Bob's Mantra

What do you guys think about Bob Whitaker and his radio shows?

------------------------------------------
BOB'S MANTRA
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."


"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."


"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."


"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"


"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"


"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"


"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."


"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."


"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
 

Bob Whitaker
-------------------------------------------------


http://www.whitakeronline.org/
http://www.whitakeronline.org/townhall.htm

-------------------------------------------------

Discuss..

In my opinion, one of the true geniuses of our age.

Wow, no wonder you ducked out of the race thread Anti-chan. 

I'll probably post myself once I've read through it.

>> If you're claiming it's false, it certainly is.  And you have failed utterly to do so.  Do you concede the point, then?

I never claimed it was false. Maybe you can quote me? Otherwise, you have no argument.

Nothing except objective scientific truth, while you have ludicrous agitprop that wouldn't fool a nine-year-old and theatrical outrage.

Maybe you can explain how your version of "objective scientific truth" means that I've been shouting "racism!" this whole time? Outside of the things in history that actually happened, I've said nothing to that end. I see you've failed to quote me.

No proof, no merit, so noted. :D

From Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

Again: What is your point?

Read and Respond: You seem to think that study means something and I won't take that away from you, but this is what South Amerindians looks like:

www.minelinks.com/worker/jungle_people44.jpg

The humans who are the fatherest from apes are still savages, so what is your point? Do you think truth will ever make your hatred acceptable?

LOL! And that's funny "psychoanalyze". You don't even know what that word means. It's a word you thought you saw on the back of a cereal box.

Do you or do you not fear "blacks" and what they can do to your "white soceity"? And because of unreasonable fear we're led to believe that you love them and want do see them propser? Haha, OOOooookay. >.>

>>81

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that- but if you wish to further debate this- I'm more than eager to discuss issues of race with reasonable people such as yourself. Michael Reinzi's study included.

But I am no longer entertaining the thought of debating with "A. Wyatt Man". Your end result is eugenics and perhaps I can convince you that there are environmental solutions that can increase ones IQ if a purely genetic gap exists.

But his end result boils down to applying genocide or forced seperatism. And even though I don't really see myself as a part of "the black race"- I'm assuming that I'd be included. If that time ever comes (see: never) the "objective scientic truth" isn't going to stop me from defending myself via a bullet in his head.


>>80

Also, if you took what I said to mean something about religion- then you're mistaken. My argument falls along the lines of "affect hunger". Maybe you should look the term up?

The point is very concise: Because of Moral Enlightenment and the advent of modern civilization and modern thinking- survival is no longer a valid reason for immoral behaviors such as genocide or a forced seperation of races. 

I'd like a link to the "From Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995." link. And not the Rienzi one referencing it. The orginal.

>>84

and proof it's peer reviewed

Your end result is eugenics

That's a sad way to try and escape what he said. He presents research and you weasel your way out by claiming that it could be used for eugenics? Methinks you're simply getting the bad end of the debate, and want out.

Guys, we'd better stop making forks right now, because I might hurt someone with it! Pillows too, we can suffocate people with pillows! And while we're at it, let's stop this whole science thing, because it's putting a few priests and monarchs out of a job!

Science is neutral, you nutter. We now know some diseases are hereditary, and how, so where are the death-squads as we hunt down the carriers?

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

Ok I believe you now.  But The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is still a Communist hoax.

>>86

Huh? I think you should re-read what I wrote. Let this be understood: The reason eugenics isn't a viable solution for disparity in IQ is because Intelligence isn't fundamentally genetic. Any arguments for completely genetic solutions is inherantly wrong because it doesn't address the factor that we know definately has an effect on intelligence: Enviornment.

Yet, in the realm of this discussion, I think it [eugenics] is a reasonable approach to the issue. It's the wrong approach, in my view (for more reasons than listed above) but it is still reasonable. In other words: It's perfectly fine by me if he thinks the research could be used to eugenics.

The eugenics guy is not the reason I'm leaving the debate.

However, when dealing with people like >>80 (NOT the eugenics guy). There's no reason to believe that >>80 is producing an argument that's any different from scientifically justified genocide or seperatism. He'd feel the way he does about blacks with or without the data. Science is neutral, yes. But men aren't. And just because a man is a scientist doesn't make him any less likely to be susceptible to the human condition.

There is a part of your post that irks me, though.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where I am "getting the bad end of the debate"?

