Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Repetitious Repeating and Saying It Over and Over and Over Redundantly

Posted by Bob on May 19th, 2010 under Coaching Session


This is something you will have to deal with, so let me talk about it. Since you deal in the Mantra, unapologetic repetition is something you get used to.

I looked at the reviews in of my last book on Amazon. The only person who gave it low marks was the one who said he hadn’t read it. But almost everybody who reviewed it favorably complained that it was very repetitious.

It was repetitious as hell.

Look, gang, when you are writing a book to point out what a blind man should be able to see, how do you avoid repeating the exact same thing over and over? To me, someone like O’Reilly who just can’t understand why professors, who consider themselves Intellectuals and Idealists are leftists is an idiot.

I use the time advisedly, because idiot is technical term, legal, not medical. A moron is one who tests 50 to 70 on IQ tests. An imbecile is, legally, one who scores 30 to 50. An idiot is below 30.

Here we have a grown man who is being listened to respectfully by millions who cannot understand why a clique which defines ITSELF as Idealists and Intellectuals goes all out insisting that Idealists and Intellectuals, instead of businessmen or working people, should take over the world.

How can anybody but an idiot not SEE that? But when I pointed it out for decades, all I got was the cowlike look from whoever I was talking to, and then a comment on recent comments on recent events. Then they would completely miss the basic point.

So the book sounds a lot like the way I felt when I wrote it, like a person shoving a puppy’s nose in its poo, trying to say, “This is what it is.” You have to do over and over and over and some puppies NEVER get it.

The puppy wants to make up for it by showing you how much he loves you or how cute he is.

And all puppies, by definition, are idiots.

Now that BUGs is giving me some MINDS to talk to, I would do the book better.

I am always concerned about being repetitious here. If I knew that everyone here had been reading this blog for years it would move much faster. But we are in the opposite position. Not only am I dealing with new readers, my regular readers are themselves involved in missionary work.

And the repetition keeps ME on track. Writing is, when you come right down to it, talking to yourself. One of the sure marks of a beginning writer is that he misses steps. He goes right on and you wonder what the hell he is talking about. He is writing about something that seems obvious to him, but took him YEARS to figure out, and he expects the reader to follow right along.

Our work is a bit like math. You have to go all the way to the basic assumption and go through the basic stuff each time. But God knows I don’t want to make my stuff as boring as math classes!

We don’t have compulsory attendance laws to allow us to make our teaching a torture they have to sit through by law. Math could be made interesting, but, as with all monopolies, the product just gets worse and worse. We don’t have that luxury.

I think the reason you don’t complain about my going right back to repeating the assumptions and the instances is because you have to do it yourself. A good writer, like a good preacher, will tell you that the audience had better know at least 95% of what he is telling them. The reader or listener should go back through the basic stuff effortlessly, and be willing to do it because he want to know where you are going THIS TIME.

New preachers have a way of telling their congregation the stuff they learned in theology school. As one old guy complained, “All I heard was a lot about the Nebadrezzers and the Whoopdedooinites and I didn’t understand a word of it.” It takes YEARS for a young preacher to learn to talk to PEOPLE, and most of them never do.

You go into a big church packed with people and the young seminarians will think the preacher is an old ignorant buffoon, “THIS guy has a DOCTORATE in Theology?” But they couldn’t get twenty of the thousand people sitting in that church to come back voluntarily after their first sermon.

The old preacher spends almost all of his time reminding people of what they are familiar with. As CS Lewis said, “Prophets do not come into the world to tell us new truths, but to remind us of the old ones.” That couldn’t describe BUGSers better.

We are here reminding people of what simple loyalty is, how stupid a person looks when he is repeating nonsense and thinking he is being smart.

Successful preachers, like prophets, go back over what the listener is familiar, but they also know he is GOING SOMEWHERE with it. He is tying the old strings into a new knot. Prophets tell people the old truths, but they remind them of how those old instances apply to the new situation.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by backbaygrouch4 on 05/19/2010 - 6:50 am

    In the first years of school I took memorizing the Tables seriously. To and fro school, over and over. Addition Subtraction, Multiplication and Division, twelve each, one to twelve. Can still do them rapid fire. Can add up a grocery bill along with the register and catch errors. That repetition was the most singular, useful thing that I took out of grammar school.

  2. #2 by BGLass on 05/19/2010 - 8:16 am

    Reich’s The Murder of Christ was one of my favorite books b/c he talks about how STUPID the disciples seem in the Bible. Jesus tells dumb story after dumb story, about lily flowers and trees and such, stories so stupid that all we little kids just used to sit in the back pews and fill out the donation cards with absurd sums to amuse ourselves until church was finally over. The stories couldn’t get much stupider, and yet grownup disciples never get it: “What master? What master? Huh? Could you repeat that? How can you predict things so easily? What’s your secret? Do you like Peter better than me? Can I be the one to carry the holy water?”

