Archive for November, 2004
Every day you pull your car into a parking place between two other cars. You can just swing your car in.
It is clear you know what you are doing because your car went in on one try without hitting either other car and you left enough space for the other two drivers to reach their cars when they come back, all in one go.
So far, so good.
But for a person who doesn’t drive a car, that can look a little scary. You swing in and obviously you know what you are doing.
Then the person who has never ridden a car before asks you exactly HOW you did that.
Obviously you did it, so why can’t you explain exactly HOW you did it? Chances are that you can’t explain it. You’ve been driving a long time, and you know how to do it. In fact, if you thought about it too much before you swung in, you might just hit one of the other cars for the first time in your life.
Before this election I predicted the results with a fine accuracy. I usually do. To be fair, my doctor brother made the same predictions I did.
By now everybody will tell you they did, too. But we actually did.
So some people asked me HOW I got it right.
I haven’t the foggiest notion.
I started driving — legally — when I was fourteen years old. I was carrying around my first political petitions a year before that. I had done both politics and driving a good while before that.
So during the 2004 political campaign while the pollsters were doing state-by-state scientific analyses and had their hands on the public pulse, I was sitting here watching cable television. I got it right. They got it wrong.
Even Dick Morris, who is a political expert extraordinaire, made the statement that the election would be “very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, VERY close.”
I didn’t think so. I figured it wouldn’t be runaway, but Bush would win comfortably. In fact, I had very little doubt about it. It seemed obvious to me.
I haven’t got the foggiest idea.
I said months ago in WhitakerOnline.org [Kerry's Two Fatal Problems] when Kerry was leading in the polls, that it would be miracle if he won. In that case I was explaining that the Clintons didn’t want him to win. The media are just discovering that, though the Augusta Chronicle ran two op-eds by me that said that months ago.
But that Clinton explanation just a point I wanted to make. Even if I hadn’t come up with that, I knew that Kerry was just plain losing.
If I were in Dick Morris’s position, where he has to explain what he is saying and think about it a lot, I would probably have made the same mistake he did. If I tried to swing my car into a parking space and I had to explain every move I made, I would probably ruin somebody’s fender.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that the MASSACHUSETTS STATE Constitution requires gay marriage.
The legal rule is that the Federal courts do not interpret STATE constitutions. So, from the point of view of Federal courts, the state constitution of Massachusetts requires gay marriage.
In 1968, twenty states had anti-miscegenation clauses in their constitutions. But the Supreme Court said that, regardless of the fact that all the states that ratified the Constitution and almost all the states that ratified the fourteenth amendment and had enforced anti-miscegenation laws, the United States Constitution did not allow anti-miscegenation laws.
There was NO question of constitutional intent in that 1968 decision. The Supreme Court made no pretense that they were interpreting original intent. They were making law, and they said so.
On the day that decision was issued, it was Federal law that constitutional intent means absolutely nothing. Unless you object to that decision, constitutional intent means nothing.
And no one dares to question it.
But in that case, the Supreme Court was interpreting the FEDERAL constitution. They agreed with state courts as the final word on the fact that state law banned interracial marriage, but they said the Federal Constitution overruled the state constitutions.
So the Massachusetts law stands.
The next question is whether a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts is valid in other states. The Federal Constitution requires every state to give “full faith and credit” to the acts of other states. But there is no enforcement clause in the “full faith and credit” statement. The Federal courts have consistently refused to enforce it.
The most important case relating to one state recognizing a marriage in another state was when North Carolina refused to recognize the easy Nevada divorce law. A person who was divorced in Nevada found that, according to the North Carolina Supreme Court, he was still married when he came back to North Carolina.
The Federal Supreme Court decided that the North Carolina decision was right, and that North Carolina had no obligation to recognize a Nevada divorce. So even today you can be legally married to two different people in two different states.
When a state refuses to extradite someone convicted in another state, that is a violation of “full faith and credit,” but they have done it hundreds of times.
So a gay couple is legally married as long as it stays inside the state of Massachusetts, and nothing less than a constitutional amendment is likely to change that.
