Archive for September, 2004
Near the beginning of the presidential debates, I heard words that shocked me so much that I almost woke up.
Senator Kerry said “the border must be protected.” Bush agreed with him absolutely and raised him one. He replied, “The borders must be CLOSED.”
Surely I wasa dreaming. They COULDN’T have said what I thought they said.
Well, they weren’t. They were talking about IRAQ’s borders.
Martha Stewart is being sent to Alderson Federal Prison. I used to live in Alderson. My doctor brother “dodged the draft” by being a prison doctor for two years with the Public Health Service. One of those years was spent at Alderson.
That was about 1956. Two of the prisoners there were Tokyo Rose, a Japanese-American who had broadcast from Japan during World War II, and Axis Sally, a German-American who had broadcast from Berlin during the same period.
They used to hold plays, and in one play Axis Sally played the part of George Washington.
Alderson is a lovely place, very near White Sulfur Springs Resort.
It was off season, and my Austrian bride and I happened to be in White Sulfur Springs. It was my wife’s first Thanksgiving in America and I asked where we might get some turkey and so forth. She told us to go to a certain country club.
It turned out that one of the members of that country club had been a traveling salesman. Many times he had been away from home on Thanksgiving. So he had retired to his home town and every Thanksgiving he set out a spread and drinks for absolutely anybody in White Sulfur Springs.
We ate, we got drunk, we met everybody.
As for Martha Stewart, if she had not said her conviction was a “right wing conspiracy,” I would be on her side.
I have seen a lot of prisons from the inside. Alderson was the best of them.
A rich liberal deserves much, much worse.
For about a week I wrote nothing in this blog. Now, with my team’s encouragement, I am back to thinking of things to say.
Because this causes me joy, I have composed some inspiring verses to celebrate it:
Last week I had writer’s block,
My words were getting fewer.
Now the writer’s block is gone.
I’m pouring like a sewer.
– Robert Wadsworth Whitaker
I told Don that he was going to make my impeccable reputation peccable.
That reminded me of the word “disgruntled.” It makes you wonder if anybody was ever gruntled.
Well, I don’t know whether peccable is a word, but gruntle is. It means exactly the opposite of what it sounds like. The old English word “gruntled” meant “pleased.” That is why “disgruntled” means displeased.
But can you imagine a word that sounds less like happy than gruntled?
Most of us older Southerners are familiar with the Uncle Remus stories about Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox and Brer Bear, but a lot of younger people have never even heard of them.
A lot of older people will say their parents read the Uncle Remus stories to them. Well, that is not exactly true. Their parents might have TOLD them the Uncle Remus tales from the now-banned Disney movie, “Song of the South.” But their parents didn’t read the original tales to them and they didn’t read those tales themselves.
The actual stories were written in a forgotten language.
Henry Chandler was from Atlanta, where he was a boy during the Civil War. The tales he wrote were supposedly those told by Uncle Remus, an old slave.
But the important point is that Chandler wrote those tales to be read by literate Southerners in his own day. Literate Southerners back then had all been raised around blacks and largely raised BY black folks. They understood the old Plantation black English perfectly.
Today, trying to read Uncle Remus stories is exactly like trying to read fourteenth century English. Like fourteenth century English, the language of Uncle Remus ranges from very hard to incomprehensible.
Today I cannot be sure people know what I am talking about when I talk about the Tar Baby Story or the briar patch. When I was young, that was part of our everyday parlance. It never occurred to me that I could mention the moral of one of those stories and people wouldn’t understand what I was talking about.
In exactly the same way, it never occurred to Henry Chandler that Southerners in the future would not understand the Plantation English they were all raised around. Neither do today’s blacks.
No, I don’t mean the Federal Communications Commission. I mean the Faithful Colored Companions. Up to now, non-whites have been looked upon politically as nothing more than the Faithful Colored Companions to liberals.
From a political point of view, all the colored folks look alike. So the Democratic Party spends tens of millions of dollars “to get out the minority vote.” To the Democratic Party all brown folks look alike, and they put their money where their mouth is.
Recently the Chicago city council adopted a resolution concerning self-contained black communities where blacks would own the businesses. Naturally all hell broke loose.
