Archive for January 6th, 2006

I Wouldn’t Stop Immigration if I Could

Posted by Bob in Bob, History, How Things Work on 01/06/2006

Gradual integration always scared me a lot more than busing.

Back in the early 1960s it looked as though those who wanted an end to the the white race — and I knew what they were after — had evolved the perfect strategy.

I remember in 1962, when Saint John the Kennedy sent the 101st Airborne Division in to integrate the University of Mississippi, one network announcer said, “Why are these Southerners fighting so hard? They will get to keep their society mostly segregated.”

Try to find THAT one in the Memory Hole.

Another one you won’t find in the Memory Hole.

I don’t know if anyone today remembers the Watts Riots of 1965. But at 2 am on the first night, the national broadcasts were saying, “One thing we know for certain. These are NOT race riots.”

Those who were determined to end the white race were on the perfect course with gradualism. There would be no racial crisis that people could see. Their aim was to abolish the white race in the 21st century.

So until I was in my early twenties, I watched the perfect strategy in action. Slowly, step by step, they would integrate.

The frog in the water.

The story is that a frog can be boiled to death without reacting if you put him in water and SLOWLY raise the temperature to boiling.

The white race could be raised to boiling if you could keep suburbanites from fearing they would lose money on blacks moving in. Only a few Sidney Poitiers and Harry Bellefontes would move in.

But those who had this strategy had to contend with activists.

The NAACP had never had a black president. Suddenly in the 1960s there was a black revolt inside the NAACP itself.

Black Power took over the black movement. Fanatical outspoken anti-whites took over the white movement, “The white race is the cancer of history.”

I guess you can’t put yourself in my shoes to understand what a relief that was. I was terrified of gradualism.

You see, only me and the anti-whites knew what the real game was. Nobody else cared.

As long as you got rid of the white race without threatening unionists’ jobs or suburban housing values, nobody but a few real racists like me and the anti-whites cared about the long-term fate of my race.

And if immigration is stopped, all the Pat Buchanans will say, “Now let’s ASSIMILATE with them.”

Many a working person has told me about how he used to be all for integration, but suddenly the minorities are taking his job.

Poor baby! It didn’t wait to destroy his children, it came after HIM. He would have been happy for his grandchildren to be in a third world country, but this was too much.

So I wouldn’t stop affirmative action if I could. Now that we have plenty of non-white immigrants to destroy our race here, I am more against the Buchananites “assimilation” than I am against open borders.

I have been fighting the real battle, the battle for racial survival, since I was thirteen years old.

All these people who had “experiences” with affirmative action and changed sides are lower than whale doo to me.

But I listen sympathetically because SOME of them go from just licking their own wounds to being dedicated to my cause, which is survival.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 Comments

Why South Africans Have Nowhere to Go

Posted by Bob in History, How Things Work on 01/06/2006

I wrote this in response to a reply to my earlier piece on South Africa on Stormfront.

Here it is:

Let the old man ramble a little.

I was in South Africa and at the Washington Embassy a lot.

Once I went to a party at the South African Embassy and used the same line I had used everywhere else.

They asked me what I was doing in Rhodesia and a couple of other places in Africa. I said I was working at a sewing machine company, which is what I had said everywhere else.

This was stupid, but I had spent years saying that to people and most folks don’t know one African country from another. To say that in the South African Embassy was really stupid. It got laughs all around.

In fact, the result was a bit like a scene from a movie. One Embassy employee would talk up to another and look over at me and repeat my line and they would have a great laugh. You could see the word spreading around the room.

But I told them and every other white I spoke to in Africa something that is not, in retrospect, quite so funny.

I told them that South Africans had better start backing the white movement outside the Republic or, if apartheid fell, they would have nowhere to go.

But foreign affairs was a matter the average Boer left to his Kerk and to the National Party.

One unmentioned martyr of our movement was a senior civl service employee of South Africa who tried to act on my advice. The Washington Star had recently gone out of business and there was no competition in DC with the Washington Post.

This man took it upon himself to find funding within the South African government to finance a real, full-fledged rival paper right there in DC.

You know how hard it is tyo fire a senior bureaucrat?

He was fired.

Eventually a rival newspaper in DC, the Washington Times, was founded by the Moonies, who are conservative and violently anti-white.

The cost of setting up a DC newspaper full-scale was enormous in terms of the average corporation, but miniscule in terms of the South African budget. If South Africa had controlled the opposition newspaper in DC it could have saved the Boers.

But by the time South Africa fell, the Moonie-type conservatives and liberals had changed the immigration laws so that there was no haven anywhere for the average South African white.

In the 1970s all of the traditional immigration countries, Australia, Canada, the US, would have welcomes several million productive whites with open arms.

