The respectable conservative mantra has always been “It’s not about race.”
John Derbyshire was just fired by National Review because, among other things, he warned whites against going to a place which is almost all black. He did not make on single statement in that article that could be factually disagreed with by anybody who read it.
It was a set of banned truths.
For example, people often slip into saying that police are not allowed to “profile.” Then you watch a TV program the hero of which is a Police Profiler.
Racial profiling is outlawed, but not because it is not based on facts. A black person is six to twenty times as likely to have committed a crime than a white person.
This is the important point: The police are required to ignore that. Border patrols are required to insist that a person who is blond and has no accent is just as likely to be an illegal Mexican immigrant in El Paso as a brown person who speaks only Spanish.
This is for REAL, gang!
What is also for real is that any respectable conservative who repeats what I just said is fired.
Any respectable conservative who asks to for a definition of the word “racist” that he has just been called will be looking for a new job in this depression economy.
The same is true for any law enforcement officer.
Meanwhile, who mentions any of this?
Your Obedient Servant and no one else.
If commenters would stop worrying about how complicated Mantra Thinking is, they could concentrate on reading articles like this and learning that Mantra Thinking is ridding your mind of all the standard blocks. That is extremely difficult, but it is NOT complicated.
When someone says “racist,” point out that what he means is that IN HIS OPINION something is racist.
This changes the dialogue. He is now demanding laws to punish, not Racism, but ANYTHING HE CHOOSES TO CALL racism. But nobody, I mean NOBODY but me, and now the White Rabbit, can be trusted to say that.
I just had an article about how the media get away with short statements in the midst of articles which are dead wrong, fatally wrong, but anyone outside of Bob and Company will talk about the whole article and try to put that totally false statement “in the context” of the article.
We are always seeing professional conservatives say, “It’s not a matter of race.” According to present wage-earning respectable conservatives, nothing is a matter of race.
Especially race.
#1 by beefcake on 05/15/2012 - 9:58 am
What he CALLS Racism is ANYTHING a White person says that he does not LIKE, first on that list is the truth.
We don’t need to ARGUE with the lies, all we need to do is POINT the lies OUT.
#2 by Epiphany on 05/15/2012 - 10:00 am
BGlass is right about something: the idea of an American “Experiment”, and calling people consumers is really sickening. Come to think of it now, the term “Consumer” makes one think of maggots, lowly maggots, who exist to swallow all of the propaganda and public relations, peddled by some mindbending mad scientists.
This, of course, should inspire people to boycott things.
#3 by Dave on 05/15/2012 - 10:37 am
Mommy Professor moves society into lower states of existence. Mommy Professor is an agent of desocialization.
With Mantra thinking you succeed into a higher state of socialization. That’s succession to power.
OUR ENEMIES ARE WEAK. YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP BEING IMPRESSED BY THEM. YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP REACTING TO THEM.
To react to them is to succumb to THEIR desocialization.
That is what Respectables do. They are people climbing DOWN the ladder of socialization. They think it is chic and wise to swing in the he ruins at the bottom, right there in the vast domain of Mommy Professor’s unwholesomeness, in the massive chasms of repulsive fat, making a virtue of ugliness and dereliction.
#4 by Simmons on 05/15/2012 - 11:25 am
Dave of course hits it out of the park.
The left is a mess, basically several cults trying to share the same bathroom.
Since they show no signs of backing off the meme “whites are racist demons” we have them by the shorts.
Because of that we are getting close to the White Man’s Field of Blackbirds (Kosovo 1989)
#5 by six gun on 05/15/2012 - 11:43 am
I would say Manta thinking is another word for common sense.
On the frontpage of the National Front party in the UK it says “The word racist has robbed the British of their country.”
It has robbed the West of its senses, its common sense.
We are in an era of thought crime. You are guilty of HATE because the man on the corner thought you were being HATEFUL.
Something becomes offensive because someone decided they were offended and then it is a crime.
This is the truth – the Public Order Act 1986 makes it a crime in the UK.
The US is slowly heading this way. I will abridge the section slightly to reduce the wordage.