You see, this idea of a separate black community is a lot like what they called “separate development” in South Africa under the white government.
To make matters worse, the resolution was specifically aimed at protecting blacks against business takeovers in the black community not by whites, but by mostly non-white immigrants. Those immigrants are taking over and setting up all the businesses in black areas.
As I keep pointing out, we are in a new age. In the past there were two permanent, established minorities in America, blacks and Jews. We are moving into an age when everybody is part of a minority.
And each minority, including whites, will have to fend for itself.
The Chicago situation is just a little crack in the old “whites versus liberals and their Faithful Colored Companions” pattern.
Stormfront had the good taste to feature me as a special guest a little while ago. It is White Nationalist.
To become members of Stormfront.ORG people register with them and take pseudonyms.
My pseudonym is “Bob Whitaker of WhitakerOnline.org.” I have been told that this a dead giveaway as to who I am and the government will find out.
I doubt it. I used to work for the government and I don’t think they could figure it out if I put my fingerprints on it.
But what is important is how this white nationalist site is becoming a grassroots rebellion against Political Correctness. Here are the numbers:
Member #35,000 —- will it be Sept. 30th, 2004?
Member #34,000 —- Sept. 7th, 2004
Member #33,000 —- August 15th, 2004
Member #32,000 —- July 23, 2004
Member #31,000 —- July 1st, 2004
Member #30,000 —- June 11, 2004
Member #29,000 —- ?
Member #28,000 —- May 8, 2004
Member #27,000 —- April 15, 2004
Member #26,000 —- March 22, 2004
Member #25,000 —- February 27, 2004
Member #24,000 —- January 29, 2004
Member #23,000 —- January 2, 2004
Member #22,000 —- December 12, 2003
Member #21,000 —- November 16, 2003?
Member #20,000 —- October 21, 2003
Member #19,000 —- September 25, 2003
Member #18,000 —- September 2, 2003
Member #17,000 —- August 15, 2003
Member #16,000 —- August 2, 2003
Member #15,000 —- May 21, 2003
Member #14,000 —- April 30, 2003
Member #11,300 —- February 11, 2003
In case you think Political Correctness is something new, let me disabuse you of that idea. In case you think that Political Correctness is something that was until recently confined to liberal universities in liberal parts of the country, let me disabuse you of that notion, too.
I entered the University of South Carolina at age sixteen, in 1957, and Political Correctness was already alive and well then. South Carolina was not one of the more liberal parts of the country. But all universities already followed the Politically Correct code: liberal freedom of speech is for liberals only.
PC was alive and well long before then and I knew that in the year 1957. We just didn’t have a name for it.
From the day I hit campus I was very active in right-wing politics, some of which I can actually tell you about. Some years later I tried to get a John Birch Society unit started on campus. The faculty wouldn’t let me. Even then, a Communist Party unit would have been welcome in the name of Free Speech but the far right was verboten.
I expected that problem before I entered the University of South Carolina. Even in 1957 every literate person, including a sixteen-year-old, knew from the get-go that Liberal Free Speech meant free speech for liberals only.
We did not have the term Political Correctness, but it was understood. So when my more respectable campus political groups met, I sometimes found a sponsor. When I couldn’t find a sponsor, we met in a meeting room on campus until we were reported and the campus police showed up. This was routine.
When were kicked off the campus — again –we adjourned to one of the two dozen beer joints around the University.
I was always welcome there and I knew which beer joint would have a place for us to meet at any given time.
For reasons I need not go into I was known and treasured by every beer joint jockey in the area. Mixed drinks were not permitted in South Carolina, so the students went to beer joints, some more than others.
I was one of the above-mentioned “some.”
So when we were routinely booted off campus after informers told the Administration that “one of Whitaker’s groups” had taken over a meeting-room on campus, we went to a local beer joint to hold our meeting.
In other words, since we students could not hold a right-wing meeting on campus, we held our meetings in beer halls.
Does this ring a bell?
From the May 1st, 2004 WOL
A “blog” is a personal web page where you just write down whatever you damned well please and put in public for people to see.
If you have an idea, you can put it on the public record by putting it on your blog.
