be done.
#5 by shari on 06/21/2007 - 10:20 am
But isn’t this increased murder a direct result of opening the doors and ASSIMILATE? Inter marriage is ok, why it’s even Christian.
Incrementalism has already happened and now they have to realize what is being done to children and grandchildren and be horrified of THAT.
Others will have to face what they have done to their own children and grandchildren, if they are mixed, and weep buckets.
#6 by Ian Santiago on 06/21/2007 - 12:59 pm
Race mixing is still a blip on the radar screen and less than 3% of Whites in America marry non-Whites.
The most desired children for adoption are still White children, that is why the agencies are always trying to pass off ugly black or mixed race kids on White couples.
I still think most Whites have healthy racial instincts, but for reasons of social comfort, to keep their jobs, etc, they pay lip service to the “benefits of diversity”. Trust me, one day, in the very near future you will see White flight turn into White fight.
Viva La Raza Blanca!!
#7 by Mark on 06/21/2007 - 5:40 pm
Shari what I meant by incrementalism wasn’t fully explained. That’s my fault. What I mean is this:
If you go out into the streets and scram at whites about genocide they will think you are nuts. You may be right, but to your subject you are just plain silly.
In order to sway them to our side we have to spoon feed them a bit, let them take baby steps of realization before expecting them to walk or even run with our message. That’s incrementalism.
White Genocide, as a website, is spoon feeding whites to the realites of white genocide. They may not come right out and say we are being indoctrinated into miscegentaion in ordr to kill us off, but by laying the groundwork for further thought thru news article about black on white murder they are doing what the Klan and David Duke can’t do. They are RESPECTABLEY using incrementalism to educate others of our race. Consider them the “Dick and Jane Reader” for whites who have not yet awoke.
#8 by Prometheus on 06/22/2007 - 3:30 am
Changing the language used changes the thought patterns. Changing the thought patterns changes the way people see the issue. Read Orwell’s 1984.
Public discourse on the issue of white genocide is framed in a manner so some of the basic things that people already know (such as the fact that it is only white nations involved) aren’t raised at all.
Most people have no experience of a “Jewish” conspiracy, most people have no experience of “differing crime rate”, apart from those who live in diverse nieghbourhoods. Most people have no experience or first hand knowledge of geopolitics in the Middle East.
They do know of assimilation, they do know that ‘Western’ nations are becoming multiracial.
When I started debating against anti’s, I used the standard arguments that form the swamp. I KNEW the mantra, the concepts behind it, but I didn’t debate it, because I didn’t think it was the point. The success of the argument came down to whether I could prove that white people were ‘better’ for a nation, than just asserting that my race has every damn right to survive. The point I was trying to win, was not related to what I was trying to achieve.
I argue differently now, but the reasoning behind it hasn’t changed. Now its a lot more HONEST.
At the moment whites are in a rut, because white genocide just isn’t mentioned, and liberals rely on the fact that this train of thought is never embarked upon.
A few subtle changes on that train of thought can derail it.