My own opinion is that if you don’t want the courts to own the institution of marriage, you will have to condemn the 1968 decision first. And NOBODY has the guts to do that.
I mentioned before that if democracy means voting, there have never been more truly democratic countries on earth than those ruled by Communist regimes. They held THOUSANDS of regular elections. In every single one of those elections the voter turnout was over 99!
In fact, if voter turnout makes a democracy, North Korea is the most democratic country that ever existed. North Korea is the only country that EVER had a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT turnout in a national election.
Did the Communists hold REAL elections?
Absolutely. An election gives the voter two sides, BOTH sides, to choose from. The voter was given a ballot with a list of candidates put forward by the Communist Party. You could: 1) not mark the ballot and drop it into the ballot box; or 2) mark out any names you didn’t like.
If a candidate didn’t get fifty percent of the vote, the Party had to come up with a new nominee.
That never happened. But you had TWO choices. You could choose between “both sides.”
And, it was a secret ballot. You could take the list behind a curtain and mark off any names you didn’t approve of.
Going behind this curtain presented a minor problem. You were in a room where Communist Party members were sitting. If you wanted to approve the entire Communist Party ticket you simply took the ballot of dropped it into the ballot box. Almost everybody did not go behind the curtain and loyally dropped the list straight into the box.
If you took the ballot behind the curtain to mark some names off, several Party members saw you do it.
Oddly enough, not only did over 99% of voters turn out, but over 99% of them voted a straight Communist ticket.
But “both sides” were represented.
In America we have free speech because “both sides” are represented. Both leftism and respectable conservatism are supposed to be given equal time. But what if you aren’t a leftist, a respectable conservative, or somewhere in between?
If you are not one of the “both” sides, then you go behind that curtain.
And people see you do it.
(reprinted to Blog from 11/13/04)
*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***
A writer on Stormfront mentioned that it was the World War II generation that gave everything away. Nobody has ever discussed that but Yours Truly, but it is becoming part of general knowledge.
A congressman was told that if he believes in free trade of goods and services he should believe in free trade of labor, which means open borders for immigrants.
That used to be the standard conservative line: “Free movement of goods, services, AND LABOR.”
The congressman replied that there is a huge difference between goods and services on the one side and labor on the other. He said, “Labor VOTES!”
Obvious, isn’t it?
But for years, nobody mentioned the fact that labor votes except one Robert Walker Whitaker, Esquire. It took me YEARS to get THAT point across.
Now I am trying to get THIS point across:
“There is a professor at Harvard named Noel Ignatiev who says:
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”
You then go on to say that everybody who says he is an anti-racist agrees with that. They say they want to “solve the race problem” by pushing immigration and integration on EVERY white country on earth and ONLY on white countries.
They say intermarriage is the solution to the RACE problem. But this so-called RACE problem does not exist in Asia or Africa. As Ignatiev said, they demand a final solution to the WHITE problem in exactly the same way that Hitler demanded a final solution to the Jewish problem.
You can call that anti-racism. I call that genocide. Does that make me a racist?
Once this point becomes general knowledge, the entire political landscape will be affected. It puts the enemies of white people, who have always been on the offensive, in a vulnerable, defensive position.
This is a war of words. I work hard to find the right words. I start with the conviction that I am right and they are wrong, and I back that up by finding the simplest way to put the truth.
But all my life, while making these devastating points, I have been ABSOLUTELY alone. No one backs me up. Everyone wants to forward to everybody the latest conservative book or some exposition of how Kerry has underarm odor.
I sure could use some help.
Mike and Peter seem a bit confused by my long fake insults to HS and Richard.
Mike asked if I wanted comments or not.
Mike and Peter, if you ask Richard or HS, you will find they are both proud that I directed my fake put-downs at them, just as I directed one at myself.
If I like what you say, I’m not going to tell you you’re a sweet kid. That would make HS or Richard sick.
Look at what I said about HS and Richard. It said they are both big-leaguers.
It also says that HS and Richard can not only dish it out, they can take it.
I would much rather someone say that about me than give me some sugar-sweet words of praise.
The first rule of REAL censorship is that you don’t read about it.
Where would you read about it?
