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

I HATE Traitors

Posted by Bob on March 25th, 2011 under Coaching Session

I hate traitors.

When someone accused a Southerner in my youth of “hating” blacks, his reaction was complete puzzlement. Nowadays nobody is allowed to say, “Some of my best friends are blacks, but in the 50s Deep South it was simply the case.

Some people you like personally and some you don’t, in many cases for no reason you can explain or even understand why, that’s just the way things are.

And, of course, there was paternalism. Blacks had looked to the better class of white folks to go to when they got into trouble since before the Pilgrims got to Plymouth Rock. We had some sixty black families who derived their living from the brick plant and came straight to us for everything from legal trouble to medical emergencies.

In other words, my attitude towards blacks was exactly the same as that of the modern liberal. Nobody else seems to notice that when liberals speak of white guilt against other races and human guilt against animals, the language is precisely the same. Animals and non-whites cannot be guilty, because they are not mentally capable of being responsible for their actions.

Anything bad an animal does is the fault of the humans dealing with them. Anything bad a minority group does is the result of some evil thing a white person, a real person responsible for his own actions, did to them.

One is not even allowed to mention that we had the same attitude. To put both the liberal attitude and the old Southern attitude into plain English, to hate a black was like hating a wildcat or, Heaven forbid, a monkey.

The fact is that an intelligent white has difficulty hating blacks because we all, from the KKK to the NAACP, assume they are inferior beings.

I hate traitors. I am fully aware that Jews routinely hate the society around them.

Please understand that I am aware that in today’s lingo liberals are incapable of regarding minorities as inferior and that Jews are capable of hate. We are told that Jews have been driven out of every country on earth and subjected to horrible persecution all the time and everywhere: “Two thousand years of SUFFERING!”

There was only one human being who could have spent one day SUFFERING on the Cross and not hate those who had done it to him, but he was not a typical Jew. Two thousand years of being hated and driven from land to land, which is how Jews describe THEMSELVES, is going to build up a lot of hatred in any human being, though to the person himself it will all be Righteous Resentment.

I am puzzled why people have to produce whole volumes of details to prove something they could explain in five minutes in plain English. The simple fact is that Jews hate those around them as naturally as the Poles hate the Germans or the Germans are assumed to have a hundreds of years old grudge against the French.

That grudge, in 1940, was freely called hate.

Yet here we have a group of people who meet every Saturday to talk about how the People of the Land, the goyim, have killed them and tortured them and driven them out for no reason whatsoever, in every country they have ever dwelt.

In the case of Jews this is called Righteous Resentment, not hatred. But if you know anything about human nature, you know that in every case in history the people who are described as “hating” are absolutely sure that they are merely expressing Righteous Resentment.

Jews hate us. That is because they are Jews. It goes with the territory. I do not hate blacks. Like all other whites, I see them as an inferior group. In my upbringing, a black who commits a crime is somewhere between a dog that kills human and human being responsible for his own actions.

Oddly enough, the way I was raised in the most reactionary Deep South is precisely the same view that the most progressive thinker of today insists on.

But I do hate.

It is an emotion I reserve almost entirely for traitors.

  1. #1 by shari on 03/25/2011 - 8:19 am

    An open enemy can do a lot of harm. But a traitor can really unnerve, if they are first taken as a friend. A clever traitor can also sow discord and distrust between those who really are, or ought to be, friends. For too long, the worst traitors have taken their treason to the grave with them. But soon, I think, their names and faces will be very public. And all their little synchophants will be sorry they chose them.

  2. #2 by Dave on 03/25/2011 - 9:58 am

    One unfortunate choice of word “supreme” in the Constitution to describe a tribunal with very limited powers quickly resulted in dictatorship. That is how pervasive treason is. Treason stood up and took control in America RIGHT OUT THE BOX.

    Congress had at its disposal a whole grab bag of veiled tricks to deprive the American people of their freedom, and it did so without delay. It wasted no time whatsoever. That is America’s real history.

    Hitler’s Gestapo was a piker compared to today’s IRS, in America, the land of thoroughgoing dictatorship and universal slavery.

    The people’s representatives? A permanent obscenely overcompensated class of rulers who once elected can hardly ever be dislodged. Every strand of DNA in Congress is corrupt. Utterly corrupt. To get elected to Congress and spend one day there means at minimum $17,000 per month in compensation for life. These filthy greasy pigs even look like pigs. Every time I look at Barney Frank I think to myself, “He is perfect hybrid cross between a pig and a human.” That he is a monster goes without saying. It is a wonder that the Potomac River doesn’t catch fire with all the grease running off his repulsive body.

