Archive for December, 2005

Your Big Advantage: The BOREDOM Factor

Why can’t liberals get a single non-local successful talk radio show going?

The reason is simple and it is one they cannot admit, even to themselves:

Everyone who goes to school hears the liberal line day in and day out. It is so standard he doesn’t even know it’s there.

White man bad. Injun good. It’s been on TV since the Greatest Generation came home.

In other words, there is nothing a liberal has to say that bored children don’t have to listen to every day at public expense. Every student has heard of the horrors the white man has perpetrated, of the innocent natives and polar bear (I have yet to hear much of a distinction made).

So what exactly is a liberal talk show host supposed to talk about that his audience is not already bored cross-eyed from hearing?

Which is our big advantage.

You may emphasize that what we are saying is ILLEGAL in other countries. David Irving is facing twenty years for disagree ing about the NUMBERS from the Holocaust. But hit them with Bob’s Mantra first. Any time they look like they are making their own point, throw something in like asking whether what you say should be ILLEGAL.

Particularly when there’s an audience.

But the point is, you have a giant advantage others do not have.

Race is NOT boring.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

2006: PC CE OK?

All the years that Merry Christmas! was permitted, the new year was referrred to as A.D., anno domini, the Year of Our Lord.

Obviously THIS couldn’t be allowed to continue. So it is now the Common Era.

Which, when you think about it, is WORSE, not better, from the point of view of removing religion from politics.

But if you think, you’re not PC so that’s not really a problem, is it?

When 1900 AD it was very specific. It was a CHRISTIAN calendar and if anybody else needed to use it, they put in the AD where necessary to make sure everybody knew this was a Christian dating.

Jews use the same sort of convenience all the time. Jews refer to their first name as their “Christian” name.

My Dutch Uncle is probably not Dutch.

So while it was AD it was the Christian dating used by others.

With the advent (so to speak) of Common Era, the approximate dating of the birth of Christ as a convenience is no longer a Christian convention ADOPTED by others. It is now the ONLY, the OFFICIAL dating for the entire planet earth.

It used to be your call. If you wanted to use Chinese New Year or Islamic dating or Jewish New Year, that was up to you. Nothing was OFFICIAL.

Now it’s official. The approximate date bassed on the birth of Christ is now the Common Era of all mankind, no matter what their faith. no matter whether they live in Munich or China or athiest North Korea or in Tel Aviv or in Damascus.

All UN members have to refer to the Common Era.

Isn’t that just a teenie weenie bit more of an establishment of white gentile thinking as the official thinking for the whole world than anno domini was?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments

Oriental Stagnation is Real

Peter says, I do not know who he is referring to:

“To nitpick: he’s totally wrong about whites being slightly lower than orientals in IQ on creativity. First, IQ tests don’t measure creativity. Second, on what they do measure that resemble creativity, orientals always place far lower than whites. Third, even the section of IQ tests that allege oriental slight superiority such as in rote intelligence used for math and science, the results are contradicted by other IQ tests, but these contradictory results are censored.”

“Actually, orientals I have known, in typical Asian modesty, are quick to say that whites are superior in all aspects of intelligence, but that orientals are better in rote **skills** only because they don’t mind sacrificing themselves to study 14 hours a day. I always said to them that they were just being modest, but they would look offended and insist they were being accurate. Often this was followed by them saying they always wished they were white, and please would I tell no one they said that. ”

Comment by Peter — 12/29/2005 @ 2:49

As I have pointed out a dozen times (literally) but don’t seem to be able to get across, inventions DIE in the Orient. When we get an invention we change the world with it. The Orient not only stagnates, it slides.

Without the West, China would slide back tino its rice paddies.

But they got the aquatic rice from India when it was white. Even accepted history admits that.

By the way, your “fourteen hours a day” is literal.

I was just reading an article about Korean men who send their wives and children to the United States so the children can be educated here. Unlike Westerners who circumcize, many Orientals do not like torturing their children. The school day in South Korea including homework is frourteen hours, the exact number you mentioned.

It is almost ALL rote memory. Can you imagine more torture for a child’s mind?

Can you imagine what’s left of a child’s mind after twelve years of that?

If you don’t do the fourteen, you can forget university and anything but a joanitorial job.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Comments

Derek

Derek said,

“Thanks Bob. ”

“I used to read a lot of philosophy. The serious stuff like Nietzsche, Arelius, Evola, Fouccalut etc., etc. but lacked some serious, everyday common sense. I could quote these guys but not apply any of it to real life (outside of the easy maxims of Nietzsche).”

“Real people don’t have time to be psuedo-intellectuals. There is too much to enjoy in living life rather than speculating on it. Real life requires little rhetoric and much action.”

“I just started using the simplification method last night. My roomates and I started talking about women in combat. They were for it. I, being a former Navy man, vehemently disagreed. I was talking from experience and they were talking from speculation. ”

“I stated my case and then didn’t back down. I told them how all this PC crap hinders unit performance and cohesiveness. I saw it daily. Immigrants couldn’t communicate and women could hardly ever handle the stress.”