If you ask the average person about censorship, he will talk about the suppression he reads about a lot. He will ask you if you are talking about Michael Moore or the Federal Government refusing to sponsor pornographic “art.”
Those incidents of “censorship” are well-known because people read about them all the time.
When the Canadian authorities seized Why Johnny Can’t Think: America’s Professor-Priesthood I was not “outraged.” This is standard practice. I have dealt with it all my life.
Some people said, “Bob, you should take this to the press.”
This is not Michael Moore-type national press discussions of “censorship.”
This is the real thing.
You can join the mob and scream about “censorship” when prayers are banned in public school and the fact is trumpeted nation-wide. This is what I call “famous censorship.”
Famous censorship is not real censorship. The whole point of real censorship is to keep things from becoming famous.
Making a big thing about students’ right to pray in school is easy and it makes the people who do it feel brave. You have a billion-dollar evangelical compex to trumpet that call. Those evangelicals have bought their right to media access by pushing third-world adoptions.
Those protestors of students not being allowed to pray in school wouldn’t touch the suppression of a book like mine. They could lose their respectability that way.
Let me repeat: real censorship is what you DON’T hear about.
*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***
(reprinted from 11/27/04)
In last week’s message I wrote about the heroic professor in Arizona who is under attack for standing up for white Americans. Mexicans are demanding that he be fired or disciplined for exercising his rights as an American. Whose country is this, anyway?
The college is being sued, and I’ve been asked to contact the Chancellor and others on the board regarding this. Here is what I will send them.
I was heartened to read in the November 13th Arizona Republic that you and the others in charge of the Maricopa Community College System are taking your jobs seriously, and resisting the bullying tactics of MALDEF and other special interest groups who come here to take advantage of the many great things our country has to offer while spitting in our faces. How dare these guests “demand” an end to our first amendment rights of freedom of speech because they don’t like what some people say.
Would these people consider my saying that they “demand an end to our first amendment rights” to be “discriminatory,” “racist,” or otherwise “hateful” or “hostile”? Or would they ask, as any student interested in real learning, “Are these statements factual?” Why do they come to America – to find a better way of life here (meaning a better place than they left) or to bring us light in some missionary effort? Has Mexico ever made a serious claim to being self-governing? Don’t all the multi-culturalists tell us that America is ONLY valuable because it is self-governing, and owes nothing at all to the unique characteristics of its founding people? Don’t these same multi-culturalists tell us that our self-government is limited to one choice when it comes to immigration – “Celebrate it, roll over for it, never criticize or try to limit it”? If not, then how do they expect Americans exercising their constitutional rights to disagree? “Oh, we are just not worthy of such wonderful folks.”
As a former student, professor, and author of a book on universities and the state religion of Political Correctness, I understand the difficult position you have been put in by this monstrous situation. You may well consider yourself a “liberal.” But you are making the only stand you can make. You must stand for academic freedom in a real sense, in the same way a man stands for his honor and a woman her virtue. To do otherwise is to become a hypocrite, a coward, a whore.
Those who despise our Western civilization will not understand your decision. They cannot fathom what moral courage is, much less the teaching of our Lord that having done our duty, we are still the “unprofitable servant.” They can say this outlook is not “superior” to the dog-eat-dog world they came from. Maybe they just don’t know any better. But you do. Let us not cast our pearls before swine.
You can count on my standing with you. I and thousands of others who are coming to the place of no longer tolerating this assault on our heritage and our future. We are not requesting, but DEMANDING an end to the religion of Political Correctness on our campuses. We pay the taxes that pay your salary and fund these schools. We will not have them be used as weapons against us.
May God be with you.
Robert W. Whitaker
This best way I know of to give thanks for the blessings we’ve been given is to fight to keep them for our posterity. Thanks to all of my loyal readers for your support of WOL and Why Johnny Can’t Think. May God bless you and your families.
No sane person would write this blog. No sane human being would regularly comment on this blog.
That makes me proud.
In the article below I explained that, since HS is either a Bible-believing Christian who does not think that HS is the Voice of God, or HS must be a computer. I therefore refer to HS as “it.”
Richard L. Harrison is not a computer like HS and he is not basket case like me. Richard is a freak.