    The last thing Jesus does before they kill him, is offer discourse on how the disciples can’t hear a damn thing. He repeats what he says, over and over, and says someday they might get it. He won’t be around, but his words will be, and it will click, and the words he repeated will connect with the experience of the idiots all around him. Before they have experience, people can only receive words. Sadly, the wisest of words are not always the ones that get most disseminated. So, when people have an experience–they have things s/a the idiocy of pc through which to try to explain what is happening, so nothing makes real sense, not really, and so they would have a mental breakdown if they asked two questions.

    It does help to simply explain to an O’Reilly how this works, and that the Reality seen by those who received different Word can, eventually, become huge. This is polarization. It’s a worldwide step on the road to genocide. It is not about people “disagreeing,” but rather living internally in a WHOLE DIFFERENT reality. (This clash touches such deep “identity” that true violence can result from it, especially since most people aren’t even aware this is the real situation).

    Marx’s most usable insight was that people perceive in accordance with HOW THEY GET money. (NOT that some people are RICHER than others, which is how poor people in colleges “hear” it and are “taught it”; the ‘class’ difference –according to the REAL Marx— IS THE MODE OF THOUGHT that arises FROM the different ways in which different people GET THE MONEY.

    So, a person working for a leftist foundation will have one reality, where a more free person, living on investments, and not obligated to say certain things in order not to be fired, may have freer, broader thoughts, and also thoughts of a different character. Like world events become important to them in a different way, b/c they need to invest in accordance with what’s happening.

    Unfortunately, DUE TO THEIR CLASS positioning, the intellectuals who most profess to love Marx CANNOT READ HIM, (cannot understand what he really said). It’s not just that they make money on it, but their position is actually –no matter how rich they get– what one might call lower middle class. They socialize others for the Big Money, or whoever). So, the “class struggle” is about HOW MUCH money you have, NOT what Marx said, which was the HOW of it, the system of relations. One way to change perception is to change HOW YOU GET money, as it changes HOW you relate to others, to what’s happening in the world, etc.–what you can see and not see. An independently wealthy person who is well-traveled among many types of people, and who is just observing the government will see more than they– or at least FROM A REFRESHING ANGLE. And in this way is “over” them.

    But leftist think that money, itself, is the thing. (They believe giving poor people money makes them like a rich person.) And don’t even notice the goal here is to become “like a rich person,” lol, as if that is necessarily desireable, when many poor people actually have better lives. But anyway, Marx said the MODE OF GETTING the MONEY is significant, not money itself. When leftist get that far, they think money distribution from a central place will solve this.

    But if it all comes from the state—then the “relationship” will NEVER be “communism” (as they fantasize it), but can only become paternal feudalism, and it cannot lead to “socialism.”

    So, repetition is the MOST important thing. It drums in WORDS that can provide various paradigms of understanding for when people eventually have an experience. Or for when they get sick of their own greasy greed, ego, envy, etc–that allows them to buy into degrading ideas and stands between them and understanding a Word.

  3. #3 by shari on 05/19/2010 - 9:43 am

    It might be natural for the self appointed, to insist that they are idealists and intellectuals. It’s also pretty damned spoiled childish. Surely, they must realize, in a quiet moment, that they are frauds. Has money and position blinded them ENTIRELY?

  4. #4 by Dave on 05/19/2010 - 12:51 pm

    The problem with theology is that it lies within the domain of intellectuals.

    Accordingly, it doesn’t’ really mean anything. It is Wordism.

    The freshly minted pastor has one heck of a task getting to anything real.

    How do you tell a Mormon that the Book of Mormon really doesn’t mean anything? That the only thing that means something is the birth of that blond blue-eyed child?

    Yet somehow, from the Book of Mormon, we have got the admittance of nonwhite people to the Mormon congregation.

    Wordism is a curse. It has to be militantly opposed.

    Accordingly, intellectuals and idealists are a curse. They have to be militantly opposed.

    That doesn’t mean there is something wrong with pure research. Pure research is an attempt to notice things.

    But any approach that elevates a research model and its aims above what is being observed is intellectualism. It is Wordism.

    That is why 99% of the “research” turned out by our universities is garbage.

    It takes a superior mind to be a good researcher. Superior minds think simply.

  5. #5 by Simmons on 05/19/2010 - 1:55 pm

    Asking the right questions must preceed repetition.

    Its our only way to evolve in whatever fashion or direction that evolution has for us.

    I think you will notice that the best sales people always ask their audience a question. Doing so activates the mind, this is necessary.

    I don’t think Bob brought me on board till he asked me a question, then the sale was made.

    I am a Mantra believer.

  6. #6 by Wandrin on 05/19/2010 - 8:59 pm

    “I am always concerned about being repetitious here.”

    Vital for new readers and at the least a battery recharge for older readers. Not a problem.

You must be logged in to post a comment.