Archive for September 26th, 2004
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.