Archive for August, 2010
Adelheim: The Mantra in Action: Questions and Answers II
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 08/25/2010
Anti-white: Every man who says they’ve never thought of having sex with a colored
woman is just a plain old homosexual. You racist-homosexuals disgust me.
The big problem is that you racists are scared, because now, you are the
minority. You can hate religion, that’s your right, but just hating the color
of someone’s skin is so dumb.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Then why do YOU hate the color of OUR skin?
THIS is ENTIRELY a matter of “skin color:”
“Quotes The Mantra”
———-
Anti-white: Main stream ones, yes
i’m an anti-racst and i hate all racists including the KKK, NAACP, jesse jackson and al sharpton
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): But you only seek to DESTROY one race: “Quotes the mantra”
———
Anti-white: I don’t believe this. I’m fine with as many Europeans emigrating outside of Europe and other European-majority regions. I’m part-South Asian in a country that originally had an Australian Aboriginal majority, so it would be hypocritical of me to deny this of other people of European descent (I’m also half-White).
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Meanwhile, back on Earth: “Quotes the mantra”
——-
Anti-white: Race doesn’t exist…
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Allzheimer anti-white,a forensic pathologist must, to keep his job, testify that there is no such thing as race AND be able to tell the rae of a victim from a few scraps or bones.
If race does not exist, then why do you demand: “Quotes the Mantra”
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): In order to graduate a forensic specialist must spout the Politically Correct line that there is no such thing as race. But to keep his job he must be able to tell the race of the most damaged victim of which he has only decayed scraps.
In every country with an established religion like today’s Political Correctness, scienists were
required to repeat the Party Line but ignore it in serious business.
Since anti-whites are tape recorders, they wouldn’t understand that. They just repeat it, they don’t think about it.
————
Anti-white: Are we in 2008 or 1800?
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): The answer to your question is that you are still in 1800, fighting the New England slave trade, while I living in 2009, where the real situation is this: “Quotes the mantra”
————
Anti-white: Where did I say that the immigration into Liberia or Botswana is white? Would you be kind enough to point it out? No? Thought so.
The point is that people move between countries and not all movement is necessarily to white nations.
I am sure that the movement into Singapore, which is into the top positions is not white either, but Asian.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): One more time for the Alzheimer anti-white:
This is about RACE. I repeat, I never said a word about all immigration being to white countries.
I repeat, Singapore could cut off all immigration tomorrow and no one would object. ALL white countries and ONLY white countries are REQUIRED by you self-stytled “antis” to bring in in OTHER races in huge numbers.
What’s scary is that this guy REALLY can’t anything he hasn’t had drilled into him. He is really is a Mommy Professor Tape Recorder. So I will play my record back to him: “Quotes the mantra”
————
Anti-white: Race mixing is just a result of conquest.. Look on all the Italians, the Spanish, the Russians..
Example All those Latinos are Part whites.. every last one of ’em..
You might call me a color race lover.. but we whites brought it onto to ourselves when we conquered these people/places.
Is it bad? I like authenticity, but i would say it is up to a personal choice.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): All crime is a matter of personal choice. “Quotes the mantra”
————
BBG’s Polish-Italian-Greek- Japanese Joke
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 08/24/2010
BBG says: “Way back there was a set up on TV in which a guy would tell a joke in English to a Frenchman who would tell it in French to an Italian, to a German, to a Spaniard and then back to English. Of course nothing of the joke survived, which was the joke. Comparing the thoughts between thinkers of differing civilizations, races and millennia is compounded interest on the routine. It cannot be done.”
This really hit home. This is EXACTLY what Lawrence Brown was trying to explain in Might of the West. Accepted history tries to show a single continuum of a History of Mankind, and least of its problems is that it is in different languages.
If you go back to what the Renaissance nonsense says was the basis of our science, you find that they were talking about entirely different THINGS. BBG wrote the above in response to my description of what historians like to call the origin of our atomic science in one Greek philosopher.
He was not talking about our atomic science. He was questioning the “substance” idea in form and substance. There is no debate over this subject now. He was discussing this in a different language, a different language no matter how it is translated.
