Archive for March 18th, 2007

561-351-4424

Two people have complained to me about the name “Peter” always showing up.

I am complaining about people complaining to ME about this.

I repeat, sigh, AGAIN that Kelso takes care of this sort of thing, and his number is STILL

561-351-4424

He is available 24-7

You can PM him on Stormfront.

REPEAT:

His name is James Kelso, Stormfront nickname Charles A. Lindbergh.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

8 Comments

Marcion and Raising Your Eyes

When Jews asked Jesus whether Jews, in their homeland, should pay Caesar’s taxes, he replied, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”

That remark would have gotten him tossed bodily out Jerry Falwell’s church, and by Pat Roberston and all the rest.

Not to mention the independent little Bible church across the dirt road.

When Christ took not only the Ten Commandments but the entire Old Testament and reduced it o two commandments, it is doubtful if he would have gotten out of those churches alive. And that may not be as overstated as you think. The whole basis of Ianity is one reply Jesus had to make to keep from getting lynched. They asked him if he had come to replace the Old Testament and he declared that he absolutely did not.

Do you have any idea what would have happened to him if he had made that denial the least bit less emphatic?

I am used to societies where you can’t say anything you want to, but Ianity assumes that every single word Jesus uttered was in a free society. But when I pointed these things out in the Traditional Christianity section of Stormfront, the kindest reply was, “That’s just Marcion without the celibacy.”

Marcion is known to history as an anti-Semite. This is because he said, in the first century, that Jehovah was not the Father Jesus spoke of. Jehovah, said Marcion, was the god replaced by Christianity, just but not merciful, and should go the way of Zeus and Jupiter. He is therefore known ONLY as an anti-Semite.

As with all the “both sides,” Jews and anti-Semites are in basic agreement about the fundamental point: History is all about JEWS. So all discussion abut Marcion, on “both sides,” is about how he was abut JEWS.

But RAISE YOUR EYES and you will see that both sides are, as always, COMICAL in their obsession. To the guy I mentioned, I rejected Jewish scriptures and Marcion rejected Jewish scriptures so we were the same thing.

When you raise your eyes from this Jewish obsession, whether it comes from the Jews or the anti-Jews, you want to laugh out loud at what you see. There are many ideas in the world that are neither Jewish nor anti-Semitic. Aristotle debated the Cynics before either one of them had heard of the Jews.

You see how SILLY the usual discussions are when you RAISE YOUR EYES? In almost every area of discussion, I see “both sides” as mindless dogs scrapping over a bone while a platter of meat is in plain sight five feet away.

A discussion of Marcion is about him and the Jews. A few remarks are made about how he wanted everybody to be sterile and die out. One of history’s most brilliant theologians, Origen, was never ordained because, in obedience to the idea of totally ending sex, he castrated himself.

No one asks where Marcion’s OWN obsession came from. It just wasn’t JEWISH.

You see, Marcion had some ideas of his OWN that were not ONLY non-Jewish. They came from the degenerate form of Zoroastrianism that is now called Manichaeism.

If you see the movie The Three Hundred about the Spartans, you will see the Persians. They were Zoroastrians. But to a truly maniacal anti-Semite, all goyim are the same.

The Hook in ianity did not just come from the Jews. It came from Zoroastrianism as well.

While the Jews and anti-Semites are fighting over their rotten scrap of meat, there is a whole banquet of fresh intellectual meat there for the taking.

But to see it, you must stop thinking like a dog and lift your eyes.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

7 Comments

Raise Your Eyes

I wish that, when you read my stuff, you would think of me as trying to lead you through tangled undergrowth. Normally, in he important ones, I go over the usual “two sides” you have been presented with all your life, and then make a point that, if you follow ME closely,

The problem is that, as I go through the usual clutter of ideas you are used to, I hit every hot button you have had inserted in you over your whole lifetime. But Bob’s Blog is useless if it is just a discussion of what you are used to.

