“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I will not quote the source because, as Joe Sobran pointed out, if you don’t use “Season’s Greetings, it involves the ‘C’ word.”
I pointed out above that a recovering drunk and addict like me is in no position to attack others for doing bad things for pleasure. I DO have the right and obligation to attack ANYONE, including me, when their actions hurt others, and especially if they hurt my race.
The Big Book of AA points out that there are a lot more drunks than there are clinical alcoholics. That’s nice to know, but both groups look just alike when they end up in the Morgue.
They’re right. I’ve SEEN them.
I am not an alcoholic. I am anhedonic and obsessive. This means I enjoy very few things and, being obsessive, I overdid the few things I DO enjoy or, in the case of alcohol and drugs, that numbed the pain. I needed the program for the same reason that a card-carrying alcoholic did.
It HAPPENS that men have no attraction for me sexually. Women have done a bang-up job of controlling my obsession with THEM, but for some reason this is a favor I have not always appreciated.
It is easy for a person who LIKES exercise to tell me I just need to be strong and get regular exercise the way they do. It was easy for people to tell me I should do like them and just cut back on the drinking.
I cannot tell you how sick I got of that self-righteousness.
Hell, it’s easy to be immortal. You just don’t die. If there were any genetic immortals on earth some of them would tell us that our mortality is just a lack of will power.
So I can’t preach at gays. I would cheerfully kill them for trying to SPREAD their tendencies, but then again at my worst I never pushed alcohol on anyone, let alone a kid, in order to have a drinking buddy. But this is just common decency, not high morality.
You who are not drunks have to decide for yourselves whether you want to say to gays, “Just don’t do it,” but I don’t know whether, if I had been attracted to men, I could have controlled it so neatly, so I’m disqualified for the preaching at gays bit.
Decent gays stick to their own and, while white gays are a shame, I find straight whites who produce colored offspring INFINITELY more evil.
That is IMPORTANT, because too many in our movement spend too much time attacking homosexuals per se.
It is the same with Jews. If they were all like Hassidic Jews, I would have no problem with them.
STAY ON MESSAGE. Our right to preach begins and ends with saving our race.
#1 by Hardric on 07/31/2007 - 1:11 pm
That’s right. I have no intention of obsessing with every nuance of behavior. Of course many things should remain private. I don’t want to know what you are doing in your bedroom.
We have a Very Important Job to do for Our Race. Don’t get distracted by every peripheral issue that rears its head.
#2 by Pain on 07/31/2007 - 2:45 pm
“Our right to preach begins and ends with saving our race.”
Some preach that the solution for gays is to make them get married and act straight. But for those gays that were born that way, we wouldn’t want to force them to marry and have kids or they would spread their genes. For those gays that are gay owing to a psychological problem, we wouldn’t want them to raise kids until they fixed their problem or they could spread it. Either situation would lead to the genetic or mental degradation of the race.
“So I can’t preach at gays.”
#3 by Lord Nelson on 07/31/2007 - 3:01 pm
“Our right to preach begins and ends with saving our race”
I think you have just come up with another classic.
#4 by shari on 07/31/2007 - 3:32 pm
Staying on message is important, but I don’t think that any normal man or woman can be very broadminded concerning “gays.” Of course the proverbial ninety pound weakling should be let alone, but if someone LOOKS normal and isn’t, there is something basically wrong. If I know for a fact that someone is “gay” I regard that person as very unstable, and take everything they say with a grain of salt. Of course any sort of total sexual libertine is unstable. Our race needs that art of manliness and womanliness more than any other.
#5 by Dave on 07/31/2007 - 7:20 pm
The important point is how men’s characters are shaped. Peccadilloes and addictions are beside the point.
Accordingly, it never occurs are all the “judgers” out there that Christ needn’t have said anything.
For what is “moral opinion” in the guise of its exalted enunciation? And what does that have to do with the walk that needs to be walked?
And as long as we whites keep this in our hearts, no one can prevent us from ruling the world.
#6 by mderpelding on 07/31/2007 - 10:04 pm
The real question that we must face is how do we tell friend from enemy?
Is it based on sectarianism? Such as Luther versus Calvin?
How about wealth? Elite versus bourgeoisie?
How about morality? Addict versus non-addict?
How do we decide who are our friends? Our enemies?
#7 by Hardric on 08/01/2007 - 8:11 am
RE: How do we decide who our friends are? Our enemies?
One thing we should not do is to stringently try to classify everyone as friend or enemy. There are many who are neutral, like the Swiss and Swedes in WWII. They may privately have their own preferences, but may not be willing to express those openly. It is important not to make enemies of those who have no desire to be enemies.
I do classify those who espouse a racial position known to me, based on that position. The other details only interest me insofar as they impact our racial efforts.
#8 by richard on 08/01/2007 - 9:36 am
Lord Nelson is right to point out how good that phrase is. That’s Bob’s strength – distilling an unanswerable argument down to a simple soundbite. I was reading Marlon Brando’s autobiography the other day, enduring a lecture about how the wicked white man stole the land off the Indians. If only someone had simply used Bob’s classic – “So why don’t you give them back all your land and property?”