Lawrence Brown points out that few if any societies had what WE would call atheists. The world kept moving, so there must be a Prime Mover pushing it. We would call a Prime Mover a god.
Now we call it inertia. Every other society took it for granted that things could only keep moving if they were constantly pushed. But we take inertia for granted in the same way.
We are not speaking the same language. We are not living in the same world.
No other society ever divided Science and Religion the way we do. Where they were separated, they were different specialties, not different fields, and certainly no more contradictory than obstetrics contradicts ophthalmology.
The Mankind Theory of History ignores all this. It HAS to. Somehow it has to look at a seventeenth century Hottentot swimming in the Zambezi (Yes, Capoids were there then) and somehow show that that is a “stage of development” leading to the Moon Landing.
That takes a LOT of twisting. But we let them get away with it.
If we talk about the Mantra, the anti-white immediately says he is only talking his own country. So he has no idea of the fate of ALL white countries.
No one points out that he is hiding behind provinciality. Anti-whites are always talking about All Mankind and A Global Point of View. Then suddenly they say they are only talking about one country, so it isn‘t genocide.
Looked at one country at a time, immigration and assimilation is a policy. Looked at globally, it is genocide. They hide behind “mixing THE races,” they hide behind, “I am only talking about my own country.”
They are hiding behind provincialism, the same provincialism they so denounce.
Their whole world view is provincial. Mommy Professors of history refuse to talk about ancient thinking as it was. They only talk about how it led of what they call Modern Thinking, the Common Heritage of All Mankind.
The result is the same as BBG’s joke. This translation loses all its relevance, nay, all its SENSE, the same way that the joke loses its humor– it is not only no longer funny, it no longer makes SENSE.
By the time that joke comes from its tenth translation, you could easily teach how it was an entirely different joke originally, about any joke you want to make up. It could just as easily be used to show that it was a Wise Saying instead of a joke, a Wise Saying that just happens to coincide with whatever Mommy Professor is trying to sell right now.
Why is information produced. Let’s say you presented that meaningless mass of words to a journal as originally being the actual joke it was, or as the road traveled by different peoples to come to a Politically Correct conclusion.
Which do you think is more likely to be published?
Adelheim: The Mantra in Action: Questions and Answers
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 08/23/2010
This is a summary of some of the responses Bob gave to anti-whites on Stormfront.
Anti-white: So if I am against an Asians who say that Negroes are inferior, I’m being anti-white?
Africa for everyone
Asia for everyone
White countries for everyone
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): It doesn’t matter if you ALSO believe horses are purple. The point is that what you are pushing this: “Quotes the mantra”
—————-
Anti-white: That… that doesn’t make any sense.
I make a statement about my beliefs – saying that as many people of European ethnic backgrounds can immigrate to wherever they want – and you respond with what quotes from someone else? What? How did that contradict anything I said?
Anti-racist is not a codeword for anti-White. I am against racism, in all its forms. I am against, say, a Japanese person or a Zulu or whatever being racist against European peoples.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): This is how your “anti-racism” WORKS on Planet Earth: “Quotes the mantra”
—————
Anti-white: I don’t believe so called “anti-racists” are so much anti white……I would more likely refer to them as deceived.
Most of them have been indoctrinated by the mainstream politically correct press and media, and most have probably attended university, which has furthered their brainwashing.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): They are anti-white and proud of it. To white anti-whites, hating white people is a form of virtuous self-sacrifice.
Remember that we are part of a tradition, both Puritan and monastic Catholicism, that has often gone overboard in the area of self-hatred. There is a fine line between acknowledging one’s guilt and going into all-out self-hatred, and our established religion, Political Correctness, wipes that line out on racial issues.
The first building stone of our established religion today is total self-hatred. If any European professor said the same things about blacks or Orientals or, above all, Jews, that European professors routinely say about whites, he would be in prison.
Anti-whites are PROUD to be anti-white.
————-
Anti-white: The most anti-racist people I’ve met ARE white. How can they be anti-themselves?? That correlation makes no sense.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): It’s called treason, dumb-dumb. It happens all the time.
You’ve never HEARD of self-hatred?
———-
Anti-white: That… that doesn’t make any sense.
I make a statement about my beliefs – saying that as many people of European ethnic backgrounds can immigrate to wherever they want – and you respond with what quotes from someone else? What? How did that contradict anything I said?
Anti-racist is not a codeword for anti-White. I am against racism, in all its forms. I am against, say, a Japanese person or a Zulu or whatever being racist against European peoples.
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): You are part of a program to end the existence, SPECIFICALLY, of the white race. That is its PRACTICAL, REAL result. To say that is d not anti-white is like saying that those who supported slavery were just objectively pro-property.
“Quotes the mantra”
————
Anti-white: However, one can’t say that if one is anti-racist one is anti-white
Pro-white (from Bob Whitaker): Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth: “Quotes the mantra”
I Have Been Here Before
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses, How Things Work on 08/22/2010
While others go on from what we say to generalization, Adelheim looked up my old arguments against anti-whites on Stormfront. I will be putting them here, in parts.
It is certainly good to say what an article makes you think of, that’s good seminar practice. And commenters are getting better at relating their observations back to the basic point. One should always ask oneself, am I just using BUGS to drop in a point I could use some other forum for, or is this a seminar comment that BELONGS here?
Adelheim also has another bit of news. We have been leaning on the BNP to talk about white genocide. Naturally it was Adelheim who noticed some of us might have gotten through:
Adelheim_ on August 14th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
BNP: Europe Is Being Ethnically Cleansed – Andrew Brons MEP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd9xBIDtDJ0&playnext=1&videos=_ZTy3UQ44Rs&feature=recentlikmore
Somewhere after 3:00 he uses the term Ethnically Cleansed. I think it is a speech for the EU parliament or something.”
The Mantra and its promotion alone are literally worth the time and effort of a million blogs. Horus reports we, the White Rabbit and BUGS and your pushing, are yielding results:
“The information is GETTING out there. The old white nationalists and conservatives and being outgunned by the younger new comers. Fresh blood! The old guys refused to obey and get on a consistent message. They are too damn thick headed. They are now getting over run by the new young people who are starved to make changes.
Now the White Nationalists are being forced via peer pressure to mention genocide. And it is about damn time. All you have to do is surf whitenewsnow.com to see the young ones go to town. They are not posting on BUGS but they are reading it.”
One experience I have that is invaluable to you is that I have been this way before. I have always found the basic need and hammered at it, pushing, squeezing what later becomes obvious to a few dozen, on to a few hundred, on to thousands, on to mainstream thinking.
The USSR fell because ridiculed “Wallace Democrats” were brought in to vote for Reagan. I was the only writer in both camps, organizing thousands of working families for marches and writing for National Review, Conservative Digest and working on Capitol Hill.
After their stunning defeat in 1980, the dazed media renamed those “Wallace Democrats” “Reagan Democrats” and their whole attitude changed. But for two decades before conservatives had panicked at every accusation of appealing to “Wallace Democrats” and had to change their diapers each time it was mentioned the way they do today when called “racist.”
I have done this on other issues, but this is the most recognizable. I know the signs of a message going its geometric way better than anyone else alive.
Once again, it took decades to get to this point, but I recognize this point very well.
Adelheim and Horus are giving us reports from the front.
And I know how to read them.
Form, Substance, and Reality
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 08/21/2010
We all know that there was a Greek philosopher who came up with the concept of atoms.
Here is the way I understand it. The Nicene Creed says that the Son is of one Substance with the Father. Centuries before that philosopher and Aristotle had a run-in over this fundamental concept.
The heretic said that if you slice a bit of cheese in two and the one of those two pieces in two, and then one of THOSE pieces in two and on and on and on, you would get to piece that was no longer cheese. You would get down to a piece so small it was part of the building blocks of all matter.
Aristotle said this was nonsense. He pointed out that all the Authorities agreed that all matter had its own Form and Substance. The different things were each a matter of substance, not a redistribution of a common set of atoms.