One person wrote the usual point about how we have to control the national media. I don’t think he is a regular reader, or he would have gotten one of my major points: That if we accept that some people are after money, some fame, some offices, and we are after POWER. He is simply going back over the same old ground he is trained to go over. I teach that owning things is not the key to POWER.

In the last piece, “The Hook, I went through the history of the ianity that has substituted itself for Christ. But the point was that this is an example of how we confuse Christianity in the West wither with all that the West is, or, on the other extreme, as the cause of all our troubles.

I am glad to have the comments, and I was the one who says that I often don’t answer your questions but make the points you make me think of. Pain got my point best. One commenter was offended by my using ‘hook-nosed.” I am with him. I am desperately tired of statements about The Evil Jew. But in this case, it was just another example of the fact that, if I have to choose between good taste and a good pun, I will choose the pun, Boredom is a reader’s worst enemy.

Come on, now, how could I be writing about The Hook, then the Jews, and not throw “hook-nose” in there? All of this distracts from what Bob’s Underground Seminar IS. If you were able to go through my writings and extract the usual hot point “both sides” out of it, you would have a long series of critical observations. “Both sides,” in the end, have nothing to do with what I am teaching here.

I started “The Hook” talking, not abut Christianity, but about Communism. There is a hook in EVERY side of EVERY issue you are exposed to. The institution you love most has a hook in it. The institution you hate most has a hook in it. You have to see THE HOOKS to see the truth.

Randian total freedom and Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” are the same thing from my point of view. But you are trained to regard them as “both sides.” To me, the Catholic priesthood and the Calvinist priesthood and the Politically Correct priesthood are the same thing, though they regard themselves as complete opposites, and everyone is trained to do that.

You are expected to have your own world-view. But you are in THIS class to get what the Prof has to TEACH you, not to agree with every example he gives.

I want YOUR comments, but I want you to read the piece and say, “What is BOB saying here?” My short summations are more important than all the lead-in to it. The lead-ins you can get ANYWHERE.

My theology you can get anywhere. My prejudices you can get anywhere. You are HERE for a reason, and what makes my job so difficult is that this is the ONLY place where the aim is NOT indoctrination. The point here is to go over the familiar and then cut through the bullshit and give you a rational approach. That means REPEATING the bullshit. But if you get wrapped up in THAT, you lost the path completely.

I will often say, “This is the conservative viewpoint. This is the antireligious viewpoint.” I oversimplify both because I would bore you to death if I went into all I know abut both and made it exact.

By the time I get to MY point, which is the only that makes this reading worthwhile to you, most readers are lost back in my descriptions of where we are. Back Bay Grouch and Elizabeth are analyzing my comments about priests abut how they get along with THEIR priests. By the time I get to MY point, I am almost alone.

So when I wrote abut the Masturbation Generation and how they, like Catholic bishops, are ashamed of how they let the sergeants molest them or their comrades, all I got was a discussion of the military or the Catholic Church as homosexual outfits. I had to repeat over and over and over and over that this had nothing to do with what I was saying.

I describe what we usually think about on any given issue and you are still correcting me about THAT, since that is what you know about already. So while I am describing how Rand and Marx are similar, you are welcome to give me information abut Rand and Marx, but you should also be looking for what ***I*** am saying here.

A good example of this is that Back Bay Grouch will think I just criticized his talking his relationship with his own priest. I am NOT. I read it several times and I NEED it. That is what you are USED to hearing about. That is NOT what I am saying.

When I describe Rand and Marx or respectable conservatism and liberalism or Toynbee versus Yockey, I am concentrating on telling you that, while your eyes have been fixed on the battle between THEM, you are so obsessed with THAT that you cannot see that that is NOT where the truth lies. They are both arguing abut nonessentials that are important to THEM, and they are in full agreement that the truth is not where it REALLY is.

I am trying to get you to raise your eyes and see the truth.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

5 Comments