RE: From Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

Read and Respond: You seem to think that study means something and I won't take that away from you, but this is what South Amerindians looks like:

www.minelinks.com/worker/jungle_people44.jpg

The humans who are the fatherest from apes are still savages, so what is your point? Do you think truth will ever make your hatred acceptable?[/i]

So what if Nigerians are closer to apes? They're still human. So what does it have to human intelligence? "Whites" are closer to apes an South Amerindians and white colonized South America. The only way that data can be relevant if you're making an argument for the inhumanity of nigerians.

I don't feel that I should have to sit here and be called "boy" and "chimp". It's funny how when I was using character attacks it was such a big fuckin' deal. But when someone else does it...it's seems to be fairplay. This isn't a debate- this a hate convention. And I want no part of it.

>>88 But when someone else does it...it's seems to be fairplay.

You saw me critisize someone who did that.

>> So what if Nigerians are closer to apes?
I feel like I should respond to this.  Not to you, anti-chan, but to the guy who wrote the what you were responding to.

Genetic similarities don't neccesarily mean that the creature which will be coded by the genes will be more similar to one that doesn't have as many in common.  To act like just because there are more genes in common with x ancestor doesn't mean that they will be more like them.  To assume that they do just reveals a basic misunderstanding of what genetics is and does.

Genes can only be quantified by the results they give, not by an analysis of their structure (yet).  This is because genes don't progress down a set track towards higher evolution like some people think; they can move backwards and forwards.  The only way to decide whether a gene is passed on or not is if the donor survives to pass it.  Sometimes this can come down to pure chance.  Sometimes, maybe, there is little need for a human to be able to think and plan, and maybe evolution selects for individuals who use less energy to power the brain (just an aside here, the brain, at only 1% of human body mass, eats up 30% of its energy).

Your argument is fallacious.

>>89

Yeah, but you didn't criticize >>80. That's neither here nor there though, he would've continued down that path with criticism of it or not. It's part of who he is (for now).

>>90 Genes can only be quantified by the results they give

Results such as Africa, Haiti, and Detroit.

>>90  Sometimes, maybe, there is little need for a human to be able to think and plan, and maybe evolution selects for individuals who use less energy to power the brain

Excellent.  You just explained groid genes.  However, an explanation is not an excuse.

Non-genocidal racists win once again. The liberals are just going to have to acknowledge the facts or this will continue to be boring. I'll give them a kick start.

White nationalism isn't the answer, but eugenics. Since jews and mongoloids are more intelligent they should be the future along with whatever intelligent caucasoids and negroids have gifts worth passing on to future generations. We should spread liberal ideals to eliminate notions of religion and nationality to prevent multi-cultural societies from being divided and see everyone in the world as part of our nation rather than just everyone on the same continent or small tract of land divided by imaginary lines.

Would someone explain A) why people bothering with anti-chan, who is undoubtably the most ignorant sack of shit I've ever seen in my entire life, this coming from a person whose upbringing was in a highly radicalised bible-thumping Carolina town, and B) why not just his name but his entire IP range wasn't banned. Really, 1300 posts across multiple threads of this meaningless bullshit? No wonder America is so backwards. It's like a one-upmanship contest of who can be the bigger retarded asshole.

>>94

Oh sod off, you inferior miserable pile of fuck waste. If your upbring was in a highly radicalised bible-thumping Carolina town- of course you're going to consider me ignorant.
America is backwards because you're backwards. If this was a contest to see who can be the bigger brain damaged shitstick then your faggity ass just came in and made a clean sweep of things.

Congrats!

U WIN.

>>93
I must respectfully disagree.  If you take the long view and look at history, you will see that multiculturalism has never worked anywhere, and that any society that has attempted to embrace it, from ancient Rome to the Weimar Republic to our own, has doomed itself.

No culture can long endure--and I mean that I am taking the long view here--unless it is rooted in blood and soil.  Patriotism must come not only from the head but from the heart, or it cannot endure--and a culture made up of people who do not believe it and themselves to be just a little better than the next with near unanimity is already dead, rotting, and ripe for conquest by a more vigorous people.

>>96
So you're saying that when western civilization collapses, the libertarians will take over?

FUCK NO!

>>96

"A more vigorous people?" Ok, well...as prone to turmoil as it may seem, there has been nothing more "vigorous" than a mulit-cultural society. It doesn't only put those seperate cultures and races to the test- but all of humanity.

