In one article, I pointed to a person to whom I had said that Zoroastrianism was originally limited to Aryans. He looked up the Z site on the web and told me it started with a loud declaration that all races were welcome.
I observed that that said that they HAD been so limited.
While every religion says it is open to all races, creeds and crocodiles, you do not find the Baptist Church heading up its page declaring that blacks can become Baptists.
Common as it is, this desperate declaration does not LEAD the description of a religion. It is a declaration that is made too early and too earnestly that shows you they are disclaiming a history people know about.
One commenter said that all the churches have this tiring declaration. I agree and I’m sick of it, too. But the whole article was about listening closely, and that depressive declaration showed he was NOT listening closely.
The whole point of the article was not that Z made the declaration, but that it desperately put it up front.
So the point, while I sympathize, showed that the commenter had not paid any attention to the message of the article.
My advice is especially useless if you don’t listen carefully and expand on it by yourself.
The things I think about are usually boiled down to a sentence. For example I get a chuckle out of the fact that every discussion of a growing problem begins with the opinions of experts.
What, exactly, is required to be an expert?
Experience in the field, of course.
So the one sentence: The people consulted to deal with a problem qualify by being the people who made the mistake in the first place.
If you hear that and then go on to dribble along with a comment you wanted to make anyway, you can easily bury that one sentence in a couple of paragraphs.
Which is what almost everybody does with what I work out.
If your only interest is that the expert is a Jew or you want to sell a book-length proof of how he is mistaken, the observation “The people consulted to deal with a problem qualify by being the people who made the mistake in the first place.” will not be of the slightest use for you.
But if you pay attention, that simple statement used correctly, put the person you are debating in a hell of a position.
Not least because HE’S never thought of it.
And if you don’t listen closely, neither will you.
#1 by BGLass on 12/19/2012 - 11:10 am
On t.v., nobody ever says to the “pundit”: “Thanks for your “expertise,” sir. But aren’t you the guy who just f-ed this whole thing up in the first place? Race for the CAUSE, loser!”
It does seem the Episcopalians (before they vanished) got MOST DESPERATE Award in efforts to declare inclusion, even going so far as the fiasco of the gay bishop, Gene Robinson moment—who got the Stephen Kolzak award for the casting couch, having been a casting director in L.A. That (E-ville Anglo) church has come such a long way, baby!
A SURE SIGN they were the most attacked.
After that, Lutheran sites seem MOST DESPERATE.
#2 by BGLass on 12/19/2012 - 11:18 am
The Episcopals upside-downed entirely—- becoming synonymous with homosexuality and non-whiteness.
Someday, that linkage, (homosexuality and non-white) will look very strange— As only the “God-term” of “oppression” exists to hold them together.
Remove “oppression” and gays and non-whites, no more than “women”and the “u.s. Irish with their “need not apply” signs— would ever be in a paragraph of writing together, much less a room.
#3 by BGLass on 12/19/2012 - 11:25 am
Sorry to go on, but seriously—
The Silence is deafening on the LUNACY of linkage of such terms: those possessing a vagina, homosexuals, irish-with-need-not-apply-signs, ghetto blacks…
yep— the commonality just leaps out at ya.
—oh wait! we’re all oppressed here!
#4 by BGLass on 12/19/2012 - 11:30 am
Once more sorry, but just for a laugh:
http://bishopssuffragansearch.ladiocese.org/Candidates/glasspool.html
#5 by Daniel Genseric on 12/19/2012 - 3:28 pm
“The people consulted to deal with a problem qualify by being the people who made the mistake in the first place.”-Bob
This insanity isn’t just confined to Religion. Remember, “If you’re not part of the solution; you’re part of the problem”? What about “You were part of the problem. Therefore, you CAN’T be part of the solution. GTFO!” This goes for business, in particular, management. It goes for government. And it ESPECIALLY goes for the anti-white establishment.
Anti-whites gotta go.
#6 by Simmons on 12/20/2012 - 11:48 am
I have a shortcut, I just plain ask them what is taboo to discuss. (Respecticons get their job by observing and obeying these taboos)
It puts them on the spot. IMO this is an advance technique, best used by an asshole such as myself.
#7 by Jason on 12/20/2012 - 12:02 pm
Interesting technique. It first implies that there are things considered taboo, which they know about, but would like to deny. This must throw them for a loop. I notice every group, every institution, likes to imagine it is free, but they seldom are.
Every company I’ve worked for, the real winners were those who “got with the program”, not those who were pointing out serious problems with the Plan. These were public companies, hopefully things are a bit better in private companies. I’ve become a wee bit cynical.