Richard knows what the Septuagint is, but he is a Bible-believing Christian. The first requirement for anybody who calls himself a Bible-believing Christian is that he does know that the last centuries of the Old Testament were written in Greek.
Even worse, Richard knows what Manichaeism is.
But it gets worse. Richard is not a Calvinist, but he has actually READ The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin’s tome.
The Institutes started small, but by the time Calvin died, it was ten thousand pages long.
I would not lie to you. I was in politics.
So if you read the blog and the comments, you will find we have a basket case, a computer and a freak.
If you keep commenting, you too will get an ego-boosting compliment just like Richard and HS got.
HS is a regular commenter here who is unique. He or she is a regular Bible Christian, but when I disagree with HS, HS doesn’t have a fit.
As soon as a person says his entire world view is based on God, we all stop talking to him and start humoring him. He is totally incapable of realizing that his world view is based on HIS OWN VIEW of God.
He thinks he IS God.
A person who says his entire world view is based on the Word of God is saying that he IS God, in exactly the same way that a judge who says he is “interpreting” the Constitution is saying that he IS the Constitution.
If you “interpret” the Constitution, you ARE the Constitution. If you interpret God, you ARE God. I said HS may be a he or she. It is also possible that HS is an IT.
How can a person who is convinced they represent God also be a reasonable person who can allow a heretic like me to disagree with the Voice of God? I never met a theologian like that. It is very hard to find a human who calls himself a Bible Christian who is like that.
This leads me to believe that HS is a computer. HS must be an IT.
The point of all this nonsense is to point out a fact we all know but nobody says. We are all terrified of trying to speak rationally with people who call themselves pro-lifers or Biblical Christians.
What I have just said is NOT limited to evangelical, “Bible-believing Christians. I have a cousin who is a very, very, very, very, VERY Modern United Methodist Minister. I simply cannnot get a straight answer from him.
I met with Michael Novak, the theologian of National Review, many years ago. He had written a book called The Unmeltable Ethnic, praising the conservative ethnic Catholics in America. He was the man who invented the term WASP, meaning White Protestant Anglo-Saxon. He was very famous.
I had worked in ethnic areas. I am an honorary Boston Southie. I lived in a campaign headquarters in the Polish steel district of Chicago. In most ways, they were just like us unapologetic Southerners.
Novak knew my history. So I asked him if what he called White Anglos-Saxon Protestants was really just what a Boston Southie would call a “Yankee,” a pro-busing suburban yuppie.
He said, “Yes.”
I pointed out that most of us Southerners are White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, so it was unfair to confuse us with the Yankee-type WASPs.
He said “Yes.”
It didn’t bother him in the slightest. A vicious insult to tens of millions of people would make a mere human feel guilty. But Novak is not a mere human. He is the Mouth of God.
In my opinion as a lifetime interrogator, every professional theologian I have ever met is a psychopath. The fact that Novak (Michael, not Robert) had flatly stated he was being unfair to tens of millions of Southerners was of no importance to him at all.
If Novak had said “Yankee” instead of WASP, he would not have been praised by National Review. National Review is an East Coast Catholic magazine. He told National Review and New York what they wanted to hear.
New York does not like white gentiles. National Review does not like Southerners. So Novak said what they wanted to hear.
As a theologian, it never occurred to Novak to worry about this. He is a theologian, the Voice of God Almighty.
So when one Southern redneck reminded him that he was committing a sin here, he almost laughed out loud.
My Bible says that what Novak did is a sin.
I think it’s called, “bearing false witness against thy neighbor.” But what does a ridiculous simplistic quote like that mean to a Great Theologian?
The Mouth of God is immune to illiterate, lay criticism like mine.
HS doesn’t seem to have that sort of immunity from giving a straight answer. All the people who tell me their beliefs are based on the Word of God feel that they are automatically exempted from answering any challenges from us mere humans.
But HS doesn’t.
HS has GOT to be a computer.
It is interesting that both of us have a similar view of education. (A mutual friend of ours in grad school) did what an “educated” man is supposed to do, he adopted all the attitudes and outlooks all the other “educated” people are required to have.