I mean let's be serious here for second. The most dominant civilizations on the face of the earth have been at their core multi-cultural or at least leaned towards multi-culturalism in some regard. From an exchange of diseases and body fluids to an exchange of ideals. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish.

You've somehow convinced yourself that yours is the historic longview when it obviously isn't. Blood and soil is matter of perspective. Your ideal of patriotism became banal and passe the moment other cultures and other races decided to start fucking.

Synchronicity turns mono-anything on it's head. We're moving away from nationalism, conservativism, isolationism and business as usual. The "father knows best, family first" model of society over time has proven less and less effective against other cultures who can not only withstand the winds of change- but effectively become the wind of change.

>>98 "A more vigorous people?" Ok, well...as prone to turmoil as it may seem, there has been nothing more "vigorous" than a mulit-cultural society. It doesn't only put those seperate cultures and races to the test- but all of humanity.

Not true.  Multi-culturalism isn't a way to unify and strengthen groups of people; it's a way to control those who you have conquered.  For example, the persians (who I think you're referring to) only allowed people to keep their traditions in order to keep them from revolting.  Later on, Xerxes slowly phased all that out after the people had been so long under persian rule that they didn't really have the dedication to the old traditions of their parents. 

Besides that, one of the most vigorous societies in history, the Romans, was anything but multi-cultural. 

Anyway, multiculturalism, seems to me, to be a method of monogamization and control.  I agree that "Synchronicity turns mono-anything on it's head."  But your philosophy doesn't lead to that.

100get

>>99
Besides, Islam is a form of multiculuralism.

>>98 here has been nothing more "vigorous" than a mulit-cultural society.

"Multi-cultural society" is an oxymoron, but leaving that aside,how vigorous was Rome in 450 CE?  How vigorous was Yugoslavia in 1995?

It didn't work.  It doesn't work.  It has never worked anywhere.

>>99 We're moving away from nationalism, conservativism, isolationism and business as usual.

Yeah, that's what they were saying in Rome about seventeen centuries ago.  How'd that work out for them?  How is the Empire these days?

In the long run, anything BUT blood-and-soil nationalism as a basis for a culture is doomed to failure.  Look to China and Japan for the model of cultures that endure in the long term:  cultures where the autocthones know who they are, what they are, where they came from, and where they belong.

>>96
I must differ strongly, sir. The Roman empire existed due to it's ability to bridge divides and a form of multi-culturalism aided this. The Roman culture was applied to subjugated cultures and the culture soaked up the best of that culture, called it Roman and applied it another part of the empire. The result was an extinction of cultural inferiorities and a better spread and propogation of cultural superiorities. The roman empire fell because it's central government fell to tyranny, like China the Roman empire stagnated and oppressed until outsiders who cared less about absolute power enough to try out new ideas concerning how to spill your enemy's brains over the mud managed to gain military superiority. The difference being the outsiders were not unified and divided the roman empire instead of unifying it under new leadership. The 8th century Jihad unified a very large area of land and millions of people, ending the dark age europe was still in. The British colonisation of India was succesful due to the fact that the British were a unifying force, many Indian warlords were simply bribed into British rule because the velvet glove of trade is preferable to the iron fist of the British navy and the allies it armed. Every nation and stable portion of the planet has occurred when people are brought together and cooperate. Humans are not plants, we are not rooted in soil.

We are migratory and do pretty much everything in teams, but most of all we are sentient intelligent human beings who are not tied down to nature in the way other animals are. If we are going to quibble over how we feel about something, instead of going to work tommorrow we should stay up till 2 in the morning, wake up at 2 in the evenning, then go out and rape, steal and generally act like animals. The benefits of unification and openness exceed how angry it might make you to see a black face every so often. The multi-culturalism I am plying is not like the liberal multi-culturalism, there would be no affirmative action or associations for the advancement of a race, whether they are a minority or not. Everything will be done on an individual basis and people would be encouraged not to try new things for the sake of them being different but for the sake of them being better. If race mixing or allowing the mentally disabled to have children is proven to be detrimental then it won't be done, if black women aren't beautiful then they won't find their way onto billboards very often, if white men are not the best athletes or the most intelligent they won't find themselves as hollywood action heroes much and criticism to any idea that is widely accepted will be encouraged to ensure it is the right idea.