If you have an invention, you can put it on the public record by writing it on your blog.
If you are like me and your best ideas cannot be published, you put them on record in your blog.
A blog is usually a kind of public diary of your thoughts.
My blog is more like a diary than it is like a web page.
My blog is not written for the reader, but you are welcome to read it until you get so bored you can’t stand it.
DO NOT HOLD ME TO ANYTHING I SAY IN MY BLOG.
Do not expect the blog to be nearly as professional as my writing. I am talking to me, not to you.
You are listening to the meanderings of a person with Adult Attention Deficit Disorder. That makes real writing hard work. My blog is not going to be hard work, so it is going to be a bit scatterbrained.
You are welcome to tell me anything my blog makes you think of.
I have been confidential advisor to everything from mercenary soldiers to alcoholics and drug addicts to the President. This list could go on a long, long way. I have learned to think like a host of people.
So my blog will be an exercise in writing from inside the skin of a lot of other people besides me.
I can try to think like a Klansman one day and like a Communist the next. I’ve known plenty of both, and I have given advice to both, free of charge. I respect and will give PERSONAL help to any honest person, wherever that honesty leads them.
That attitude is part of my own personal Bible Belt heritage, “Judge not that ye be not judged.” But it has repaid my efforts many, many times over, not the least because I can walk in a lot of people’s shoes.
If this doesn’t give you the warning you need, you need to go back to Kindergarten.
If you are the kind of person who permanently rejects someone because of one wrong thing he said, I don’t want you near me anyway.
I warn you, that kind of person is not worth knowing. Get away from him!
I realize my blog is public. So I won’t identify people in it or give information that would allow anybody to identify them. Trust me, I’ve had to do that all my life.
After I have said all this, if my blog infuriates somebody, that person is a fool.
And I am retired, I have all the money I want, and I have done enough in my life so that I need to impress nobody, so I don’t give a damn.
If that sort of person reads my blog, he will reject me forever. That would be a favor to me. If the blog gets rid of people like that, that alone would make it worthwhile.
A blog never ends, so if you want to take a look now, do so. But it will be there a long time, and it will get longer and longer. But remember, WhitakerOnline is written for you, Bob’s Blog is written for me.
From the May 15, 1999 WOL
Michael C. Tuggle’s Edgefield Journal article, “True Believers and the South,” reminded me about Eric Hoffer. Hoffer was a philosopher many of our so-called “intellectuals” are trying desperately to forget. He had several characteristics the modern academic cannot stand.
To start with, the ideal of the modern academic is Karl Marx.
Karl Marx, the left’s Champion of the Working Class, never did a day’s labor in his entire life. Academics all insist they are “friends of the working class,” but they don’t want to hear from anybody who actually does any work.
From the point of view of our so-called “intellectuals,” Hoffer’s first crime was that he was an actual working man.
Hoffer was a longshoreman who read a lot. He never had any formal education, but he wrote a number of brilliantly intellectual books, starting with “The True Believer.” He repeatedly pointed out that intellectuals who claimed to be “friends of the working class” had nothing but contempt for real working people.
This real working man had contempt for other leftist pretensions. President Johnson appointed him to the Civil Rights Commission, and within a few weeks he declared the whole thing a fraud. Later he was given a professorship at Berkeley. Within a few weeks he pointed out that these high-powered university students were great at repeating cliches, but “They simply cannot THINK!”
Hoffer wrote in the 1950s and 1960s, back when almost all professional academics declared that working people needed a socialist economy. Hoffer’s statement on how socialism treated real working people was as blunt as the rest of his comments. “Under capitalism,” he said, “We are expected to work for money. Under socialism, we are expected to work for words.”
For a sane person, reading the Soviet Constitution after their so-called “Worker’s Revolution” is hilarious. In 1917, once he became the Soviet dictator, Lenin — who also had never done a day’s work in his life — declared that Russia was now “a nation of workers, peasants, soldiers, and INTELLECTUALS.”
Now let me ask you something, gang. Which one of these groups — workers, peasants, soldiers and INTELLECTUALS, is going to sit on its backsides and give orders to the rest?