The Atomic Philosopher was very lucky he lost the debate then and not after the Nicene Creed was established. The killing point at Nicaea was whether there was a Trinity, in which God was in three FORMS, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but one Substance.
In other words, the Arian Heresy said that Jesus was not God. They simply stated this in their own terms.
A Protestant chemist I knew went into a Catholic Church Mass, got some bread and chemically analyzed it. He said he had disproven Transubstantiation because the bread had no protein in it.
I didn’t try to explain to him that, just as those at Niceae had use their own physics, so had he. He would have been insulted to hear that he was on the same level as the Christians he despised who said that if there was Evolution, there was no God.
Christians would be insulted to know that the Creed they so deeply say they believe in they don’t understand.
Our whole history is screwed up this way. We try desperately to show a continuum between what we call Classical Thought and our present sciences. History is totally unaware of the Levantine Civilization which had a totally different way of thought and a different chemistry and physics that would have made no sense to us or to Aristotle.
One recent discovery about dinosaurs was that some of the different species we had named were actually species we already know, but at their pre-adult phases. A little THINKING might have told us that not all animals are of the same construction when they are young as when they are adult, but it didn’t come up.
Ironically, nothing is changing more rapidly today than history.
Just as all of our present ideologies developed when we firmly believed that no animal held territory, that no animal had a class system, that no animals would ever give his life to defend his group, we now insist that all men always thought basically alike.
Why? Men who are fundamentally different is heresy. Everything the white man has comes from All Mankind.
We are right back with “substance” and the Nicene Creed.
BUGS, Theses and Heresy
In a world where even the idea of a REAL Seminar had died out, BUGS, Bob’s Underground Graduate SEMINAR will never be understood by outsiders.
Political writings are taken to be Final Truths. I write up what I am chewing on and put it to you. You will notice that when commenters show a statement of fact by me to be completely wrong, they are not bashful about it as they would be in correcting any Leader.
So far, the corrections have concerned examples that are not crucial to the LOGIC, the THINKING which is what the article is about. But this approach will never be all that popular, because what people want is News and Jews.
In the oppressive Middle Ages, we developed a system where a priest would nail his assertions up on a church wall. He was ready for an open fight. News was a part of his sermon, and the sermon was the only sure source of what was going on that people had.
But note that the news was in a different category from assertions, and that was taken for granted in 1519 when Luther nailed his Theses to the church door. We all learn that but nobody THINKS about it.
BUGS is nailed to the church door of our established religion.
It caused so much trouble that that custom died in the Catholic Church.
Which is what they want to do with BUGS’ theses.
Luther’s Theses had to do with BASICS. It challenged basic assumptions about the means of salvation, which was the purpose of the door and the church behind it. It was not a quibble about Church History which would have been handled in the sermon.
When you read about Luther’s Theses, you always see the line about how this was a standard method of the time. But the implications of this are never even considered. It is the way Western Man did things.
News from the Pulpit and challenging the Basics are two totally different things.
BUGS is a very new thing to our age and our movement, but it is also simply the rebirth of the kind of thinking that is fundamental to the Western Civilization Mommy Professor presumes to teach about and respectable conservatives say they defend.
As usual, Mommy Professor and respectable conservatives simply have no idea of what they claim to teach or defend. And as usual, they couldn’t care less.
That is not what they get paid for. That is not why the information is produced.
With Media Bias, Seminars Have Died
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 08/19/2010
The point of a real seminar is that the participants correct you. So BUGS includes many things I only know part way or may be mistaken about. I went back to polisci grad school for a semester in 1994, I did well enough, but it was mainly to check out some of the more blatant assertions I make about the Professor-Priesthood.
One thing I discovered was that I had been right when I said that real seminars had died out, but that they had become even deader since I was in school decades before.
As in grammar school, you are assigned a “paper” of so many WORDS. Even an undergrad in the 1960s the idea of telling an UNDERGRADUATE how many WORDS should be in his work would be laughed at as childish.
You did that for assigned writing in Junior High.
