There was an interesting discussion in General Comments, now 5, about the wording of the Mantra. One of the commenters has run into the usual problem of people saying they had never heard of a “race problem.”
The Mantra begins, “It is said there is this race problem,..” so naturally nobody ever heard of a race problem. I find this is normally the first reaction to almost anything.
For example, people use the term “since the invention of the wheel” as meaning the most primitive time. The comic strip B.C. supposedly takes place when snakes literally still had feet, before Genesis, and it treats the wheel as a new, the first, invention.
Until I point out that the wheel actually existed as a working device nowhere on earth but in Scythian Europe and for an indeterminate period in Asia. Now we find that Asians were also in contact with Aryans, and everybody has a different time that Egypt got the wheel.
But even accepted history, which insisted that everything including the opposable thumb was invented in the Middle East does not claim that they got the wheel there by any method but being run over by warriors in chariots.
But when I mention that it is interesting that the wheel is considered such an ancient invention, the person I am talking to gives me a look that could only appear on the face of an impossible mixture of a fish and a cow and says “DUHHHHH???”
Suddenly he has never heard anybody say that the wheel was a primitive invention.
Just so, the same person who said yesterday and many times before that the only solution to the race problem is intermarriage will, when you mention a race problem, give you that fish-cow look and say “DUHHHH????”
There are endless instances of this. I have seen people conclude a hundred times on television that the only true — they never say “final” solution to the race problem is intermarriage. If I bring up that conclusion, they will deny not only that they said it, but that they ever HEARD such a thing.
As you will see if you read Orwell’s 1984, you will find that those who control information also control how people think. So a person who normally talks about solving race problems with intermarriage will also deny that there IS a race problem. That is the way his mind has been trained to work.
You could ask the person if he honestly never heard of any race problem in the United States. But discussion is set up in such a way that you don’t usually get a chance, and if one of our people does get such a chance, they go off on the way THEY are taught to think, on black crime or whatever.
It took a long time and a lot of work to get us into this condition. It will take a long time and a lot of work to get us out of it.
#1 by BGLass on 10/12/2010 - 8:37 am
But discussion is set up in such a way that you don’t usually get a chance, and if one of our people does get such a chance, they go off on the way THEY are taught to think
learning to create one’s own opportunities: One of the biggest repeaters is ‘GIVING’ opportunities, giving peace or whoever or whatever A CHANCE. Within a given night of t.v., you can hear that –literally– fifty times. It’s an interesting exercise to count the number of times “opportunity, giving” and “a chance” , as terms, are repeated in one hour. As if THEE (and there is only one, usually) opportunity and this chance can only be a centrally dispersed commodity. Haha. Not even any guarantees for loyalty are offered, either, just that dazzling possible dispensing of one “chance” if you’re real, real lucky. And if you a a Dispenser– well, woo-woo!
There must be fifty t.v. opportunities an hour to talk about this assumption of centralized dispensing OR enforced “charity” of stuff the person usually can’t really afford to give up– but simply must in order prove one is “nice” to stave off “public” attack, which of course is only segments of a “public” and so on.
It’s helpful just to count the words that are re-used, over and over and over and over.
Or to grill givers of (enforced, coerced) “charity” about their real resources. Exactly how much money do they have? What are their assets? How much in the bank account? How many bedrooms? Do their kids share? One bath? Any form of programs that would enable them to “make” less? Any subsidies?
Then the same with the Take-ee (an attempt was made to change “give” and “take”—for instance in “health care,” maybe predictably, by making care-TAKERS, care-GIVERS…. for taking is really giving, right?) Being a big, fat TAKER is really just a nice thing b/c you create the opportunity of GIVING, so others can be good Christians, right? So guiliting, shaming and taking from Christians is GOOD!
—- Anyway, is the taker of charity REALLY poorer? Or do they have more SPENDING POWER, (not wages) really? More societal support that would make them feel more secure? More money in the bank? A second home? Rentals picked up cheap during foreclosures? Benefit of a super-big law suit on which they could retire young? A scholarship? Etc.
It is funny to talk to White Dispensers of enforced charity who very obviously have much less than the people to whom they are giving but who have no had the nerve to actually question the top-to-bottom assets and spending power of those for whom they are told to feel sorry.
Poor little church mice giving their last buck to the biggest thug.
#2 by Dave on 10/12/2010 - 10:29 am
Because someone wears the same nose every day does not mean they are the same person every day. That is to say, some people undergo transformation – some people. These transformations can have big consequences. It has to do with a change in heart and mind.
There are a lot of people that want things to go along just as they always have and they start pretending that the issue is up to them, disregarding the fact that they share the world with others. And this is where things get interesting.
Orwell left this fact out of his books because his aim was to denounce tyranny, not to illustrate the way the world actually works. A trap shuts on we who own the future. It happens because our enemies, whose sole role is to cease to exist, actually dig holes into the earth and disappear into them. That is to say they become ghosts. Sure, they walk around, bellow and moan, and speak of philosophy, but they are ephemeral. They don’t really exist.
In contrast a shock of awakening traps we who do exist into becoming responsible for everything. Ghosts cannot imagine that, they never awaken. Established Religions are nothing but ghosts in their sleep.
The abolition of Established Religion is an important aim of the Mantra. The Mantra is very fundamental.
These endless decades of Political Correctness about race are simply the voices of ghosts, the ghosts of Established Religion. The efforts to banish ghosts from the world are nothing new. But first we whites must determine we exist and that also we have substance, unlike ghosts. That involves our transformation and awakening to becoming responsible for everything. That is fundamental to the real future for the white race.
In distinction, ghosts never think of the actual future because they don’t really exist.
#3 by Simmons on 10/12/2010 - 11:43 am
The Mantra is its own setup, it completes the liberal’s thought line (what thought line they have). Cults have no use for thought, and literally as Dave points out they are but ghosts.
Reading Brimelow at v-dare the same can be said of Sobran, so immersed in his cult that it would have required a Mantra user to complete Sobran’s thought process before one Mantra whipped him.
FTR Sobran I believe was a wordist fanatic dedicated to overrunning America with any catholic they could dredge up, but completely unaware that what he proposed was yet another genocide.
#4 by Dick_Whitman on 10/12/2010 - 3:24 pm
“So a person who normally talks about solving race problems with intermarriage will also deny that there IS a race problem. That is the way his mind has been trained to work.” (Bob)
Right, Anti-Whites will also blame Whites for every evil in history, but then will deny that Whites even exist if Whites attempt to defend themselves.
Anti-Whites blame Whites for everything but deny us the right to defend ourselves by claiming that we don’t exist.
This is a strategy in dialog control.
Denying someone their own identity is also the first step in the path to genocide.