Lawyers, bureaucrats, and academics, these are the people who rule us. All of these people produce only one thing: Words. For those words they expect lots of money and ALL the power. These people constitute a vast and almost unimaginably powerful lobby dedicated to the importance of words over everything else. The only purpose of government, from their point of view, is to give them money and power.
Lawyers, bureaucrats, and academics insist that the only purpose people are united under one government is for purposes THEY lay down.
Lawyers, bureaucrats, and academics believe that a common race or a common culture means nothing. It is DOCUMENTS that unite men. To them, an American is neither more nor less than a person who has filled out the proper papers. All that matters to our rulers today are the words and documents they produce and control.
Those who want lawyers, bureaucrats and academics to rule are the opposite of nationalists. Nationalists believe that men are united by a common heritage and by blood ties, not by words and documents. Lawyers, bureaucrats and academics believe that the only thing that makes one a citizen of a country is words. A person who believes that men should be united according to their nation — their common race and culture — is a nationalist. One who believes that men are only united by words should therefore be called a “wordist.”
Every wordist says that his philosophy will unite all mankind into one huge, loving community. But in the real world, different kinds of wordists are every bit as divided as nationalists are, and infinitely more vicious. Communism is a form of wordism. Communism is supposed to unite all mankind into a single, loving unit. The Communist form of wordism has killed over a hundred million people this century.
All wordists claim they love everybody and that their words unite everybody.
Then they proceed to kill real people by the millions, all in the name of their words.
Every wordist claims that his particular words will unite all mankind. The religious wars that slaughtered millions of Europeans in the sixteenth century were fought between fanatics who believed the words of Protestantism united all men and the fanatics who insisted the words of Catholicism united all men.
Each form of socialism is a form of wordism. Each form of socialism claims it makes all mankind one.
There are many different kinds of socialism, and each form of socialism claims to unite all mankind. Actually, each type of socialism unites only the people who are dedicated to the same form of socialism. Willy Brandt, the anti-Communist mayor of West Berlin during the 1950s, was a Democratic Socialist. He was the opponent of his fellow socialists, those of Soviet Communist variety, in East Berlin.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Communists, who claimed their form of socialism united all mankind into a single loving unit, were enemies of Brandt AND East Germany. And, as usual with loving wordists, the Chinese Communists were busy murdering tens of millions of people in the name of their particular form of Love and Brotherhood.
A lot of noise is made about how brutal and vicious war between different nations or different races can be. But the worst wars in history were wordist wars. Those who devote themselves to Catholicism and Protestantism in the sixteenth century were wordists. Like all wordists, they said their philosophy, their books, their doctrines would unite all mankind. But, as usual, the only people they united were the people who agreed with their books and their dogma. But people who subscribed to the OTHER wordist dogma were their deadly enemies.
When the Protestant wordists and the Catholic wordists went to war with each other in the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the slaughter was incredible. In our century, we talk endlessly about Hitler’s killings, but he was an amateur compared to Stalin. Hitler was a piker compared to the wordist Communist Mao Tse-Tung.
Today, the media talks about the ethnic cleansing of Milosevic. But compared to the Cambodian Communist Pol Pot, Milosevic is nothing. Pol Pot killed a QUARTER of the entire population of his country, whose population was about equal to that under Milosevic. By comparison, Milosevic is small change.
But Pol Pot is excusable, because he did what he did in the name of wordism.
Milosevic is a fanatical nationalist, so he is like HITLER. Wordism is dear to the hearts of a society ruled by lawyers, bureaucrats, and academics. For the wordists who rule us, it is nationalism, not killing, that is the only crime that matters.
Quote (from this blog):
“In the real world a person cannot change his real beliefs any more than he can change the color of his skin.”
“Haa Haa Haa Haa Haa Haa Haa Haa Haa Haa Haa Haa
“I’m not sure what ‘real world’ you live in, but changing “real beliefs” happens everyday all over the world. You have done it yourself.”
Chris, in the real world I live in a person can change his skin color very easily. He just pours on some skin dye.
The best people I ever worked with against the Communists were Free Cubans.
But, as social scientists love to point out, older Cubans, the ones who left Castro’s Paradise, are Republican. Younger ones are “voting along more traditional Hispanic lines,” in other words, straight Democratic.