“I made my point and did it quick. I stuck to my guns and didn’t waste my time with nit-picking or lame speculation. They wasted 45 minutes talking each others ears off while I enjoyed my Manhattan.”

“I think that it worked.”

This put a picture in my mind.

For centuries the Roman Army had formula that worked. The only way to stop them would have been to say to the Romans, “OK, we all know you are experts and standing shield to shield and using the short sword to jab at your enemies.”

“But is that ALL you know how to do? Why don’t you prove you can do other things with cavalry and different formations?”

A Roman who thought he was Really Shrewd would have proved that he knew more than that one tactic.

If they had been Shrewd the Romans would have proved that they didn’t have to stay in a tight unit. They could fight it out inthe open field man-to-man.

While they ruled the know world the Romans never got Shrewd.

They just kept conquering stuff.

Over and over.

The trick was that the enemy had to break up the Roman Army. The Roman Army remained a unit and couldn’t be broken up.

Now let’s see if I can stretch this analogy.

People who argue with our enemies keep thinking that they have to convince THEM. It never occurs to them that the enemy must convince US.

So when they come at us on race, we use Bob’s Mantra:

” Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries.”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I want the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I say that, I’m a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

But the point is not that is THE position. That is YOUR position. They have to break it up.

You stay in formation.

They can try to talk about why THE white race should survive. You ask them if they would ask the black man above the same question.

They say blacks have a history of persecution. You ask if the black position is therefore inferior to their ideals.

You admit that you are not God. You are loyal to your own people justlike everybody else is.

They say they are loyal to ideals, not to a race. You talk about Wordism. You ask them if they have any loyalty to ANYTHING. Would they sell out America if they thought the other side had the principles?

You stay in formation.

No matter what they say they are answering YOU. YOU are in formation. YOU have your loyalties.

Where the hell ARE they? Can anybody TRUST them?

You are loyal. You have your ground.

Where are THEY?

Never break ranks.

Which means you must have trained yourself on exactly where you stand.

This is simple.

It is NOT easy.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

***A*** Whitakerism

Elizabeth wondered how to put something in italics here. I use the *** method.

***A*** Whitakerism exists.

But there is no Whitakerism, in the sense that you can lop off your frontal lobe and stick a book a book called “Whitakerism” in the empty space. That is Wordism, and I think I have made it clear that I have some mild objections to Wordism.

Yet for decades people who knew me said, “Now that’s a real Whitakerism!”

A Whitakerism is an observation that seems so obvious that it astounds people.

Let me give you an example. Someone says to me, “Looks are not important. It is what is on the Inside that matters.”

I ask them, “Have you ever heard of Greta James?”

So far, nobody has.

I then say, “There are thousands of really wonderful wives and mothers named Greta James. You’ve never heard of any of them, right?”

They haven’t.

Then I say, “Have you ever heard of Marilyn Monroe?”

By then they know what is coming.

If I am dealing with a woman, it is even easier. I say, “That’s a pretty dress. You have on some nice shoes. Pretty clothes and the right hairdo take a lot of taste and a certain amount of cash.”

“Sorry, I got off the subject. You said that looks don’t matter?”

Coke and beer is a Whitakerism.

People would say that a black guy and a blond girl have every right to be in love and have children.

Looks, you see, don’t matter. Only Beging in Love is important.

I would tell them I would glad to discuss that and I would buy the drinks. They would have to drink Coca-Cola, the most popular soft drink on earth, mixed with an equal amount of the very best beer.

All through the conversation, I would ask them, eye-to-eye, whether what they were drinking tasted good.

Nobody ever took me up on that.

I would point out that, while they theorized about how great Coke and beer were, the children they were talking about woud have to LIVE looking like that.

That is a Whitakerism.

You see, we lost control of our society when we started EXPLAINING the obvious. The hippies asked us “Why not peace?” and we got into a total bind over it.

We got on the defensive.

We let THEM be OUR judges.

And we have been justifying ourselves ever since. We are the subjective. They are the objective. They have preferences which they don’t have to justify. We have prejudices and we have to justify every one of them.

To them.

Another Whitakerism: “Who in the HELL do you think you are?”

A Whitakerism is putting them on the defensive and making them look like the self-righteous clowns they are, all at the same time.

A Whitakerism is truth with a license to kill.

Oliver Hardy came up with a Whitakerism before Bob’s father was born. He said, “Nobody is as dumb as a dumb man who thinks he’s smart.”

And nobody is as provincial as a liberal Southerner who thinks he’s sophisticated.

And nobody falls into a trap as easily as someone who thinks he’s Shrewd.

And nobody is as backward as somebody who is still quoting Karl Marx as a New Age Radical a century after the man died.

And what kind of idiot would think there are only “Both Sides,” meaning a grand total of two sides, to ANY issue?

And ALL traitors always claim they are just being objective and idealistic.

And why do we agree that a professional academic or a professional judge or a Professional Journalist is less a product of his environment we are.

Except that he has incurable self-righteousness thrown in?

And if you are white and you have no loyalty to your race, do you have ANY loyalties, and how do you justify them?

A Whitakerism is simple.

But a Whitakerism is never easy.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments