Archive for February, 2006
Ideology Versus Living Free
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, History, How Things Work on 02/17/2006
We are so used to living in an ideological world that we cannot get used to the idea that technology is making it out of date.
Throughout human history and before, we lived where we could make a living. So you were surrounded by people who wanted to live their own way. Some wanted a Leader, some wanted very few restrictions, some wanted the schools to teqach creationism, some evolution.
But they all had to live side-by-side, where their job was or where the good hunting grounds were.
That is going away.
So in the future we will adapt to that.
It took decades before anybody realized that the Industrial Revolution was making a new society and a new politics. We are having the same problem.
If you HAVE to live side-by-side where you make your living, then you have to have a single form of government. That is why you have ideolgies.
But if you do NOT have to live together in the best hunting grounds or near the steel plants, you don’t need ideology to live in a place that operates the way you like it.
You just GO there.
We don’t NEED ideolgy any more.
So let’s get rid of it. Let’s stop building our lives around it.
Right now the whole world is living in the past. Everybody is trying to UNITE. Ther European Union and the United Nations are relics of the past.
It will take a long time for people to catch on to this, just as it took generations for ideology to catch up with the Industrial Revolution.
The “DUHH! ” Tactic
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 02/17/2006
This is what I put inthe various threads on Stormfront today as antis tried desperately to fid some way around Bob’s Mantra:
— The DUHH! Tactic
I have not bothered to answer the lame “replies” to Bob’s Mantra because every single one of
them boils down to the old “DUHH!” tactic.
“I never heard of ‘the race problem.'”
“This is all very vague. I don’t understand what you’re talking about.”
Nobody ever said ‘assimilation’ — intermarriage, was the solution to this race problem.”
And so on.
What would a senator do if he were debating hte budget and suddenly the opposition came up
with a brilliant remark: “Define the word budget.”
Well, it’s an unanswerable question, no doubt about it.
But smart?
Not bloody likely.
Do you think an adult, much less a senator, would try to explain to another adult what the subject is that they are debating?
This is sophomoric. Sophomore means “wise fool.”
I have heard the same person onthe same day talk about intermarriage as the solution to the race problem and then deny he had ever HEARD anybody say that intermarriage was the slution to the race problem.
I have heard people who were just talking about the race problem deny theyhave ever heard of something called the race problem.
I have heard a former president of the United States seriously try to discuss what the meaning of “is” is.
He got laughed at.
When someone uses this “DUHH!” tactic, NEVER get intot he drooling pit with them.
I have never heard a single person actually take “That depends on what you mean by the word ‘is'” seriously. People just laughed and went on.
And that is the only way to deal with the “DUHH!” tactic.
Everybody went through the stage when they were young when they thought that instant amnesiawas smart.
We are not here to piddle with crap like that. We are here to make our point and go on.
Nobody takes the “DUHH!” tactic seriously, least of all the person who uses it.
You can never actually answer “DUHH!” But everybody listening to the argument knows it’s silly.
So what do you do when your opponent gets downright silly?
You feel good about it and leave them gibbering to themselves.
Nobody listening takes them seriously.
Just say it again, maybe with “If you don’t understand this, I can’t help you.”
You can either USE Bob’s Mantra and repeat it and repeat it and repeat every time they go “DUHH!” or you can get down in the drooling pit with them, which takes attention away from
the overwhelmingly obvious and needed point you are making.
When they go “DUHH!” it is anohter opportunity for you to say:
” 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 am talking
about 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 tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the
white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a
naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
What Form Would a White Government Take?
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 02/15/2006
Someone in Stormfront brought up this very important question. I quote him below.
Any political movement faces the question, “What will you replace the present system WITH?”
So here are my first thoughts on the matter:
——————————————————————————–
It is probably my Southern upbringing, but I like decentralization.
Not States’ Right. That means nothing any more.
But I would like a united white people who have districts governed in different ways to let people which white area they want to live in.
No, I have no real outline for this, but it looks to me as if technology is moving in that direction. It is less and less necessary for people to cluster around a single city or a single factory. I know people who work in South Carolina but whose computer company is on the West Coast.
I talked today to an Indian sitting ten thousand miles from here who is doing exactly what a person in New York would be doing.
In my lifetime the primary choice of a place to live was based on where you worked. That is less true every single day.
We really don’t care what system you live under if you are loyal to our race and stand together.
In fact, the thing that has always separated our race into defenseless segments has been that we got obsessed with ideological conflicts.
If you want to be in a Nazi society, you go to that area. If you want racialist libertarianism, you buy a place forty miles away.
So much for ideological fights.
Do you want an area where they speak German? That sixty miles west of the area where they speak Norwegian, you know, just west of the Afrikaans area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John
I’d like to start this thread in order to discuss just exactly what form of government a White Nation would develop. Would it be democratic? Theocratic? Would it be a monarchy or a dictatorship? I don’t know.
I think there is a common misconception with regards to the definition of the terms liberal and conservative when it comes to governmental philosophy. We hear the terms used all the time, but they often times don’t make sense. In my mind the terms exist on a continuium with Liberalism on the Left and Conservativism on the right. Please take a look at the following continuium:
Totalitarian — Religous Oligarchy — Monarchy — Dictatorship — Federal (Two Party) Republic — Democratic (Multi-Party) Republic — Anarchy
In my mind, liberalism is more totalitarian while conservativism is more anarchistic. Am I all ate up? Does this make sense to you all?
What form of government would a White Nation develop?
Please Help Ole Bob!
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 02/15/2006
I CANNOT get people to use the best arguments!
I put this comment all over Stormfront:
Please Help Ole Bob!
——————————————————————————–
Nobody in the anti thread should get away without being faced with the ongoing GENOCIDE against the white race which is our real conceren.
I keep hitting the antis with Bob’s Mantra and NONE of the antis can deal with it. So what do they do?
They keep answering the people who bring up crime rates or border problems and the other standard stuff.
I want my comrades to make THEIR thoughtful points, but it also takes the pressure off of the the antis.
To one of my comrades in an anti thread, I wrote the following very simple solution to this problem:
“Thanks, but you have given the antis a way to avoid my point.”
“They can now talk about what you said instead of addressing the simple fact that ‘anti-racism’ is a code word for the Final Solution to the White Problem.”
“There is a simple solution to this. It consists of just helping Ole Bob out.”
Make your points and then add at the end:
“Why don’t you answer Bob’s point:
— 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 am talking about 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 tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
-
You are currently browsing the archives for February, 2006
Bob’s Books
Bob's first book - 1976
A Plague On Both Your HousesBob's second book - 1982
THE NEW RIGHT PAPERSBob's deadliest book - 2004
Why Johnny Can't Think:
America's Professor-PriesthoodWhy Johnny Can't Think ebook zip
pwrd: Phu=9Ad5
Wordism and the Propositional State
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 02/17/2006
1) a nation based on race has to keep other races out;
2) a country unified only by principles or the American Ideal or Wordism has to keep other IDEAS out.
You simply cannot have free speech a country whose only unifying force is “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
When you define patriotism as a set of words, a propositional, a BELIEF, you also define TREASON as having the wrong ideas and being loyal to the wrong proposition. No matter whether the Wordism is “all men are created equal” or Marxism or Catholicism or Islam or Protestantism, you simply cannot allow anyone to say things that might damage the proposition which is the only foundation your country has.
A nation based on race, like the original United States, can afford free speech.
A country based on Wordism, or “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” must impose that proposition on everybody in the country.
That is why I said that a RACIAL state can afford plenty of variety of IDEAS. If some people want to live in a place where revellie sounds at 6 am and everybody has to turn out to do a Nazi march, they go to that community.
If someone wants anarchy, they go to the anarchy place.
Their only obligation is to stand for their race.
No free riders on RACE.
But variety of IDEAS? Variety of living styles?
Sure. Why not?
Wordism is a diversity of races and only one single “multiculture.” Even its racial diversity itself has to be uniform in a propositional or Wordist state.
A race-based state offers every kind of real variety.
1 Comment