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

Mantra Thinking and the Human Nature Revolution

Posted by Bob on February 11th, 2011 under Coaching Session

The whole basis of ALL Wordism is that human nature produces societies that are contrary to human nature.

All Wordism begins with Rousseau’s assumption that in nature all animals are equal, that animals have no wars, that birds sing to attract mates, but hold no territory against other birds.

Even Jesus talked about the birds as if they did not plan for tomorrow. Really? Watch the male get the best tree to attract his mate, watch the birds build their nests.

This is one of the most critical things you can learn from the Old Man simply because he is an Old Man. No one but me seems to remember how totally ALL the forms of Wordism, left and right, were developed when EVERYONE actually BELIEVED that in nature there were no borders, no class distinctions, no war.

That is why there IS Wordism. Wordism assumes that everything “wrong” with “society” is the result of our institutions, our going Away From Nature. Remove civilization, said Rousseau, and all of men’s evil habits would go away.

In fact Rousseau came up with our present assumptions that Noble Savages are just like animals, so they are guiltless and good. Rousseau invented the term Noble Savage.

He never SAW one, of course.

All the other forms of Wordism begin with this same assumption. Marxism says that the only thing keeping us from his idea of the utopia is exploitation. He began with the idea that animals have no class system and no exploitation.

Libertarians believe that if government were removed, people would go back to their natural instinct to be as free as the birds.

But birds are not free. Their nature controls their life to an extent even a Communist government would find hard to imitate.

No social animal has anything like equality.

This is Mantra Thinking. Mantra Thinking does not accept the details everybody is talking about. Mantra Thinking goes back to the assumptions everybody takes for granted.

ALL social science, ALL Wordism, is still in the 1950s before the total revolution about how social animals actually behave occurred and ALL our assumptions about animal and human nature became completely laughable.

I get almost no comments on this. In a seminar, your comments are your own, but the old prof would like to see more talk about how different the world looks when you realize that the ENTIRE so-called Intellectual Discussion is as out of date and as just plain SILLY as arguing how many angels can stand on the point of a pin.

The problem is, we all know the angels on a pin stuff is ridiculous, but we STILL take our outdated “discussion” seriously.

  1. #1 by HP on 02/11/2011 - 6:23 am

    Bob, when I was a student at Carolina in the 70s, I was about the only one reading Robert Ardrey and Konrad Lorenz, and even they succumbed to the fallacy that man was somehow “unique” because he killed members of his own species. It was naively assumed that animals only killed members of their own kind accidentally. Then they found out that hyenas kill hyenas, lions kill lions, and that chimps kill chimps in territorial clashes. That should have knocked the whole “noble savage” notion off its pedestal for good; but instead, what do they talk about now? That the bonobos rub their genitals together as a greeting, and that hence “we have a lot to learn” from the bonobos. Or as Commie Carl Sagan put it, “If only we were macaques….”

  2. #2 by Mademoiselle White Rabbit on 02/11/2011 - 7:56 am

    I guess most of it comes back to why that idea is still useful (“Why is this information being produced?”). When you mentioned how outdated and silly these assumptions were, my mind immediately went to Horus, who has said on numerous occasions that the technology in existence far surpasses the technology available to the public for consumption and review.

    In this case, obviously the inferrence that nature balks at any kind of system creates a disdain for The Man and a desire to see the so-called underdog succeed. How many times have we heard anti-whites explain away all black problems as being “a product of the system”?

    It reminds me of a children’s novel I read a year or so back called “Sophie’s World.” The primary aim of the book was to introduce children to philosophy, and I remember being especially fascinated by a chapter that dealt with Kant. If I remember right, one of the ideas that he proposed was that fate was an internal force rather than an external being or pull. We are destined to do things not because The Universe demands it or because God won’t rest until we’ve buckled to His will, but because our very nature demands that we make the choices we make. We are destined to be the people we are because we were born with those people inside us. At least, that was what I took from the characters’ discussion – although it should be noted that when I tried to read one of Kant’s books a few weeks later, by head had exploded after the first page, so I’m not exactly an authority on the subject.

    While I’m sure a seasoned anti-white would have a ready answer that would make me feel very small and stupid for voicing dissent, it seems to me that the whole charade should be over when you point out that it is the natural course of any group of humans to construct a system, and that they depend on the system for survival as much as the system depends on their adherence. Man does not make systems because he has been corrupted. Man makes systems because it is natural for him to do so.