I wish someone would do a study of the “Hispanic” vote along the lines of color-of-the-skin. It would not surprise me if, no matter what their last name, whites voted Republican and coloreds were the liberals’ Faithful Colored Companions
The liberals are making the usual U.S. mistake about the Hispanics: just because people are members of a particular ethnic group does not mean that they either think alike or love each other.
The Hispanics in this country come from several countries and occupy all parts of the socioeconomic ladder.
Some of those countries in Central and South America have some very interesting ethnic compositions – and not all of them have Spanish as an official language.
Comment by Elizabeth — 9/22/2004 @ 11:49 am
Cubans vs Mexicans. Both “hispanic,” and both hate each other. The rest tend to stick together – tend is the operative word. A very small number are Indian and they tend to hate the hispanics from Mexico and Central America. the Mexicans are the largest group, and most dangerous.
Americans tend to have little historical memory. The rest of the world tends to have loooooong memories. Mexico still remembers their loss to us in the Mexican war and the political elites use it to whip up the helots for their own ends. Too bad Bush and Kerry and the rest of the Demopublicans, or Republicrats, if you prefer, can’t see it. But, then, they really don’t much care about the country either.
Comment by Richard L. Hardison —
My boss on Capitol Hill, Congressman John M. Ashbrook of Ohio, traced his family back to immigrants from Virginia in the 1830s, and his congressional district was way up in Mansfield, NE Ohio. His father had been a conservative Democrat — John called him a Copperhead Democrat — from the same district for 22 years until he died in 1941, which was exactly how long John served as a Goldwater-Reagan Republican (and points right) until he died.
If you look at the United States map and you know that the lower half of the Midwest and all points south of that was settled by Southerners, it makes you wonder how sterile New England was. New England AND the huge Mid Atlantic states only settled the United States north of the middle of the Middle West! Take a look at how tiny and sparse America is north of that line!
I live in Yankeeland, as you know, and rarely say “hi” up here, Most of those I know here in SE Ohio do the same. Probably helps that many are the descendants of Viginians.
Comment by Richard L. Hardison
When I was coming up there were scandals in every business and every part of political life.
With one exception: the press.
When I pointed this out, people would laugh and say, “Of course not! The press won’t report on itself.”
But they never THOUGHT about that.
Press scandals like the New York Times and its fake article writer and CBS and Dan Rather with his fake memo did not just begin recently. People inside the New York Times said they had been warning about those fake stories for months before the scandal broke, BUT ONLY INSIDE THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Now every conservative commentator is assuring us that both CBS and the New York Times “made a mistake,” but they are as pure as the driven snow. Every conservative commentator says CBS, the New York Times, and the Washington Post — the latter had a reporter make up a fake story that won a Pulitzer Prize that had to be given back — have never, never, never done this kind of thing before.
These are Major News Organizations, and Major News Organizations don’t lie like the rest of humanity does.
It’s sickening to watch the conservatives grovel to gain brownie points with the liberal media.
An old professor friend of mine was very enthusiastic about “Why Johnny Can’y Think: America’s Professor-Priesthood.” He was also amazed about how consistent my ideas have been since we met forty years ago.
With due apologies I pointed out to him that his ideas about arithmetic were also consistent. Since I met him he got his PhD and had a long academic career, but he still repeats “2+2=4″ today exactly the same way he did when he was eight years old.
I am still looking at the most basic facts of politics and economics. They are exactly like 2+2=4. They don’t change.
Rememer that there was a whole theory and university science of medicine before they accepted the existence of bacteria. There was a whole university study of economics, called political economy, long before anybody ever heard of supply and demand. Before they heard of bacteria or supply and demand, both medicine and economics were destructive.
I am still trying to introduce the idea of wordism and the professional biases of social scientists into the field of social science. Until that is done, they are still exactly where medicine was when doctors regularly bled people to death and economics was when it pushed the old Mercantile System. They are stupid and they are wrong.
I have spent a frustrating lifetime trying to talk real social science to the social science professors who sell bleeding and Mercantilism in the social sciences today. I will keep doing it.
I will also keep saying 2+2=4.
I am indeed very consistent.