    Robert Whitaker keeps complaining about the buildings at the Capitol. It is the repulsive people there I can’t stand. That place has one of the most horrid collections of repulsive monsters in human form of any place in the world.

    There is no attempt whatsoever to even hide the money corruption. The public treasury is robbed in broad day light with impunity. Daylight theft and robbery of public money and property is standard operating procedure by each and every high official.

    Meanwhile there is not even an attempt to hide the merging of prosecutors with the police and the spreading of the loot between them. Judges simply wink and nod at the arrangement with their comfortable lifetime appointments where there is no oversight whatsoever of their unrestrained impunity.

    The motto of the American government at all levels: “We shall not be held accountable for anything under any circumstances, ever.”

    All of this and you wonder at a policy of anti-white genocide and national ruin?

    No need to wonder at all. Just take a good look at the collection of monsters running the show and everything falls into place real quick.

    • #3 by JasonW on 03/25/2011 - 11:57 am

      “One unfortunate choice of word “supreme” in the Constitution to describe a tribunal with very limited powers quickly resulted in dictatorship. That is how pervasive treason is. Treason stood up and took control in America RIGHT OUT THE BOX.”

      If this comment is about Marbury v. Madison (1803) which is frequently alleged to be the basis for judicial supremacy in American jurisprudence, it is in error. In that case, the US Supreme Court simply declined to enforce an action by another branch of government that affected the Constitutional grant of authority to the USSC. That was something that both the executive and legislative branches did when another branch breached their Constitutional grant of authority. President Andrew Jackson was rather famous for this legal position.

      Judicial supremacy was only asserted as a definite doctrine in the Dred Scott case (1857) and was the first time that the USSC declared a federal statute to be unconstitutional in an area of jurisprudence affecting more than Constitutional powers to the branches themselves.

      So judicial supremacy over the other two branches wasn’t “out of the box” and, oddly enough, it was an effort to remove protections extended to persons of African origins by federal legislation over the territories.

  3. #4 by BGLass on 03/25/2011 - 10:03 am

    There was only one human being who could have spent one day SUFFERING on the Cross and not hate those who had done it to him, but he was not a typical Jew.

    idk, the bible never convinced me he didn’t hate. This whole thing, like he died for others is not what he said, but what the very people who killed him said about him after the fact of what they did; it was a nice fantasy, after they did something so awful. Like the way a serial murderer will show up at some girl’s house to do her in, get caught with his paraphenalia, then tell the court he was just going to teach her a lesson, b/c he cared about her and she didn’t understand how vulnerable she really was.

    It’s sort of like how the wasps intentionally, b/c they were such great people, dedicated their whole lives to the creation of a multi-racial melting pot b/c they had such great wisdom and were great founders, and cared nothing for themselves, their own posterity, their families, but only for the oppressed of the whole world, supposedly; meantime, they were also the most demonic people who ever existed, the colonists, simultaneously.

    Jesus said, why did you, God, abandon me to this disgusting rabble, and then he said “forgive them,” not b/c I decided to die for them b/c I am so nice, and nice means dying for others, everybody knows it, but b/c they this ignorant crowd killing me is stupid and deluded that “they know not what they do.” They are too stupid to see through total lies and bullshit and they don’t know what they are doing, and so punishing them would be a waste of time.

    In all the pictures, the cross is even shot from the base upward, accentuating that high perch from which he could better judge the stupidity below him that he speaks of.

    In this, Jesus was totally in line with liberals and the old South. He talks to the disciples and to God about the crowd beneath him while he’s dying in the exact same way— like they’re just ants, and this is why he asks for them to be forgiven: they simply don’t know what they’re doing, like any insect.

  4. #5 by Mademoiselle White Rabbit on 03/25/2011 - 9:45 pm

    Now, obviously Grandpa Bob isn’t interested in his blog becoming a forum for protestant white rabbits to squabble about the fine points of their theology, but I really want to respond to BGL’s post, so I’ll try to add something on topic at the end.

    John 10 clearly states that Jesus died for SOMEONE’s benefit, and while I can’t be clear without knowing ancient Greek and the original wording, at the very least He stated that He had come to save the elect. (This is also, coincidentally, the chapter where He claims He is ONE with the Father, which IMO invalidates the argument that He was a good man/prophet but not God – if He was a true prophet, He would never falsely claim to be God, and if He was just a good guy, well, obviously He had a few screws loose or a problem with the truth. Either way, not someone you would look to as a moral compass.)

    Of course, if you’re implying that the scriptures were forged, doctored, or even just fudged to make them more user-friendly ;), that’s another matter. You strike me as someone who has at least looked into apologetics, simply because regardless of your personal beliefs, you seem to have a special place in your heart for White Prots. (And good! We need that these days.)