The result will be multi-culturalism done properly, with nothing that can be rationally disagreed with. Eventually the society will improve itself through eugenics and only the best ideas will still be in use, not held onto by crazed fanatics who are holding onto their ideas because they are bombarded with legitimate criticism which can only mean there is a conspiracy to get rid of it and they must hold on to defeat the evil empire, or whatever.

>>103

Outside of the Eugenics stuff, I concur wholeheartedly. Wyatt doesn't seem to have alot of knowledge when it comes to history. He ignores the real problems that often brought about the collapse of many mulicultural societies. It's like when people point to China as to why communism would be bad; as China is a very poor example of perfect communism.

If multiculturism is a form of control then so be it. We've gone past nationalism etc. Technology has made globalization a definate possibility and by all rights a *better* possibility. Going back to "same color teams" is no longer an option. The way I see it you've either got Libertarianism, Anarchy or some new form of socialised democracy as your choices.

Also: Using China and Japan as examples of "stuff that works" is meaningless in context to places like the United States, Canada and modern Europe. China and Japan rely heavily on the multicultural superpowers economically, socially and soon: Culturally.

When I think of China and Japan, I see two places that are are already apart of a bigger multicultural picture- whether you (or they) like it not.

As for Eugenics: It's all good to talk about this for now. But we shouldn't fuck around with eugenics until we understand the human brain a bit more. Study with the brain is at it's beginning as anyone will tell you.

We should give it a couple of hundred years, I think. We shouldn't jump into something that's going basically change what it means to be human. And we should definately root out and confront people like Wyatt who would use Eugenics selfishly.

>> The result will be multi-culturalism done properly, with nothing that can be rationally disagreed with.

This is the part that scares me the most.  The message is quite subtle, but it's there.  What you're saying is that everyone should agree with you, and that if they don't, they're wrong.

Why is disagreement a bad thing?  Why must everyone follow your evangelical ideal of truth?  What's more, why do you want such an incredible shining unified society?  What will it accomplish?  Peace?

There's a reason why we have genetic diversity, and it's analogus to why we should have cultural diversity.

In a genetic monoculture, every immune system functions exactly the same way.  This way, if an antigen finds a way to exploit a weakness in one immune system, it has effectively found the way to exploit the immune system in every individual.  This can be seen right now with the banana crop.  There's a reason why bannas, at 50 or so cents or so a pound now, will go up to at least 1.50/lb by 2009. 

For human societies, it takes a little doing, but "cultural-monoculutre" can be viewed in parallel with genetic monoculure.  Without diverse viewpoints, you can't fully say that you've looked at every angle on a situation.  It's been proven, for instance, that asians tend to see the whole picture of something, while westerners tend to zero in on that which has the greatest results.  If you try to zero out all differences, humanity can't take those diverse evolutionary paths.  They can't look at problems from multiple angles, just the single viewpoint you've prescribed.  The "correct" viewpoint.  The one you CAN'T DISAGREE WITH.

And if you haven't noticed something, all those great multicultural empires DID eventually, in the end, collapse, and take with them all their cultural heritage.  China and Japan have existed since prehistory.

Hey, maybe I can't write like a third year college doucher who's discovered the wonders of socialism.

I don't know...  The rhetoric of >>98 and >>96 just sound so much like the bad kind of evangelical Islam, and Communism.  The kind that doesn't tolerate rivals.

I can't put my finger on it yet...  But you just sound so dangerous, because your end results sound pretty good, especially if you're coming from a poor background in the first place. 

I'd rather have a background, and a heritage, somewhere I can point to that I "come from" than to be exactly the same as every other person on the planet.  Most importantly, I can consider other ways of life without immediately thinking one or the other is superior.

>>106 I don't know...  The rhetoric of >>104 and >>105 just sound so much like the bad kind of evangelical Islam, and Communism.  The kind that doesn't tolerate rivals.

fixed.

Sorry about that.  To make it clear, I'm anti-multicultural.

All Civilizations fall, fail or deminish at some point. That's just what happens. The fact is though- the most powerful were multi-cultural.

We are fastly approaching a breaking point where "heritage" is meaningless- as it should be. It breeds the US or THEM menality. Whatever comes out the one world mentality will an improvement no matter what the incarnation. It will be something that we've never tried before.

>>108
shure. britain was so mutlicultural amirite?

>>108 Whatever comes out the one world mentality will an improvement no matter what the incarnation.

Oh yeah, so if the institute a policy of breeding with squid to try and breed a population of mutant squid-men, that'll be an improvement? 

