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

Lowah Clahss Reading

Posted by Bob on December 17th, 2010 under Comment Responses

A commenter asked some time ago what books I am reading now.

I read lots of historical fiction. This is considered very Lowah Clahss by the Mommy Professor types, but that’s not the only reason I read it.

Historical fiction is truer. A history professor or writer for the New York Review of Books is responsible to Political Correctness and the like. A writer of historical fiction is under the gun of a million complete fanatics about history. If they describe a cloth made of a material for a towel that did not come to the country being written about, they will get a deluge of letters about it.

Margaret Frazer just came out with a new book, which I had preordered on Kindle.

I have quoted John Astruc over the years and I have preserved that quote over the years. He was Louis XIV’s chief physician and he was denouncing the germ theory of disease, with a long, long list of doctors who put it forward, in the seventeenth century.

I have never seen this sort of quote elsewhere.

Historical fiction writers always have a long piece at the end of their books to minimize the shrieks from readers who catch them out. Margaret Frazer put this at the first of her new book and explained why it was at the front.

The book was about a fifteenth century hospital. In that hospital there was a fanaticism about cleanliness that most historians would laugh at.

She also quoted the nurses there, as opposed to the doctor, who agreed with the “very common” germ theory of disease. I like to think that my mentioning this a dozen times over the years had something to do with that.

BUGS is based on a germ theory of ideas. A vast number of people use my ideas who will never hear of me.

My study of the history of medicine before I went to college readied me for the total and predictable absurdity of current “intellectual” opinion. Which is another reason I like historical fiction. New ideas about history come from there long before any historian would get paid to touch them.

  1. #1 by Simmons on 12/17/2010 - 11:20 am

    We live in a binary world of White – anti-White.

    You know that then wordisms pass quietly into the night and we move on with advancement.

    This is power, most won’t recognize that, Bob does and has and will.

    Years ago the cult leader (small cult) Tom Fleming wrote about his time in DC and of a man he spoke derisevely of that “obsessed about race.” It took years before I figured out who he meant, it is Bob he referred to in his usual “join our cult, avoid the ‘racists'” spiel.

    Tommy’s cult along with Michael Hill’s confederate re-enactors’ cult are shrinking into oblivion since its people do not matter why should they care about their people. (I wanna see a futuristic movie of black confederate re-enactors parading about barefoot in tattered rebel regalia at the foot of Stone Mountain praising “their” ancestors, god loves you Mr. Kennedy) The above three mentioned white males would denounce me as a “racist”, as someone who rejects being the Mommy Prof’s interchangeable blank slate genetic humanoid.

    Its a binary world.

  2. #2 by Dave on 12/17/2010 - 11:29 am

    The fashionable white intellectuals in America are now making time for denouncing Lincoln.

    They do so respectfully, but they do so. Also, when you find praise of Lincoln, the person offering the praise is usually nonwhite.

    This is a sea change from the way things became when the Civil War vets died off in the 1920s.

    The way Mommy Professor operates is she makes it up as long as no one is alive to offer the contrary evidence of first person witness. Once all the evidence is in words (or other media), she has got it made, her every whim is in command, the way of the so-called “American Constitution”. It means whatever Mommy Professor wants it to mean without any restraint whatsoever.

    Mantra thinking is destined to put “paid” to all of this. That is Robert Whitaker’s contribution. The competitive edge he offers is destined to win out. That is just the way the world works.

    This is bad news for all the non-whites who want their “independence”. They are going to get it.

  3. #3 by Dick_Whitman on 12/17/2010 - 11:37 am

    I think it all may be historical fiction? How much “history” does one feel from “facts” compared to just a blur of emotions?

    How much does the public know about WWII? Their whole understanding of the event is created through TV, movies, and a little bit through the education system. Movies and TV are the most significant. Even Veterans of wars (or any large event) are conditioned by the TV and movies of that event.

    Our brains, when “on” TV or movies, cannot always tell the difference between real and fantasy. Your brain sort of “thinks” that you experience the experience on the TV or the Movie. When you experience this over and over, it partially makes you what you are. Mass media “happens” in a studio in NY, Hollywood, and/or DC, and is broadcasted to the subconscious/conscious mind 24/7.