(This mutual friend was a Mississippi boy who became a good total liberal when he got his PhD).
The British educational system was aimed at making all Scotsmen and Welshmen into good Englishmen with the Etonian or Cambridge outlook. The aim of Medieval education was to make everybody a good Latin intellectual. They all adopted Latin names.
It is interesting how all Easterners agree with the idea that an “educated” person has to have a standard Yuppie attitude, which is what Eric Hoffer — back in 1950 — called “the European outlook.”
(Hoffer said New England, like Canada, was part of Europe, not America. Hoffer talked about what we have now finally seen as the “red” and “blue” states. But he was talking about them fifty years ago.)
(Please don’t ask me how you can find some of Eric Hoffer’s writings. You go to Yahoo and look under “Eric Hoffer”)
(Back to the e-mail I was quoting.)
But you and I came out of school exactly the same way we went in. For us education was a tool, not an indoctrination.
That is very American. We do not expect a person who trains to be carpenter to adopt “a carpentry world view.” Being an intellectual is to us just one more career choice.
But in the Middle Ages a person who learned to read was supposed to adopt a “literate” point of view. Nothing has changed — in Europe.
The (you) and Bob Whitaker who learned all that economics and history and mathematics are now (you) and Bob Whitaker who know a lot of economics and history and mathematics.
We could have learned carpentry or medicine. We chose another profession. That’s all.
Some nice person said that my correct opinions were so important that they hated to see me make a fool of myself by going into areas where I am ignorant.
They said I was underming my “authority.”
A lot of people spend their whole lives building up their “authority” on a certain subject. If anyone has another opinion on that subject, they say, “Who do you think you are?”
My reply is, “I am Bob Whitaker and I am MUCH smarter than you are.”
Then the battle begins.
Some people say I am conceited. They don’t know the half of it.
I do not like anybody talking about “undermining my authority” because I don’t NEED any authority. I will beat you on facts and I will beat you on logic, or I will lose out on facts and logic.
I am smart enough to win and courageous enough to lose.
I DESPISE the very smell of “authority.” If you have a statistical record of curing disease, you are a doctor. If you don’t, every degree and Nobel Prize in the world doesn’t mean a damned thing to me.
One question people ask when they are talking about conceit is:
“You think you’re smarter than anybody else, don’t you?”
Yes, I do.
“You think you’re right and everybody else is wrong, don’t you?”
Yes I do.
“You think the world is just black or white, right or wrong, don’t you?”
Exactly. You’ve read my mind.
And to all the other questions you might ask, the answer is yes.
I believe in the truth, not in Truth. There are a million Truths. There is only one truth.
These Truths that everybody capitalizes are Revelations declared by every schizophremic and sociopath who founds a sect. But in the real world, in the world of life, death, joy and misery, there are two kinds of statements:
1) Those that are right and,
2) Those that are wrong.
And yes, I think I am right and the others are wrong.
HS asked me if Jehovah knows everything.
HS also asked me to define Jehovism.
On the first point, John Calvin said both 1) God knows everything and, therefore, 2) God knew the fate of every future human being before He created them.
CS Lewis points out in his Screwtape Letters that God and Satan do not live in time the way man does. So in his theology, this simple cause-and-effect logic of Calvin would not work.
Calvin said God looks at time and knowledge the same way we do. Then he contradicted himself completely.
Calvin would have been on firmer ground if he had not gone on to JUSTIFY why God created humans to be damned.
Creating humans to spend eternity in despair and pain violates every concept of human justice. It also defied everything Jesus demanded of us.
If God used the same sense of justice Christ requires us to use, nothing would be more Satanic than creating people to be damned.
Remember, those who agree that Jehovah (JHWH) created men to be damned are the same people who object violently to the idea of creating even insensate embryos to be destroyed to help human beings. So we are forbidden to create totally unknowing embryos to be destroyed. But God’s creating humans for unending agony is just great.
So how did Calvin justify God’s creating humans to spend eternity in unimaginable agony?
He said God’s logic is not our logic. Calvin said that God does not look at reality the way we do. He said that to God Mercy means something entirely different from the mercy Christ talked about.