5 Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses abusive or insulting words within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
I heard that and I was distressed.
Why were you distressed?
Because I felt insulted.
Thus the words were insulting as the person felt insulted and was distressed.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a) that he had no reason to believe any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused distress, or
(c) that his conduct was reasonable.
You speak to someone and they complain they were insulted and so distressed.
Your only escape from a criminal conviction is the conduct was reasonable.
Was it reasonable to upset that person?
Result you can be convicted of saying anything anyone else disagrees with.
You will not only be called a racist but you will be convicted as one as well.
The offence is “racially aggregated” in those circumstances and is far worse.
#6 by BGLass on 05/15/2012 - 12:19 pm
Anytime anyone approaches with the underlying assumption that you should Pick a side, yes or no, they are suspect.
Like, “abortion–pro or con!” gay marriage–yes or no! feminism–true or false!!!
There was a guy on t.v., forget his name, a really bullying brash conservative who would always bark “yes or no!” and things like that in a degrading dismissive voice, forcing his interviewee to say yes or no.
No one looks at the issue itself, who brought it into being, how it FUNCTIONS.
Just saw on news a new vilification program for Tobacco. (lol). The strongest thing anyone will ever say is “While I would never smoke, I would fight for the right of others to smoke, but then I do worry about the second-hand smoke research and reports.”
No one would ever say IS THIS even really a health issue? Sure it’s bad to smoke, but what happened to all those farmers? What’s been the affect on the farmland? Was central health care that is on the table now, really anticipating itself that long ago? Since the public has it repeated and battered into them now that they aren’t going to be doing that (smoking) can we EVER move onto other issues involved with it? Or in 100 years will we still be paying taxes for more of these shock commercials?
Can the taxpayers just demand that the same shock commercial shown before all hollywood movies, just like they used to show the war propaganda clips at the theatre movies, be used every generation, so we don’t have to keep paying for news ones?
Is it more a land grab issue or a health issue or taxpayer support for prograganda issue in media— yes or no!
Or pick some other –any of a zillion— ways another voice could discuss or frame this.
yes or no, either-or, true or false, pro or con— are neon signs saying ‘idiots aboard!”
No one has yet said, obviously this is a race-based society, lying about not being, and what we’re interested in is how this affects various people…
It’s like being stuck in the movie Groundhog Day, just doing/saying the same thing over and over and over for years and years. The idea can go nowhere.
#7 by BGLass on 05/15/2012 - 12:34 pm
“…I heard that and I was distressed.
Why were you distressed?
Because I felt insulted.
Thus the words were insulting as the person felt insulted and was distressed….”
This is why I don’t hate parts of the “left,” like attempts to teach situational ethics— for some, it was a strategy to try to end this hopeless myopia (narcissism, self-centeredness, whatever you want to call it) of the average citizen.
How to explain: one’s motivations have ZERO to do with how another receives whatever occurs. Those weird things called “other people” …lol, somewhere out there.
This is rocket science to more people than we like to admit.
#8 by BoardAd on 05/15/2012 - 12:59 pm
BGLass, one comment per article per day please.
#9 by c-bear on 05/15/2012 - 4:43 pm
Recently the Spokane news has been reporting on a murder in the park. The Spokane police department issued the following statement: ” The victim described their assailant as a black man in his thirties with a bad eye, but we discourage anyone from racial profiling.”
Both my wife and I laughed. I wonder if anyone else did.
#10 by Gavin on 05/16/2012 - 3:20 am
No matter how much they oppose her dictates whenever I see someone use any of Mommy Prof’s terms in a way that takes them even slightly seriously, I can see the chains binding them.
I can see Mommy Prof’s captives struggling to break free.
I remember the first time I saw a freeman. Of course I didn’t “see” them, I read their posts on the internet. It was like a bright light of salvation, there WAS life outside the cult.
A freeman is not the typical “stormfront” type who is living in reaction to Mommy Prof. A freeman in complete authenticity…just doesn’t take her seriously. Even small quips a freeman makes…if they demonstrate his authentic disregard for Mommy Prof, can have an enormous impact.
