We know that fully half of the time immediate reply to the Mantra will be a genocidal rant about how the about why the white race deserves genocide.
But our people are seldom ready with that simple reply:Â Â Â "You deny genocide, then you do a genocidal rant about how the white race deserves genocide."
PERIOD.  Period is the most important letter of the BUGS alphabet.
Shari made the kind of comment that makes this blog worth while. I do not subscribe entirely to what she says, but it is a unique contribution. Besides, the one thing I hope we all know about Bob's Blog by now is that it is NOT dedicated just to Bob's opinions. We are a SEMINAR, not a lecture. That is the exact disctinction between a lecture and a seminar.
Reacting to my quote from Mark Tawin, "Faith is believing in what you know ain't so" Shari tied in our themes here in rejecting it:
Well Twain's definition of faith is just the opposite. It's the definition of no faith. Faith is not closing your eyes tight and repeating I believe, I believe. It's opening your eyes and taking alook. Certainly we can see that western civilization has been based on very different things than the ant heap. The notion of social distinctions was not based on me am the sun god and the rest of you are cattle. It was based on the notion that a leader serves his people. A very Christian notion, even if men failed. As for territory, it wasn't called "fortress Europe" for nothing, we believed in defence, but not cannibalism. After taking a look, faith has the imagination to take the next step. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the realization of what is hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Twains definition is the one used by college professers, which is then followed by their antheap history with lies thrown in. This is the jewish problem, no faith.
Comment by Shari
Excellent work!
Back in the days before every white gentile went into automatic fetal position, their reaction was passive-aggression.
A reporter demanded to know if the country club John Kennedy belonged to barred Jews. His reply was, "Hell, they don't even let in CATHOLICS."
Barry said he belonged to a country club, but they only let him play nine holes because he was half Jewish.
Goldwater said he was sick and tired of being saying he waffled on integration:
"If someone asks me about segregation, I look them straight in the eye and say: 'Where are you FROM?'"
They looked up Wallace's records from his combat days and found that he had been treated for extreme stress. Was he able to take on the responsibility of being president?
Wallace answered, "After the treatment psychiatrists approve me to go back to the war."
He added, "I have papers that say I'M sane. What have YOU got?"
We are actually getting out there and USING the Mantra. I can now use your examples of the results. One has to do with this passive-aggressive method. Most of the "replies" to the Mantra are simply pointing out that the responder is for Love and Brotherhood and we are against it.
An old anti-Communist told us at the Republican Leadership Training Convention in 1962 that his opponents in debate would point out that Communism was for Equality, Brotherhood, Fairness and so forth. How could he be against this Idealism?
He responded, "You remind me of a fish swimming along who sees a worm a fisherman is using as bait. The fish says to himself, That is good food, good protein, and it will taste good. Why shouldn't I eat it?"
He then said, "The problem with the worm is the same problem you don't see in Communism:
"There's a HOOK in it!"
You can USE this.
And while we are in practical debate mode, let me remind you of Pain's absolutely brilliant method for introducing the Mantra:
"Do you want to hear my Conspiracy Theory?"
People will.
In a REAL discussion that is pure gold! You get in the Mantra as they are waiting for the joke!
Passive-aggressive strategy again. There's nothing like it.
Dear Bob,
After I wrote to you the first time, you posted my message on your blog
and guessed that I'm a "respectable conservative."
The truth is even worse, I'm afraid. I'm a liberal, I come from a long
line of Yankees, and I live in San Francisco.
So why do I like your stuff? Well, being a liberal, I favor scientific
method over authority and very much dislike established religion. And
you have, in my opinion, written the most convincing justification for
science and secularism that I've ever read.
I'm also against genocide and racism, and you're the least racist person
I've ever come across. As you see it, no group of human beings should
be treated as animals or angels. Instead, you believe that human beings
should be treated as human beings. You accept that anybody who is human
will do both good and bad, and when you see him doing something bad, you
do him the honor of saying so. People don't come less racist, or more
humane, than that.
It doesn't really matter much, however, that I call myself a "liberal"
and that you call yourself a "conservative". We're both white American
gentiles, which means that we're kin, and kinship is the only foundation
upon which a democracy may be erected. "Democracy" is a Greek word that
means "rule of the people." It does not mean "rule of opinion." Rule
of opinion, whether that opinion be the Public's or the Supreme Court's,
can be many things but it cannot, by definition, be democratic. But you
have already made this point much better than I can.
My main point in writing you today is: 1) to let you know that I'm not,
contrary to your guess, a "respectable conservative" and that the truth
is even worse; 2) to let you know that if your writings have managed to
get beyond the Stormfront types and reach *me*, a left-leaning San
Francisco liberal, then your work is truly "out there" now and your
decision to call it a day is therefore entirely justified.
I'm very glad that you've decided to continue the blog, however. It's
nice to know that there's at least one place on the Internet that can
offer enlightenment not only about life in Washington and the history
of Christianity, but also about Baywatch and the Village People.
Best wishes,