At the same time, Calvin’s whole theology is based on the idea that “knowledge” and “time” are exactly the same thing to God as they are to humans.
Does God see knowledge as we do? Does God see time as we do? You have to know all that in order to say whether, in OUR terms, “God knows everything.”
So Calvin said the logic of God is perfectly explicable in the case of predestination and totally opaque in the case of predestination.
Calvin was a genius. In my opinion Calvin was the greatest human theologian who ever lived. So how am I to question him?
In cases like this, I take the advice Jesus gave me. He faced the Sanhedrin, which held that God was to be explained by old men who knew the Old Testament, just as Calvin did.
Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to children. Children, like me, simply have no idea how the mind of God works. We have no idea whether the question, “Does God know everything?” means anything to God.
I do not know the mind of God. I don’t believe YOU know the mind of God.
Jesus gave me a tiny glimpse of God the Father, the God who was totally alien to the Old Testament experts, the men of the Sanhedrin who judged Him.
Jehovists, then and now, say that Jehovah gave theologians a total understanding of all there is to know about God the Father.
Which leads me to the definition of Jehovism. Jehovism is the Sanhedrin, the Communist theoretician, the Moslem Imam. The Jehovist’s cosmology comes from Karl Marx or Jehovah. To the Jehovist, seventy percent of the Bible is the Old Testament. To a Jehovist, every word of every Jewish prophet — if he spoke Hebrew — is as unerring as the words of Jesus.
Jehovism gets some really nasty conclusions from the Old Testament.
Jehovism says that you must kill witches.
Oops! Maybe that word meant “poisoner.”
Oh, well, these little problems happen.
Jehovists said the earth has to be the center of the universe, so they burned people who said otherwise.
If you read the New Testament, you would have real trouble burning heretics. Jesus said specifically that he and his disciples were NOT like those who said, “You are for me or you are against me.”
It takes a lot of the vengefulness of the Old Testament to cover up the words of Jesus, but it has always been done by both Catholics and Protestants. They both burned heretics:
“You are for me or you are against me.”
Both the Catholics and the Protestants of the religious wars were committed Jehovists, so the words of Jesus were buried in the “seventy percent of the Bible” that speaks of Jehovah.
Jehovism says that God has an endless hunger for praise. Jesus never once said we should praise the Lord.
Pagan gods had a hunger for praise. Jeus demanded that we love God, that we sincerely ask for His forgiveness.
That is NOT the message of the semi-pagan JHWH of the Old Testament. He wants what every pagan god wants.
The Jews got their higher ideas of God the Father, the God of Jesus, from Zoroastriansim. The Zoroastrian Magi accepted the same Christ that the Jews rejected.
In America, the Calvinist church of the pilgrims ended up rejecting Christ and becoming Unitarian. They dropped the thirty percent of the Bible in favor of the logic of the seventy percent.
To me, the Old Testament is the story of the road from paganism. To a Jehovist, the Old Testament is, from beginning to end, the same as the words of Christ.
Calvin was obsessed with the idea that God was the tribal Jehovah of the Jews. So he and Luther cut out the last four hundred years of the Old Testament because it was written in Greek, not in Hebrew.
Jehovism is the worship of the tribal God of the Jews. It looks at God, not as the Being of whom Jesus gave us a slight glimpse in the New Testament, but as a semi-pagan being whose entire personality is described in detail in the Old Testament.
But if God is nothing but the old JHWH, why didn’t Jesus just join the Sanhedrin? Why didn’t Jesus just quote the Old Testament instead of using it as background to His parables? Why were the Magi, who were totally ignorant of “seventy percent of the Bible,” the ones who accepted the Christ?
I accept the wisdom of Odinism as my Old Testament. I accept the pursuit of knowledge as the way I can do unto others as I would have them to do unto me. I can help the lame to walk only if I know the facts about legs and the spinal cord. Knowing the entire Old Testament backwards in Hebrew will not help anyone else.
But for the Jehovist, all that really matters is knowing the Old Testament as it was written in Hebrew.
I think that’s sick.
In an earlier article, I said that Wagner said that Odin gave an eye for love of his wife Freya.