Kind of showing how you make blanket statements for hypotheiticals in support of your position.

>>108
No.  They were the most powerful because they sought to conquer others.  When you conquer others, you try to take them into yourself, thus, multiculturalism.  Nonetheless, was that neccesarily the best thing for all the constituent populations?

And which civilizations still exist to this day? 

>> It breeds the US or THEM menality.
Just because someone is black or asian doesn't mean that I hate them.  I don't have to be exactly the same as everyone else in order to not want to bash their heads open.  You give humanity too little credit.

>>the most powerful were multi-cultural.
This is another thing that bothers me a little bit.  You judge what kind of society you'd like to live in by how powerful the civilization it represented was.  This, combined with the fact that you think everyone wants to kill everyone who isn't like them...  Do you want to conquer the world?  Or are you just one of those little inferiority complex people who ALWAYS has to be on the winning side, and you see absolute unification as the only means?

I was under the assumption that homogenous populations are stronger. They have less internal conflict.

>>112 I was under the assumption that homogenous populations are stronger. They have less internal conflict.

Stronger how?  You have to make things like this clear.  Do you mean culturally, or geo-politically (definately not true if you look at the US), economically, or what? 

I have been reading this thread, and up until around >>98 or so that I was staunchly against A. Wyatt Mann.  I now feel the need to point out, as a staunch liberal and advocate of world peace, that simply erasing all differences between people is a cop-out.  Even if everyone in the world was the same, people would still find things to make war over, be it political orientation or even geographic location.  You fail to address the real problem of the human condition.

What really needs to be done is this:  we have to develop morally such that we won't feel the need to fight anyone with differences from us, that the "Them" in the "Us and Them" view of humanity isn't automatically a threat.  We need to develop a culture that doesn't seek to dissolve differences, but embrace them.

>>114
I'm best described as a libertarian and I, for the most part, agree.  Even though I believe that having a "home" culture is a good thing.

You want to know what I think happened in this thread?  I bet Anti-Chan summoned some of his professor friends to help him out.  I think that's where all these globalism people came from.  I don't have any evidence to back this up, it's just a feeling. 

>>116

LOL and this is why you seem so fucking idiotic. Read this statement.

"The result will be multi-culturalism done properly, with nothing that can be rationally disagreed with."

This statement alone made by "nice-racist" is the most solid and untouchable statement made in the entire fucking arguement.

Nothing that can be RATIONALLY disagreed with. "Feelings" don't make for good arguments. Who cares if you "feel" something is wrong? What good is your feeling if your way is totally shitty and doesn't work?

My argument against Eugenics is based on the fact that there are human condition issues and issues of actual knowledge to take into account. I don't want guys like Wyatt using Eugenics to continue some racial heirarchy. And I don't want guys like "nice racist" to jump into Eugenics without understanding that Brain study is in it's infant stages. We're talking about changing fundamentally what it'll mean to be human. It's a huge risk.

>>109

It was. Read your history. The idea of "white blood" or "british blood" is really represented by values and similar skin tone. Surface shit. Do you really think Gingers were considered the same as Aryans with blue eyes and blonde hair? Get real.

>>111

Maybe the world needs to be conquered. Has that ever occured to you? I prefer that we all conquered it together while we have the chance. All your fears about multi-culturalism involve the examples of multi-culturalism that we're trying to stray away from.

>>114 we have to develop morally such that we won't feel the need to fight anyone with differences from us, that the "Them" in the "Us and Them" view of humanity isn't automatically a threat.

History is littered with the bones of cultures that tried to make that choice.  It amounts to racial and cultural suicide.  It is Darwinian.

>>118

History is also litter with the bones of cultures that didn't try to make that choice. What is your fucking point? What is it going to take for you acknowledge that the rules have changed?

>>117 Maybe the world needs to be conquered. Has that ever occured to you? I prefer that we all conquered it together while we have the chance.
Eh, no.  So far your entire argument has been nothing but trying to replace one person's culture with your "superior" one.  But how can you truly evaluate someone's culture unless you've lived in it?  And how can anyone trust you not to be biased toward your own culture?

And you still haven't addressed the issues >>114 brought up.  Your "movement" as it were won't actually solve anything.  People will still find reasons to fight each other, even if you bleach them to the point that they're all the same; there will still be competing interests, and there will still be war.

In the end, all your movement amounts to is a desire for world control.