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

If the System Doesn’t Work, “Both Sides Getting Together” Won’t Help

Posted by Bob on December 29th, 2010 under Coaching Session

Back to basics: colored countries are never democratic. The people won’t make decisions that are rational.

We are watching that today, with the “debt crisis.” It’s not “a” crisis. It’s part of the transition to a colored country.

I pointed out repeatedly that the only indicator of real per capita income is the color of the skin. Now if you think about this, but nobody outside of BUGS will, it does not mean that at a given moment, 3 am on March 12, 2012, the country crosses from white to colored and we go from obesity to the streets of Calcutta in 1950.

In fact, very few people realize what should be obvious to someone of my age: We used to talk about and compare economic growth around the world. Today the model is stagnation. Tomorrow it will be a debate between liberals and respectable conservatives, not about whether the decline is necessary, but on how much of the liberal proposals to slow it should be adopted.

That is the how the transition from white to colored obviously will proceed.

Our real problem today is not intransigence or which side wins. A colored society invariably has different insane sides. They may simply give up the whole pretense of government, as in Somalia, or they may have a dictatorship with democratic trappings, like Mexico, but there will be many versions of the same pretense vying for power.

But when you go nuts, both sides will be two versions of basket cases. If both sides are fairly represented and both sides compromise, the compromise will be a basket case.

In our case the trappings are still democratic, a lot of the reality shows the kind of restraint white countries have. But we have two absurd sides.

Our two sides were not developed to solve problems. They were developed to represent two points of view that can be SOLD. “Both” sides in America today consist of the Mommy Professors and those they allow to exist as their token opposition. To say that “Both sides are represented is one thing.” To say that “both sides” can come to sane conclusion is entirely another.

A Multiculture, by definition, is not going to put the “common good” above “parochial interests.” Almost by definition, a Multiculture has no common interest.

What I have presented above is really a set of single short statements that only relate if you get the logic of the reality they have in common. You see people getting paid to puzzle over each reality every night on television.

Everything has been playing out every year for over fifty years in exactly the way I said it would. It is a little like someone running in the door and saying, “Poppa is whipping the horse,” and then running in five minutes later and saying “The horse is mad at Poppa.”

Can you imagine PAYING a child to run in with reports like that? To be a highly paid anchorman you have to shout it, I suppose, in a particularly sophisticated-sounding way.

  1. #1 by Dave on 12/29/2010 - 8:27 am

    That the white man’s rising tide would by destiny float the colored world’s boat has been central to the proponents of racial integration from the beginning, made possible by the long flow tide of Caucasian centric economic progress. Of course, the fundamental reversal of this tide will go unrecognized by the world’s intellectual elites, caused by a change in the complexion of the facts literally.

    The existential fact is the insolvable problem of race, which means political settlements of mutual benefit are not going to transpire and that is why a reasonable system of justice and government is unrecoverable in any racially and ethnically destabilized society.

    Another type of man inherits the world, the kind of man who is incapable of comprehending even a sliver of meaning in the phrase, “mutual benefit”. Things then become truly passionate.

    The exceptional thing about Robert Whitaker is that he not only supplies the most sound discernment of WHAT (is going on), a discernment that you can get nowhere else, he also supplies the HOW (to do something about it) through Mantra thinking. .

    Mantra thinking is fluent thinking. It is the opposite of the doctrinaire response. Mantra thinking sheds the baggage of ideology along with Mommy Professor’s penchant for ritual. Mantra thinking is about substance over form. Accordingly, Mantra thinking disposes of fretting over the economy with no trouble whatsoever. Let Mommy Professor waste her energy on her misdirected and endless fretting over economic theory.

    The simple fact is that government killed the golden goose by insisting on racial integration and lost its source of revenue because of it. Things are going to be like this for a very long time. Get used to it.