    Bob has mentioned a time when TV stations used to play the national anthem and shut off for the night. I sort of remember these times( I think this ended in the early 80’s). It seems that mass media has much more effect today than then? However, I also wonder if people are more “wise” to their media today, than
    in say…..1960? That was about 15 years after 1945. 1945 was when the new media/advertising spiritual order would start.

    I wonder if media had more influence on people in 1960 than 2010 because people had more trust in their institutions then? It was really the mid sixties when people started distrusting the government and media.

    It funny, anti-White liberals want us to trust their government programs but they’re the ones who made us stop trusting government. The year 1964 was probably the last year of the post WWII “happy times.” One day we might find out that 1965 was the beginning of some sort of campaign? If you look at the early sixties, and compare it with the late 1960’s, it was almost a different country.

    Anyway, I’m all over the place on this post but my point is that MEDIA IS POWERFUL. It can drastically change how people perceive the world. It creates memories in the subconscious mind that didn’t happen.

    Living with toxic media is really no different than living with toxic waste.

    You wouldn’t let a child grow up near toxic waste, would you? Why would you let children grow up near toxic anti-White media? The fact that 12 year old girls look up the Miley Cyrus is a tragedy. She poll dances at 17. Who actually thinks up Miley Cyrus’s act? Who informs her one day that ” we’d really like to start having you act like a striper in front of 13 year old girls.” Why not use all that powerful media to create images that children can benefit from?

    I’ve been thinking about what a better life would be like for Whites. Pro-Whites sometimes speak about the “post tribunal” world. One thing I know is that there needs to be a major overhaul of the media and education systems. The current group who run these systems for us are not working in our interests.

  4. #4 by BGLass on 12/17/2010 - 12:34 pm

    Why would you let children grow up near toxic anti-White media?
    Imo, T.v. only lasted 30 years. But to have a critique of t.v. content, there had to be t.v. first. A boomer I talked to (born 1939) saw her first t.v. at 16. It was all snow. She was middle class (they could have afforded one) but they liked radio. The year she left H.S., they got a t.v., (this is around the year you mention– 1965).

    The “t.v.” era IS JUST A BLIP on the screen. Significant, maybe, but 30 YEARS is nothing, if you think about it. Now it’s like radio in 1965. People still have them but they don’t matter.

    We went from “t.v.,” to CRITIQUE of “t.v.” almost immediately, (both its form and content of how it worked on people) —to it being defunct now and some youth not even having one.

    Some critiques of content and how people deal with images generally— will remain in discussions of film.

    But that something so revolutionary in its day would pass so quickly, is wild. The use of stories as a form of transmission of self, to pass down identity, will be seen as connected to race, seems like.

    Efforts are made to defy that, like the new “black Thor,” connections between genes, language capacity and formation in various peoples are studied and will be connected to differences in their ultimate storytelling products.

    Like, how Chinese language seems connected to brain hardwire in studies. The position of even something as simple as subject-object order-changes in sentence structure both come from the genetic type and then ALSO prefigure difference in perceiving. (For example do you think in terms of an object before a subject, or object before a subject, and then this has effects in perceiving reality, itself).

    Like, they say German is a “logical” language. They were “logical” in brain, thus have logical language, that then reinforces this mode of perception.

    The left really believes one can simply CHANGE THE STORIES and thereby produce people in a certain way, not others, (as if genes do not exist).

    But b/c genes exist, changing stories produces confusion (cognitive dissonance, etc.), seems like. Trying to make people OTHER THAN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE in reality by changing the images they see is not something the left questions at all. (it’s an assumption they make, that it’s a good thing to try).

    Through the images, one can question what is the “End Product” of the world then, that they envision they can produce in this way. When one sees “t.v.” this seems the vision of the future that those who produce it WANT. But why? Watching it, allows for all these questions to emerge.

    If we are a “tabula rasa,” and therefore we can produce human subjectivity (what people are) by the stories we show them, they what world can we intuit a Tarantino is trying to make? Etc.