When James Edwards says something like “well I don’t hate anybody” I can see Mommy Prof’s chains on him and you can bet our enemies see those chains as well. Paying any heed to Mommy Prof’s accusations is ridiculous. If an interrogator is accused by the criminal of being a meanie, the interrogator doesn’t start claiming he is not a mean guy etc…
We are the ones in command here, that is our bearing.
#11 by Jason Here on 05/16/2012 - 5:10 am
Respectable conservatives are scared to death of race, which hinders any serious discussion of the 2012 election. Following Bob’s view that politics is getting more racial, and that the Democrats should have won a huge landslide in ’08, I can only surmise that the GOP will win this time. The moderate Whites will swing to GOP (since we won’t have looming depression and crisis like we did in ’08 – and besides, it is now on Obama’s watch).
So, I would predict a Romney win, using Bob’s analysis, IF I understand it correctly. This is the seemingly contradictory rise to power of Whites, even as they lose absolute numbers.
#12 by steadiness on 05/16/2012 - 12:12 pm
Here’s a slogan I like to use.
“What if people in the United States[1] voted according to ethnicity? There aren’t enough Blacks and Latinos[2] form a minority coalition government, so they would need to water down their platform enough to get enough disaffected white votes.
They could call it the Democratic Party”
[1] not “Americans”
[2] note the capitalization they demand of us
The problem the white anti-whites among the Democrats have is that they can’t think about race.
The problem with those white anti-whites is they literally can’t think in terms of race, except to support more diversity (in 2009, Tides gave an A+ to the NBA because their players were 78% diverse). If you tell them this, they will beam with pride, Well, that was the situation about ten years ago. Then the black studies professors wanted _more_.
They said that colorblindness, which is already treason, is racist, and that progressives must actively fight white privilege. Then some idiots got some stock photos of white people and scribbled all over them, Eric “my people” Hölder vowed to investigate George Zimmerman for hate crimes, and George Zimmerman earned whiteness by shooting an African-American (they now think African-American is racist and simplistic half the time).
Liberals berate each other online routinely for “cisgender privilege” and whatnot. Other liberals literally have no idea how embarrassing that is.
http://i.imgur.com/cvKvn.png
http://i.imgur.com/YzN6f.png
http://i.imgur.com/Fa5dP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Cothl.png
http://i.imgur.com/tHeor.png
Whites might not truly understand what’s happening, but they see it, and it’s nonsense. I know because up until three months ago I was volunteering for the Democratic Party and marching with socialists, and up until a year ago I was just as anti-white as any other white can be.
If you tell white people that it’s racist to be colorblind, they will stop being colorblind, and then they’ll slowly start to notice the genocidal policies. Worked for me.
And of course Romney is going to win. Obama gave his concession speech a few days ago when he said that having had much time to ponder the issue he decided to support gay marriage. Right after gay marriage lost in NC, a day before the Washington Post released an article accusing Romney of bullying gays as a youth*, at the beginning of a week of fundraising with Hollywood gays. The meme about Romney that they still use over at DailyKos is “etch-a-sketch”. Obama went from supporting gay marriage, to opposing it, to supporting it again, and most Americans aren’t buying the “historic” line the traditional media keeps throwing at us, recognizing the political decision for what it is. If we needed another demonstration that Wordists have no principles, there it is.
And in Sweden, after a bunch of refugees raped a Swedish woman until she now has to use a wheelchair, a smug anti-white communist youth league Swedish girl said that it would be racist to deport them for it. Well, I guess it would be, according to the Left’s current definition of racism.
The Left has a real problem in that they actually believe their propaganda.
* It’s kind of weird to write that Romney was ever “a youth”, because he is white.
#13 by The Old Man of the Mountain on 05/23/2012 - 7:40 pm
The word “racist” is a racial slur used by the Media Mafia and the Federal Government against White Men, and only against White Men.
What sorts of racial slurs do the Federal Government and the Media Mafia use against blacks, browns, and Jews?
The only group publicly attacked with racial slurs is White Men!