In the sixties a professor would routinely present a proposal for an article he was going to submit to his seminar and often also to an advanced regular class. I assume that if you are a doctorate just beginning a concept for a journal article, you would want to submit it at its early stages to a group of engineers in grad school to check it for possible fundamental problems.
Nothing of the kind would even be contemplated in the so-called seminars I went to. They were like freshman high school English, where students would be in a lecture course, but would pick stories in the Reader’s Digest to report on.
You had to get the length of the report right and the teacher knew the article.
This was a unique experience, so I am reporting my basic findings to you. In real academia, i.e., the sciences, an article presents the results of a particular piece of research and other professors repeat the same experiment.
The more radical your conclusions the more likely later repeats will contradict it. But also the more radical your results the more likely they are to go into the media.
When the KGB files were opened up right after the fall of the USSR some professors took a quick look at them and said that Alger Hiss was not mentioned in them as a spy. Our local liberal newspaper had Hiss’s picture on the front page and blared this “news.”
The KGB files are larger than the Library of Congress. Some other readers found Alger Hiss and practically everybody else who was subjected to “McCarthyism” was, in fact, a KGB agent with thousands of pages detailing his activities.
The State Newspaper never mentioned any of that.
This is not an isolated event. Putting a story on the front page is a big decision. If you ask “Why is this information produced?” the answer is simply that it is a big story that, so far as the people who depend on the newspaper for their information, proves what the paper has been saying all along.
Any objections will be buried in the letters to the editors section, assumed to be coming from a biased source, or not at all.
We all know that is how the world works, but no one THINKS about it when it comes to things like the death of Seminars.
Even in the 1960s a professor was subject to some real losses if his article was silly or wrong. So he checked it out with his seminars. Today, if you are on the right side, if you are completely wrong all you have is another published article for your resume.
This is all between you and the editor. No one has ever suffered from being totally discredited by Jensen or other heretics.




The Attack Word
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses on 08/25/2010
Simmons has been hammering on the importance of the term anti-white and it is time for me to chime in. I haven’t been on Stormfront for years, but I fought and I fought to get them to stop using terms like “anti” for the anti-whites.
It would be a shame if people with all our years of experience with the effectiveness of “racist” were to underestimate the importance of a basic attack word. “Racist” has been the greatest single weapon in the enemy’s arsenal. It is their attack word.
The attack word is the one that draws a reaction. For them it is racist. For us the attack word is anti-white. It sums up our reaction to their basic genocidal program. It is TRUE.
“Racism” is also TRUE. When the Founders declared that America was entirely about “We the People” they followed it with a 1793 Act declaring that the “people” they referred to were WHITE.
America was considered simply racial movement of the white race, the same one which, in wave after waved, brought Aryan groups, Iberians, Celts, Germans and Slavs across Europe westward into Europe. It brought the Dorian Greeks then the Ionian Greeks. It brought the Latins to Italy and then the Germanic Lombards.
This was well known, and it was a conundrum when Lincoln declared that America was a Proposition, not a people. The Constitution says it is a people. The legislation passed four years after the Constitution was adopted said it was a people.
A WHITE people.
So those who say “racist” are right. America was founded on racism, as they define it. That is what Lincoln-worshipping conservatives cannot face. That is why the word “racist” makes them change their diapers, because if America is NOT racist, it is just a bunch of words.
Conservatism cannot face true history, because it is as much a bunch of words, words twisting reality, as the left is.
Having explained why “racist” is effective because it is true.
“Anti-white” hits home on both liberals and respectable conservatives because it is true. Liberals are perfectly aware that what they say about whites, if said about any other race or any religion, would be genocidal hatred.
Even the rads regret the statement, “The white race is the cancer of humanity.” It was too blatant, and too true of their mindset.
Which is why anti-white is so effective. That one word changes the whole debate.
That one word sums up the whole debate.
That one word, like no other, gets ATTENTION.
They have no answer for it in their tape recorder minds because Mommy Professor never USES that word.
Good Work, Comrade Simmons.
13 Comments