  2. #2 by BGLass on 12/29/2010 - 9:59 am

    There must be more than getting used to it. Of interest in studies in Orthodox Judaism, is their metaphor of exile and diaspora. At the moment of Israel’s creation, it was as if, others were now the ones in “exile,” (as if someone always has to be), and now we hear of the Asian diaspora, white diaspora, african diaspora, etc. This exile is both from land and god, (to those whose metaphor it really is), why they would wish anyone to have this is another interesting aspect; but it is the dissociation from the connected culture of one’s own people, exactly what we used to mean when we talked about what it was to be “human”–connected to the earth, world, community, empathy by extension, etc.

    But how do whites not only survive but thrive in this exile from land? Need it be an exile from god, also? The talmud was written to replace the torah, essentially, although few say it– when the torah wore out and the conquest which is the subject of those books was defeated thousands of years ago; in a sense; it’s how to survive in exile from land and god, an attempt to keep the tribal racial god while having no land. Whether that ‘survival’ in exile was really accomplished and whether it could ever be reconciled to land is never the question, and if it was accomplished, what is the jewish “philosophy” (the ideology of it totally separate from the desire for land?

    Because of this and more, religious Americans have always been completely confused by middle east politics for a half century. The return from exile is the reconciliation, (and can occur only when one gets “rulership” of the “land,” and this ‘rulership” is detailed in the torah (how one does it, what one does to the other tribes, etc.). Yet, some jews are deeply ambivalent about the creation of this state; the ones who want it –think the voiceless religious folks– should have bent over backward to make peace and been happy with what they received. Deep down, they simply have no framework for it all.

    A White Man’s Guide to the Exile and Diaspora would be of use. These are somebody else’s religious memes, and HAVE NO PLAY in the white conscious mind, feel strange there, and yet they are applied to many (who do not have that history, nor metaphor— whether white or from africa; what could it mean for a gentile Christian (whether one practices or not—just in the sense of the death-defying gods and resurrecting and trades of sacrifices on trees and those things non-existent in the jewish psyche or in the consciousness of other tribes as well) —what is exile TO HIM?

    Just a short Guide to the Exile, the American talmud— although that is very defeatist thinking maybe.

    About Mr. Whitaker’s saying we have “trappings” of democracy— it is DINO, (at least as generational gentile Americans understand what that term “democracy” meant; in their minds, many continue on, acting “as if,” not living a deeply experiential-in-the-skin life enough to question the discrepencies between their fantasy of life and the reality around them.

    That makes etymology is very important. The ever-evolving “citizen’s dictionaries” like on line, undermine a more rigorous recollection of definitions, maybe. The population changes; they understand the words through the eyes of their own souls, sometimes greed or envy, and eventually their meaning is the polar opposite–how “double-speak” occurs. Democracy is really a dictatorship, and everyone talks about how free they are.

    Horus’s “The System” is good that way for jolting people into experiential cognizance.

  3. #3 by shari on 12/29/2010 - 10:49 am

    Exile, followed by Genocide, means for whites to live under non-white government. Whites cannot live under non-white government. This just CANNOT last a very long time or it’s permanent. Economics is the least of it.

  4. #4 by Genseric on 12/29/2010 - 6:44 pm

    [QUOTE]Tomorrow it will be a debate between liberals and respectable conservatives, not about whether the decline is necessary, but on how much of the liberal proposals to slow it should be adopted.[/QUOTE]

    Is it possible for the European American citizenry to “vote with its feet?”

    Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t some, if not all, of this debate already take place? I seem to remember some of the polotcal elite and faux news pundits admonishing the Bush cabinetry for advancing the plans for the FIRST bailout.

    They debated. The “fiscally conservative” republiposers chose a bailout through a communist type legislation over the pitfalls of letting “capitalism” run its course.

    Is not the power of any government limited by the citizens’ willingness to “be governed?” Maybe we take that AWAY from the ruling class and ELECT to be governed by another country?

    Secession or Emigration/Repatriation? You pick.

  5. #5 by Scrivener on 01/02/2011 - 1:40 pm

    We are watching that today, with the “debt crisis.” It’s not “a” crisis. It’s part of the transition to a colored country.

    I read this and said to myself, “of course.” Thank you, Bob. I already knew this, but didn’t REALIZE it, and your statement is beautiful in its simplicity.

You must be logged in to post a comment.