But South Africa did not want to interfere in other countries’ politics.
So all I got was the responsibility of ruining one career civil servant’s career — thought I may be overstating my influence.

South African whites put their trust in die Kerk and in the National Party, not in some random redneck who knew Washington politics.

They slammed the door in their own faces. I warned them and they ruined a good man.

That is on MY conscience.

My sympathy with them is all it should be.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 Comments

Genetic Morality

Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 01/06/2006

Has there ever been a book with this title?

According to all the “moral” teachers, there is no such thing as genetic morality.

There is a lot of disagreement on how much human life is influenced by our genes. Right after World War II the dream world of social science was science. That is, all human life was entirely a product of environment.

Hitler was for heredity so the World War II generation went to colleges that taught that the future was entirely a product of education, sociology, political science, historial determinism, in other words the social sciences.

Thirty years ago I pointed this out in detail in my first book in my own name.

Environment IS social science. Leaving heredity and environment to social scientists is exactlyt like leaving the price of steel up to the Steel Trust. So the Weakest Generation, fresh from obedience training, was trained that heredity was nothing.

To every church that I am aware of, the term “genetic morality” is an oxymoron. If you are intelligent, you should spend your time on theology, not on having or raising children.

Chilren are a byproduct. You are not responsible for helping better people pass their GENES on, genes future generations will desperately need.

The first rule of post-World War II thinking is that there is no moral dimension whatsoever to genetics.

The discussion begins and ends with “some Hitlerites would say one should have BETTER children, WHATEVER “BETTER” Means.”

This is supposd to get rid of the whole argument and get us back to social programs and adopting the third world into the United States.

But when it comes to social science, there is never the slightest doubt as to what “better” means.

Look at the person who tells you, “Looks don’t matter.” How much do their clothes cost? Are they only wearing a minimum regardless of fashion or how the clothes look. I had a woman once tell me looks don’t matter but she had to end the conversation because she had an appointment at the beauty salon.

You see, the social scientists HAS to know what is “better” or he will not be able to make a living teaching students how they can achieve that “better” by putting money into social programs.

I am sure the lady who runing the beauty salon will tell you that looks don’t matter. I am sure the high-end cloting store ownders are putting money into programs based on the premise that there is no such thing as “better” looking children.

O’Reilly demands that test scores and not race should be the determinant of who gets into school. But, since his degree is in education, he will also tell you that no child is innately smarter than any other child.

He SAYS that!

It isn’t true.

I am not speaking of theory here. I am speaking of MORALITY.

My morality is still Odinist. That which is not true is evil.

So Bob has a genetic morality.

That is why I object so strongly to the word “aristocracy” as used today. Aristocracy means rule by the best. It has nothing to do iwth naciocracy, which is rule by birth.

Even social scientists now have to admit that heredity is important. Anything that is important to humanity has a MORAL dimension.

We are perfectly willing to restrict any human freedom to improve human beings by ENVIRONMENTAL means.

Except for libertarians. They just say they have no responsibility for anything.

I do not respect what passes for morality today because it has one blind eye. Everyone except extreme libertarians agree that businessmen do not have the right to do anything they want to to increase profits and they are perfectly willing to back the restrictions that are needed by force.

But anyone who is too irresponsible or unintelligent to keep down their number of children has a right to dump them on the rest of us. If countries can’t control their population, they have every right to dump them into vacant space left by white people.

But the critical point is NOT that this is not RIGHT. The point here is one no conservative and very few others have the guts to make.

The critical point is that this is IMMORAL.

No one dares to face down the screaming priest or preacher with this IMMORALITY.

If you do not have a genetic morality, you are an immoral person.

You can whip yourself in a Trappist Monastery or hold revivals or hold a professorship in Ethics at Harvard University. But you an immoral person if you do not have a clear-cut GENETIC morality.

On Judgement Day, I doubt seriously whether you will only be asked about your morality on one aspect of life and never questioned on the other.

The hungry will have to be fed in future generations. The naked will have to be clothed in the future. Only a genetically healthy society can do that. You can sacrifice and whip your skin off in this generation, but it won’t do the future any good.

All they will have is their genes.

There are only two excuses for ignoring a genetic morality:

1) The future won’t happen or

2) Genes really don’t matter.

Joe, I don’t think ANYBODY believes either of those things except those who expect Judgement Day in the near future.

But the environmentalists, whose whole program is based on the future, have no genetic morality at all.

This is jnot just wrong. It is immoral.

All the churches disagree. But they will not avoid being judged on the Golden Rule.

You can go to Hell straight through the church door.

All the philosophies and pretences at Ethics in the world and all the incantations of “HITLER!” cannot protect you from your moral obligation in this world or in the next.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

6 Comments