  3. #3 by OldBlighty on 02/11/2011 - 8:13 am

    What is incredible is most Universities, have many different disciplines, all crammed into the same campus, yet no one is talking to each other and ensuring the latest research is understood and is taught.

    And what is worse, they have been allowed to get away with this behavior, for so long.

    As you mentioned in your last post, institutions are entities that are only interested in continuing their existence. So I think the reason these people are purposely ignoring each other, is because to do otherwise, would endanger their institution’s whole reason for being.

    So at this point it looks to me, like it is the institution that is the problem. The institution is preventing people from thinking and behaving in a rational manner.

  4. #4 by James C on 02/11/2011 - 8:51 am

    Even as a child (2nd or 3rd grade) I could see that the natural order is hierarchical and based on merit, in contrast to the unhealthy, unnatural and absurd egalitarian order imposed by mommy (literally) professor.

    If I’d heard the term “noble savage”, I’d have envisioned Conan the Barbarian. If someone had explained Rousseau’s “noble savage” to me, I’d have thought them more of a child than I was at 9 years old.

    If we ever get the field of Psychology on track, I’d love to learn how and why people can believe such nonsense. When Bob said that Liberals have the intellectual maturity of a 6 year old, he wasn’t kidding.

  5. #5 by shari on 02/11/2011 - 9:27 am

    Institutions are comprised of people. They are part of how we form societies. But, institutions either serve us, or we serve the institutions, which is corruption. Ours are full of people who are childish and or alien altogether. They have to be rebuilt, and what doesn’t belong there removed.

    I don’t know about Kant, but I think that there is something in us that is pulling us back to sanity.

  6. #6 by Simmons on 02/11/2011 - 10:18 am

    Been there done that, this just proves the point that Bob cannot read anymore. Doesn’t matter he is not here to grade papers.

    The whole point of my ripping on the N&J and the crime and IQ studies cults which we have spawned is that both groups are basically repeating what everyone knows, but they do so in a way that never challenges the assumptions of the “institutions” that they have become attached to for one reason or another. But it is a living and attacking a man’s living is a dangerous thing to do.

    I’ll give one example and one only so as to make this post semi-readable. V-dare posted what might be the 10,001th mini-essay on IQ and behavior and so I wrote them to please preface all such work from now on with the simple phrase, “The Blank Slate Theory is bunk.”

    The blank slate theory is an old senile institution (cult) that hold’s court on the campus, and the likes of its detractors such as v-dare sit in the back of the classroom raising their hands, trying to get their shots in. The kids in the middle can then only politely come to the conclusion of not getting involved and to just remain politically correct so as to not upset the old codger who is grading their papers.

    “The Blank Slate Theory is bunk” is not copyrighted use it if you want or not if you prefer a good grade from Ol’ Prof.

  7. #7 by OldBlighty on 02/11/2011 - 11:26 am

    “it is a living and attacking a man’s living is a dangerous thing to do.”

    This cuts to the core of all my blather.

  8. #8 by Simmons on 02/11/2011 - 12:02 pm

    To the best of my recollection the blank slate theory came out of some jew shtick by a clown jew named Boas.

    After a Mantra inspection I found it to be nothing more than the call for the physical destruction of our race, the white race. (sound familiar?)

    But our N&Jers eager to repeat what they have heard over and over and over are insisiting on what amounts to a joke; “Three rabbis enter a bar in Kracow whereas the first rabbi tells the other two ‘Let us take over the world’. . .”

    The “name die juders” are our stand up comedians.

    Now the Mantra is real money, “So Mr. Billionaire tell us about your financing of this anti-white organization?”

    So what’s it going to be folks comedy or real money?

    • #9 by Genseric on 02/12/2011 - 9:59 am

      I’ll take ‘real money’ for now.

      Then, we can invoke our own rendition of ‘comedy’ at a later date.

      Oh, did I mention that there are many who prefer dark humor over the played-out antics of a regular old stand-up comic?

  9. #10 by BGLass on 02/11/2011 - 2:32 pm

    Growing up on a farm– animals killed and we raised animals to kill for food. So, in ny, it was clear why commies need cities–and to hire 24/7 supers to snake toilets, set rat traps, etc. Only a hermetically sealed unit, cut off from nature, and no real travel allowed them to maintain lies about “America,” nature, etc..

    What I don’t get: the enlightenment (Locke/Rousseau) catholic/prod Q which is only mine I do realize: B/c prod is seen as (and is, in fact) “Enlightenment” phenomenon, (like Rousseau/Locke) others see prods as necessarily useless. Like, Catholic friends chide me for ‘seeing through rose colored glasses,’ believing in the goodness of man, etc., thinking too much, (Eg: you can see this in Joe Sobran’s 2003 letter to them where he says they don’t understand they have enemies), and there’s truth in it.

    But a HUGE difference between those who grew up historically, (religiously), emergent in Enlightenment and how that played in American experience, and being a commie atheist Rousseau panderer. Religiously, it was my understanding, it involved a different working out of theodicy, where god is one AND good, (v more Manichean good v evil), and this is NOT what CP means by it, nor how communist has used this.

    I thought Enlightenment had more to do (religiously) with believing in right to KNOW, (ask, probe, question) As with heretics killed for scientific advances, or say, Nietzsche, who just seemed like a good Lutheran. Ie: if you don’t think your god can handle a questions, you don’t have much of a god. So, enlightenment church/ reformation reconciled man’s NATURAL WILL TO THINK with God; in fact, thinking then becomes something God WANTS you to do, (eg: learn scripture oneself, etc., probe, seek new meanings in it, etc..). And then the catholic church does see this elevation of mind as a heresy, (but refuses to relate it to that aspect of gnosticism).

    Jews, seeing through their lens of tribal-conquest religion “monotheism” (monotheism for them and them alone)— took the Enlightenment totally differently— as the rationale for a happily godless world for gentiles (since God spoke only to jews), and social indoctrination for the state (that their God tells them they are born to rule).

    So jews and prods adopted different aspects of Enlightenment insights, and the jewish version has been ascendent in u.s. since WWII— along with punishing catholic backlash that often calls for catholic retrenchment (usually to Vat II)– (Hannity saying he’s here to “fight evil” which to him is “liberals” but he knows no distinction between communist-atheists-enlightenment-jews and religious liberal prods. Eg: One can be a liberal prod (theologically) AND anti-communist. And a race realist, for that matter.

    Minor point— in catechism class: they taught Gnosticism DIED one year all by itself. Simultaneously (but unconnected teacher said) Protestantism Heresy and Enlightenment arose same year. Seemed more likely, it lost more Manichean theodicy (good v evil) of early Gnosticism and emerged in a new name, with a god who allows us to think and elevation of god as truth, (v charity or compassion or whatever).

    People who like to think will probably make it so God wants them to do that. I always just thought it was equal UNDER THE EYES OF GOD… like in his eyes, we have equal souls.

    That anyone would take that literally –in the visible world where it is obviously radically impossible, as on any score, one will be “better or worse than”— never even occurred to me. Omg.

    Liberals believe others are inferior, not equal. Others use them to get free stuff, due to that belief of theirs, (which is caused by some sin, usually false pride/arrogance), or by the Church of PC, by fear/terror/loss of status, jobs etc.)

  10. #11 by BGLass on 02/11/2011 - 4:06 pm

    Oh– here it is:

    Like, Vat II, they always talk about “liberalizing” of church at that time.

    But it was not theologically liberalized (in the way of prods) at all!!!

    The “liberalization” had to do with secular humanist “liberalizing” (using condoms, birth control, involving “lay people,” and on and on.) It was pandering to communists and has little to do with liberal protestantism (theologically).

    Vat II seemed more jewish-communist, not protestant, which they always call “liberalizing the church” (in the sense of grappling with totality, the fact that we can’t really know it, and therefore doing “good deeds” may not ensure salvation as catholicism taught more, etc.– ethics, etc.)

    But this is never talked about.

    “liberalizing” means different things. LIke, on t.v., the freak-show talking heads never understand where commies, religious jews, ‘secular humanists,’ etc., parted with the Real Religious Reformation, (which still underwrites the lives of many who live in u.s.), who they can’t understand.

  11. #12 by HP on 02/12/2011 - 5:04 pm

    My point is that saying “the blank slate is bunk” isn’t going to change the minds of anybody who believes in it. I could present reams of evidence showing that Christianity is as alien and toxic to the white race as race-mixing and intermarriage; but none of you Christians out there will accept it, because you don’t want to hear it. And the smarter you are, the higher your IQ, the better you can rationalize it, and defend it, even if it is just plain wrong. And the same is true of the intellectual elites who still cling to the “blank slate.” Steven Pinker’s book by that name is a perfect example, for in it he agrees that there IS such a thing as human nature, only that it’s so unpleasant that it’s better if we pretend it doesn’t exist.

    So I agree, the ten-thousandth VDare article on IQ isn’t going to change the views of the Mommy Professor who makes his living promoting the blank slate. But at the same time, you aren’t going to convince what Pierce called the “lemmings” who’ve been taught this by Mommy Prof by saying that “the blank slate is bunk.” You have to come up with a “sound bite” that DEMONSTRATES that it is bunk. This is, after all, the genius of Bob’s Mantra; it points out the obvious in an inescapable way. Mommy Professor isn’t going to be swayed; but you’re indeed wasting your time if you’re trying to convert the Priests. Unless I have misread Bob over the years, the Mantra isn’t aimed at them; it’s aimed at the Faithful, the Believers. The rungs of the ladders, to use Bob’s metaphor for today.

    But I suggest to you that one of the reasons the “blank slate” still holds such a sway is because human nature IS pretty horrible, especially to the “ideals” of the left; we are, by nature, racist, sexist, xenophobic animals, and trying to make us be otherwise has, as is clearly demonstrated by our contemporary world, driven us insane. Has anybody besides me noticed that true diversity is the exact OPPOSITE of “equality”? If everybody is the same, then nobody’s different; so where’s the “diversity”? It’s an inherent contradiction passed off as a “universal truth”; and nobody NOTICES it.

    Or is this not what Bob calls “Mantra thinking,” which has been my curse, and blessing, since I was old enough TO think?

  12. #13 by Simmons on 02/13/2011 - 1:03 am

    HP I said to preface with “the blank slate theory is bunk” that in itself is the sound bite. As for the believers that is what they are, nothing more. What is the proof of the Blank Slate?

    Listen I understand if you are part of our crime and IQ professors clique and I in no way want to diminish how you make a living, but lets be honest beyond the academic world you have made little headway with the “believers” with dry monotone disertations of blah, blah, blah.

    The “left” you defend is guilty of genocide is that not horrible?

    I understand why the Mantra is so resisted by the professors of our side, it simply strips away the respectability of their counterparts. And you sir seem a respectable man.

  13. #14 by HP on 02/14/2011 - 12:47 am

    Simmons, my friend, I was NOT defending the Left. I was trying to explain how they THINK, and I was trying to say that saying “the blank slate is bunk” is not going to change anybody’s opinions on the matter. Part of what I find “horrible” about human nature is the fact that a bunch of insane ideologues (most of them Jewish, funny thing) CAN manage to massacre 100 million people over the course of a century in some nutty quest to “make the world a better place” (which is what they CLAIM, not what they’ve done — they’ve done the exact opposite). But, I suppose I should have phrased that better, perhaps “human nature is especially horrible to the Left, because it goes against every ideological construct in their PC pantheon.”

    For the record, I think that human beings can be horrible and grand and everything in between; nor do I attach any pejorative to “racism, sexism, and xenophobia.” That is to say, these are not a priori “bad” things to me. I see them rather as natural and inescapable. Look: white people ARE superior to the other races, by any criteria you wish to use; women NEED the protection of men and are in no way, shape or form “equal to” or “the same as” men; and it is natural, or should be natural (that for the anti-white whites), to prefer your own kind. Get what I’m saying now?

    And, I was trying, in my awkward way, to get you to try to come up with something that would SHOW that the blank slate is bunk, like the short form of Bob’s Mantra. I have tried, but I haven’t succeeded; the closest I’ve come so far is “look at a gorilla, then at a negro, and you know that evolution is real.” Which doesn’t quite do the job, and would be considered “offensive,” however true. And this is Bob’s area of expertise, not mine. I can easily believe it took him a lot of work to come up with the Mantra, which DOES state the obvious in an inescapable way, and without resort to words that may “offend” those who otherwise might be willing to hear it.

    Finally I must say that you flatter me immensely, sir. For somebody who dropped out of college after only two years to be mistaken for a “professor” is indeed quite flattering. I think. Maybe.

    But I will have you know that I consider myself to be every bit as disrespectable as Bob Whitaker, at the very least. I’ve been told that I’m even MORE disrespectable; but, that’s a matter of opinion.

Comments are closed.