By polydoros
Somebody recently likened Bob to a guru.
As far as I know, the only similarities between Bob and a guru are that both recite mantras and both have coaching duties.
But unlike a guru, Bob doesn’t (as far as I know) wear a nappy and he doesn’t get treated like a god-man by his students.
Having spent time in India, I can say some revealing things about this. When I was there, I was told by an aspiring nappy-wearer from Europe, that India is a giant sewer, but there is a lot of Wisdom there.
A Bugser would immediately see the irony of that statement. But to a Seeker Of “Wisdom” the irony was lost in the miasma.
Having said that, I would like to thank SeekerOfTruth and Secret Squirrel for their help in one of my projects here.
The aim is to analyse Bob’s WAY OF THINKING, in order to imitate it. Not to create Whitaker clones, but in a way, yes.
As usual the comments section will provide more details of what this entails. There is a method to the seeming madness.
#1 by Jason on 02/23/2015 - 11:32 am
The worship of these Indian gurus has always amazed me. I think people who worship Adult Babies are dumber than the guys in diapers.
There was a guru up in Oregon back in the 80s who had almost 100 Rolls Royces given to him by his dumb followers.
But then again, people give hundreds of thousands of dollars so their kids can be indoctrinated by Mommy Professors.
#2 by Secret Squirrel on 02/23/2015 - 1:44 pm
Reminds me of a treatment I tried, that worked for me. You will never see anyone advertising this treatment, because no one can make money selling it.
Getting to the point, I told Mommy Professor about it and she poo pooed it. The real world results I was getting, must have some very complicated explanation, because this wisdom didn’t come down from the gurus in the white robes.
Of course Mommy Prof’s attitude did a 180 as soon as I told her, “Wise Indian Gurus” (Indian men in robes) invented it thousands of years ago. Suddenly her mind was open.
#3 by jo3w on 02/23/2015 - 5:04 pm
If it was a medical treatment, then she was probably right for poo pooing it. Nothing useful ever came from people who wear diapers on their head.
People who swear about the effectiveness of herbalists and ancient oriental medicine go to physicians when they get cancer.
#4 by Secret Squirrel on 02/23/2015 - 5:41 pm
Mommy Professor is not interested in testing something for herself, to see if it works. She is only interested in what other recognized authority figures, who have failed in this area, have to say about it.
#5 by Jason on 02/24/2015 - 8:27 pm
Please tell me it wasn’t “energy healing”.
#6 by Secret Squirrel on 02/25/2015 - 12:26 am
No.
#7 by Secret Squirrel on 02/25/2015 - 12:29 am
On second thoughts, I think Mommy Professor became less dismissive, because she thought it was brown wisdom. Or perhaps it was a combination of brown wisdom + priestly robes.
Just the other day she told me in all earnestness, about this new menace called White Male Privilege. Oh Mommy Professor, you are so wise and worldly!
#8 by polydoros on 02/25/2015 - 8:02 pm
Laughter at Mommy Professor is always the best and cheapest medicine! ;D
#9 by jo3w on 02/23/2015 - 4:56 pm
When you are an idiot, wisdom is more enticing than knowledge.
Giving these people knowledge is like sending a 12 year old on a date with a playboy bunny. They have no idea what to do with what they’ve gotten.
#10 by TheSeeker OfTruth on 02/23/2015 - 8:05 pm
There were a lot of wonderful things that came out of India, when it was ruled by Whites.
I call Bob a guru because of the fetishistic furor that surrounds him. When he makes a mistake his followers clamor to explain why it wasn’t a mistake.
#11 by Secret Squirrel on 02/23/2015 - 8:42 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY
#12 by Yankee Rebel on 02/24/2015 - 1:02 am
Thanks, SS, for the video link. That was classic!
#13 by TheSeeker OfTruth on 02/24/2015 - 7:14 am
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY
#14 by TheSeeker OfTruth on 02/24/2015 - 7:49 pm
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lVnWOUR7NQE
This was meant to be me response.
#15 by Dennis K on 02/24/2015 - 2:37 am
When I first came across the Mantra, which was over 10 years ago now, I didn’t see it as a new revelation, or wisdom or anything like that.
I had, when first rejecting multi-racialism as a ‘good thing’ noticed that there was an anti-white bias. I then examined and probed further, and dug further and added to my ‘understanding’ of it. There had to be more to it, so I looked for what the ‘more’ would be or could be. I doubted it could have been that simple, that these guys just had it in for white people. Reading Nationalist stuff just put more and more stuff in my brain.
Then came the mantra, which made me realise that I may have gone down that rabbit hole for almost nothing. What “anti-racism” really is, is what it hangs on its front door. It is exactly what it says it is, which, when you logically conclude from what it very clearly advocates, is the destruction of the white race.