    Your comments on the imagery of the crucifixion, Jesus’ “forgive them,” etc., are all part of the paradox of Christ, I think. I guess the best way to explain my thinking is to share an out-of-the-box idea I read in a yuppie-theology book, where they claimed/assumed that Christ was conscious, i.e. a fully formed/matured consciousness, from the moment of conception. Can you imagine just sitting around for 10 months waiting to see the outside of a uterus? Then having to suffer through the process of learning to walk, talk, and so on, when you were there when language and the human body were INVENTED. Having your parents treat you as a child when you understand more about the world and human nature than the could ever hope to… I think the most accurate way to describe that would be Grandpa Bob Syndrome to the Nth Degree. Yet, Jesus was also completely human. He didn’t want to die, wanted to find another way, but chose death because he knew there wasn’t any comparable alternative. He told a man to leave his father without burying him, but one of His last concerns on the cross was making sure Mary would be cared for. So, yes, I can completely believe that even as Jesus was recognizing the ant-like nature of the crowd below, He was also in the midst of His own ant-like moment (although it must change things a bit when mortality is like a shirt you can put on or take off as you please). I also feel like it’s no mistake that at that elevated height was also the thief, simultaneously on equal footing with God and recognizing Him as Lord. Bob posted an article this past week about irony, and the sensibility of that piece seems to convey my own feelings about God and his rumored sense of humor.

    As for the article: I don’t think it can be overstated how important it is for us to mock the anti-Whites and their White supremacism. The Southerners were “guilty” of this, true, but they also did their best to reconcile both parties with the unnatural state of a multiracial society. What excuse do the libs have, when all of their progress has only left non-whites in a more degraded state?

    If Bob and Horus are white supremacists, they are unflinching and honest ones, who are more concerned with saving their own race than affecting other races, much less in a negative manner. The anti-White condition is one of destruction.

  5. #6 by phil white on 03/26/2011 - 12:48 pm

    The final sloution to “market dominate minorities” hate is for people to have to live mostly in homogenious nations.
    The original Zionist got one thing right. Jews had to have their own territory, some where.

  6. #7 by phil white on 03/26/2011 - 9:17 pm

    I would like to make an observation about white gentile liberals and the concept of race traitor.
    Liberals are not crazy to defend the interest of non-whites.
    Chimpanzees who welcome non-related strangers into their territory are not crazy.
    Most of the time social animals do the best by their genes by keeping out all others.
    But they can’t get away with that for ever.
    Eventually their stock of genetic diversity will diminish to the point that genetic failures will occur.
    That is the point at which a “liberal” chimp has to step forward and sponsor an immigrant.
    Human liberals are full filling that same instinct.
    However, since humans no longer live in groups of a few dozen, but in nations totaling millions, you don’t have to bring in outsiders, certainly not those of another race, to keep your gene pool refreshed.
    But the human liberal doesn’t know that. He doesn’t realize the instinct he is responding to is not valid under modern conditions of trans-ocean travel.
    But the human liberal is not crazy. He only has to be taught to use his intellect and not just his liberal instincts.

    • #8 by dungeoneer on 03/27/2011 - 8:39 pm

      “Chimpanzees who welcome non-related strangers into their territory are not crazy.”

      No,but there is only one chimp race to begin with so their chimp “un-relatedness” is not the same thing as human racial differences.

      “But the human liberal is not crazy”

      Maybe not crazy,but they are definitely twisted(just like the “religious” zealots of the past who advocated universal sterility or flagellation to ward off plague etc) .How else do you explain their mouth-foaming anti-whiteness?

      They are forsaking their hard-fought for genetic inheritance for a wordist mess of potage.

      They are traitors and must be treated as such,IMO.

      Say what you like about the chimps,but at least they know what genetic quality is when they see it.

  7. #9 by Scrivener on 03/27/2011 - 11:18 am

    When someone accused a Southerner in my youth of “hating” blacks, his reaction was complete puzzlement. Nowadays nobody is allowed to say, “Some of my best friends are blacks”

    That’s just for White people. The prosecutor of the Knoxville Horror case declared the fact that the Black defendants had White friends to be evidence of a lack of racial hatred.

    “There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime,” said John Gill, special counsel to Knox County District Atty. Randy Nichols. “We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialized with white people, dated white people. So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there’s evidence to the contrary.”

  8. #10 by seriouswon on 03/28/2011 - 8:50 pm

    Much like the word “racist” has lost its’ sting, the word hate doesn’t seem so bad anymore. I hate anyone who wants to harm us. Love your people.

You must be logged in to post a comment.