  5. #5 by Mademoiselle White Rabbit on 12/17/2010 - 12:36 pm

    @ Dick_Whitman

    Media does interesting and uncomfortable things to the human mind. What’s terrifying is how many people will tell you without qualms that News networks lie, that all the information is skewered, and then thirty seconds later turn around and quote them verbatim.

    I was reading a book awhile back called “The Well Trained Mind” that outlined a plan for homeschooling parents interested in giving their children a classical education. One of the points made by the author was that the constant barrage of images and videos as “educational aids” was actually a huge hindrance to children. They learned the methods because they had been conditioned, but when they got to middle and high school, they were incapable of really thinking about anything they had learned abstractly.

    Maybe the first thing a post-tribunal world would have to do is seriously track all of the physical and psychological effects of media on children and adolescents. Then, simply make all of the information public, so that everyone – doctors, parents, the kids – know what the consequences of excessive and/or subversive media are.

  6. #6 by BGLass on 12/17/2010 - 1:11 pm

    But the “visual aids” are only seen as a “hindrance” if you’re making the assumption —as the author you mentioned seems to– that “thinking” as we know it is actually valued (or the desired result) wanted by the “visual aid” producers, which is may not be. That’s not a value for everyone.

    Anyway, media is interesting. Like, when all the t.v. announcements were made about “globalization,” it seemed to confuse the public. In a way: if we are “global,” then the “national” stories break down (these stories obviously wouldn’t matter in the “global” context. Therefore, it called into question the continued viability of the “american myths” like how black-white slave stories were used in the culture and WWII stories and so on.

    These are “national” stories, not global stories. American public, in part, was like wth? Why would PTB shoot themselves in the foot (in the ideologial storytelling arena by announcing these stories as defunct?—b/c we are “global” now). Did a new faction taken over or what? People began asking who is really in charge and so on.

    Part of thing seems that these stories and bad positioning and genocidal urge toward whites, while maybe tolerated better in a national context, has very different implications if they are global. Heard a guy in a grocery store reference to a clerk an offhand remark about “whoever owns us now.” One hears stuff s/a this. People wonder. (And what stories will the new ones tell about us?)

  7. #7 by Simmons on 12/17/2010 - 1:14 pm

    I agree with the above posts, the media needs scrutiny to say the least. I believe it effects white girls the most, and I believe that a large portion of that demographic’s depression related “illnesses” are due to the sound and fury of the image blasted at them.

    Genetically I think white girls are programmed for lack of better words to sensitivity and the wholesale bombardment upon them with the false world of “stuffed animals, diversity and world peace” severly contradicts the reality of today’s world. The mental/emotional highs of barney the stuffed animal to the mental/emotional lows of contact with the savages of the democratic coalition to the uncaring cultists of the right like Tom Fleming, its a tough world for Missy.

    Again I say its binary and all decisions must be tested as for White or anti-White.

  8. #8 by Genseric on 12/17/2010 - 6:24 pm

    I am glad I asked, Dr. Whitaker.

    This is my TRUTH…

    And this is a true story.

    I once had a college history professor tell me that ALL history is, in fact, FICTION. On syllabus day, he introduced the Clahss to the notion that there is ALWAYS a bias which the historian is prone to succumbing to. He explained this by illustrating how the prevailing wisdom was always a reflection of the current ruling class. He chose to further interpolate this message by highlighting the fact that when any war takes place, there is typically a “winner.” And to this “winner” goes the spoils. One of the spoils of war just so happens to be THE FREEDOM TO RECORD HISTORICAL DATA and the power to destroy any conflicting historical data.

    So, it all boils down to, as Herr Whitaker has said, what is TRUE? What is the TRUTH? Fortunately for us white folk, we all know some universal truths about OUR RACE. As Simmons has said, we are moving into a binary age.

    Are you Pro White or are you Pro White Genocide?

    Well, I for one, know where I stand. America: Who’s with me?

    BTW, Bob. The vast number of people using your work might not be aware of you now. However, that will change when WE WIN!!

  9. #9 by Epiphany on 12/20/2010 - 7:45 am

    I should read some Historical Fiction, myself!

You must be logged in to post a comment.