It is this logical conclusion and what they advocate which I now go back to them with, and lo, behold, the anti-racist is unmasked. They advocate everything that brings about assimilating out the white race and only the white race, and denouce everything that may prevent this or be done to slow or stop it.
It’s not a secret either. Their ‘2’ of demanding mass non-white immigration and assimilation adds with their ‘2’ of calling those who object, resist, avoid or suggest any curtailment of it racist/nazi/bigot to make the ‘4’ of white genocide.
The mantra just says 2+2=4, and what say you, anti-white?
I then realised that is actually all there is to it. Using the mantra IN PRACTICE proved it for me. Being able to swat down anti-whites again and again and again by sticking to this one simple point demonstrated it. The math computed.
Mantra thinking, if there is such a distinct thing is about cutting the crap and unlearning more than learning. Unlearning your ‘education’ which compels you to find agreement with ‘sophisticates’ for validation, which says that the more complexed, nuanced and varied explainations are better than simple truths. In reality, we are bamboozled by people more than informed, and we should see through the crap.
#16 by TheSeeker OfTruth on 02/24/2015 - 7:17 am
That is the essence of it all isn’t it? Trying to find agreement with sophisticates? I guess it’s human nature.
I reckon it’s also human nature to find somebody who says or has said something with which you agree and then think that everything that person says is pure genius.
#17 by polydoros on 02/24/2015 - 3:55 am
‘The aim is to analyse Bob’s WAY OF THINKING, in order to imitate it. Not to create Whitaker clones, but in a way, yes.’
[For those who haven’t read the following articles and their comments, then “Shepherds of the People”, “Secret Squirrel Exposes Bobby The Kid!”, and “The Emperor has no Clothes” at BUGS provide context…]
Further: from Derren Brown’s “Tricks of the Mind”, p. 174:
‘Grinder (a linguist) and Bandler (a mathematician) started NLP in the mid-seventies by paying attention to how very successful therapists, such as Erickson, achieved their results. They “ELICITED THE STRATEGIES” of these top professionals, and later on others in different fields, so that the same strategies could be taught to others who wanted to achieve the same success. Over time they developed a model of how language is processed by the brain, and claimed that both affect each other all the time. SOME OF WHAT WE DO IN OUR BRAINS (ESSENTIALLY, HOW WE ARE REPRESENTING THE WORLD TO OURSELVES) IS EXPRESSED IN THE LANGUAGE WE USE, AND BY PAYING PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE WE USE, WE CAN HAVE A POWERFUL EFFECT ON THE UNCONSCIOUS NEUROLOGICAL PROCESSES OF THE LISTENER.’
#18 by polydoros on 02/24/2015 - 4:04 am
Continued, from Derren Brown’s “Tricks of the Mind”, pp. 174-5:
‘Although the authors [Bandler & Grinder] studied the work of many top professionals, they notably did not look at the work of neuro-scientists in formulating these ideas. Indeed, their approach was more pragmatic: to start with observed phenomena that seemed reliable, and then to set out teachable ideas based on what was USEFUL or SEEMED TO WORK BEST, rather than trying to understand why or how something might work. The pragmatic approach of the originators has now been swamped in a huge industry of daft theories and hyperbole, evangelical mind-sets and endless self-perpetuating courses. (Grinder, it seems, has a more careful view of what constitutes good NLP and is a little cynical of what it has become.)’
#19 by polydoros on 02/24/2015 - 4:07 am
Continued, from Derren Brown’s “Tricks of the Mind”, pp. 175-6:
‘One aspect of NLP that will always make it hugely appealing is that it makes wild and dazzling claims, such as being able to make a genius out of anyone through a process called “MODELLING”. Though Bandler himself might baulk at some of the exaggerated claims made by practitioners (most of them his disciples), he makes plenty of very strong statements himself about what can be achieved, and is now only one voice in a massive industry. (As nothing in NLP is set in stone, and as Bandler is an intriguing and slippery fish when it comes to pinning anything down on him, it seems fair to criticize some of these claims where they are made, in the absence of clear alternatives or even a clear central body to defer to.) [Derren Brown also emphasises that NLP is not as original as typically claimed and that psychologists such as C.G. Jung deserve significant credit.] TO “MODEL”, WE MUST FIRST ELICIT THE UNCONSCIOUS STRATEGIES OF THE PERSON WE WISH TO EMULATE BY ASKING CERTAIN KEY QUESTIONS THAT WILL HAVE THEM SETTING OUT EVERY STAGE OF THEIR INNER PROCESSES. NORMALLY THESE ARE THINGS THE PERSON DOES NOT THINK ABOUT AND WILL DISCOVER FOR HIMSELF AS THE QUESTIONS GUIDE HIM. THEN WE TRY THOSE PROCESSES OUT FOR OURSELVES, AND THROUGH AN IMAGINATIVE PROCESS HAVE OURSELVES THINK AND FEEL AS THE PERSON WE WISH TO LEARN FROM. WE ARE TAKING ON THEIR SKILLS AS OUR OWN.’
[Emphasis added.]
#20 by jo3w on 02/24/2015 - 6:34 am
Arguably, the greatest achievement of White people is the scientific method. To make a theory that is rational and based on knowledge and repeatedly test its validity. A theory means nothing if it not consistent with proofs. A person who espouses the utility of theories that have no reproducible results behind them are equivalent to a guru.
Neuro-linguistic takes this great achievement, scientific method, and throws it out the window for a guru method of thinking.
I find it ironic and disheartening that a theory like NLP, that has almost no supporting evidence, would be utilized by the same individuals who just pointed out how silly gurus are.
Theories are pure crap if they don’t WORK. We do what WORKS!
#21 by polydoros on 02/24/2015 - 3:57 pm
Ironically, science has been partially hijacked (centuries ago) by what could be called “Scientism”. (Just another -ism.)
When one delves into this, it is very apparent, not least with studies on the nature of the mind. What is known as the “hard question”: Is the mind only a function of the brain or is there something more?
I’ve heard discussions about designing protocols for experiments to test this. The Scientific Establishment either IGNORES it, or, when pushed, PRETENDS that it is doing fair experiments. But when you get down to the DETAILS of the experiments, it is obvious they are DESIGNED to show negative results.
These followers of Scientism proudly run on a very UNscientific maxim: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”… Think about that for a while…
They set the statistical bar for a positive result so astronomically high, that significant results are ridiculously unlikely. And they ONLY do this with claims they consider quote “extraordinary” unquote.
I’ve heard scores of probing interviews with such followers of Scientism, and some of them even LIE about the experiments. For example, do a search of “Richard Wiseman” here:
http://www.skeptiko.com/past-shows-2/post-list/
Now, I don’t know specifically about the “scientific” tests on various NLP techniques. But what I do know is this. I.M.E. (in my experience, whether you put this down to the Placebo Effect or whatever – does it really matter in the end?), for me, and for others I know, SOME techniques of NLP are very effective.
#22 by Jason on 02/24/2015 - 6:45 pm
I don’t believe in ESP, Near-Death-Expericences or psychic phenomenon.
#23 by polydoros on 02/24/2015 - 7:32 pm
Maybe we can agree that “belief” is a problematic word. I try to be as impartial on the “hard question” as possible, whether or not the mind is only a product of brain activity.
I’ve changed my mind on this a few times, having seen different evidence/arguments. And I still keep an open mind. Though from what I’ve seen it appears there is more to the mind than what is recognised by the current mainstream view.
#24 by Jason on 02/24/2015 - 8:33 pm
People can have all kinds of beliefs and still be against White Genocide which is what matters here!
But the thrust of all these arguments is to leap from “maybe the mind is more than the brain” to endorsing all kinds of farfetched theories.
Personally, I don’t see how anyone can see an elderly loved one suffer from Alzheimers or dementia and think that there is much mind beyond the brain. Destroy the brain and there ain’t no mind to be found!
#25 by polydoros on 02/24/2015 - 10:07 pm
The last point is not as clear-cut as you say, though it’s beyond the scope of what we’re doing here.
If you re-read the last comment that I wrote in this thread, that ends with “That is why we are here.”
#26 by jo3w on 02/24/2015 - 7:42 pm
Please tell me we aren’t calling psychology a science. I think they print psychology degrees on rolls of toilet paper.
#27 by polydoros on 02/24/2015 - 7:58 pm
Psychology isn’t monolithic and I don’t want to waste my time on strawman arguments.
Note to others:
The whole point of this series of articles is described in a post I wrote a few comments down.
#28 by TheSeeker OfTruth on 02/24/2015 - 10:56 am
Why was the “loose cannon” article pulled?
#29 by Laura on 02/24/2015 - 1:29 pm
It was published by accident. It will be up again soon.
#30 by polydoros on 02/24/2015 - 4:16 pm
One can call it a technique of NLP (“modelling”) or whatever you please. But what we are doing is this:
1. Acknowledging that Bob has some attributes that make him brilliant at creating memes.
2. We analyse Bob’s way of thinking, by asking appropriate questions, making observations and receiving his feedback.
3. We then copy Bob’s way of thinking, to make us better at Fighting White Genocide.
That is why we are here.
#31 by Henry Davenport on 02/27/2015 - 4:03 am
This all sounds fascinating. When will you ask Bob the questions, is that arranged yet?
#32 by polydoros on 02/27/2015 - 8:58 am
I’m glad you asked, HD!
I already have some key questions written down.
Hopefully Bob will agree to being filmed during a Paltalk session, with sufficient lighting, and with enough resolution to see his facial expressions.
So Bob would be our guinea pig, but it would be for a good cause! 😀