People wrote back that I got the names wrong.
I was quoting Wagner.
I was quoting a romantic who got the whole thing wrong. No, Wagner did not know the proper names.
None of which is the point. I am too old to nitpick. I am not speaking from Authority as an Odinist theologian. I am saying that romantic Odinists are silly. I am saying that the real thought of the old German religion is fundamental to the entire basis of our going to the stars.
A good way not to get what I am talking about is to show off your knowledge of details.
People keep telling me not to discuss theology.
Well, you know how us kids are. The more people dictate at me about theology the more I think about it.
Speaking of kids, ever since I was a preteen, two questions in the Bible, far, far apart, have always struck me as twins:
“Am I my brother’s keeper?” and “What is truth?” I always felt of them as twins because:
1) Each was spoken directly to God:
2) Neither was answered by God; and
3) The reason that neither was answered by God was because they were not questions;
4) Each time the person “asking” the “question” was not asking, but desperately trying to wash his hands of murder.
What we call freedom is totally unromantic. Every time freedom is destroyed, that destruction is done in the name of True Freedom, with capital letters.
No more democratic constitution was ever written than Stalin’s Soviet Constitution of 1936. Every Soviet Republic was given the right to secede. Freedom of speech was guaranteed. Everybody voted in every election. In all the thousands of elections held in Communist countries, there was not one case in which less than 99% of the voters turned out.
North Korea once had an election in which it claimed a 100% turnout!
So every Communist country has Freedom and Democracy. That does NOT mean that you can just do what you want to do. Stalin’s freedom was trumped by Marxist Truth, by True Freedom.
Communism has been called the bastard child of Christianity.
That’s not true.
Actually Communism is the bastard child of Jehovism, not of Christ. The ancient Temple Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, the modern Marxist “theoretician” and the Islamic Imams think exactly the same way.
The essential difference between Western Civilization and the Middle East is that we seek knowledge and they seek Wisdom.
Wisdom is pure Revelation, something that is imposed regardless of the facts because it only exists in the mind of the person who thinks he owns God.
We don’t have most knowledge. But every one of a thousand sects, denominations and cults has a pure Revelation.
The only way to decide whose Revelation is right is war and persecution.
Our ancestors accepted the Gospel of Christ, and only then were they required to accept the entire load of Middle Eastern baggage that came with it. So if you were a Jew who rejected Christ, you were given the right to charge interest. If you had any other religion and rejected the Old Testament, you were burned alive.
Our ancestors were forced to accept the following hierarchy for the use of the human brain:
Above all, there is Wisdom, with a capital W. This Wisdom had no relation whatsoever to factual information. To put it as Emmanuel Kant said it when someone said his philosophy contradicted the facts, “So much the worse for the facts.”
If the facts indicated that the earth was not the center of universe you insisted that it wasn’t, you were burned alive.
Second in our hierarchy for the use of the human brain is the Truth, with a capital T. Once again, if the facts contradict Truth, those who insist on facts get burned alive. But Wisdom, capital W, trumps Truth. Great philosophers of the ancient world were considered to represent Truth, but if what they said contradicted the Scriptures, it was abandoned. The Truths of philosophers were overthrown by the Wisdom of revelation.
The philosophy of Aristotle was respected, and it was respected as Truth even where it was rejected in favor of Wisdom. The old philosophical Truths were respected as what great men thought before the Ultimate Wisdom came into the world by the Revelations of Old Testament prophets.
At the third level of our hierarchy of values is wisdom, with a small w. Old men have wisdom, and a young man who points at mere facts to contradict the wisdom of age or tradition is considered unwise.
Dead last in our hierarchy for the use of the human brain is truth, with a small t. This is just a matter of information, of facts. Simple facts are the lowest in our hierarchy of values. We fit facts into our framework of Wisdom, Truth and wisdom.
With this idea that Wisdom trumps Truth, Truth trumps wisdom and wisdom trumps truth, it is absolutely impossible for us to understand the Old Religion that is the basis of Western Civilization.
Woden of the Germans, Odin of the Norsemen, was the One-Eyed Father-God. Even the most dedicated person who champions Odinism never understands WHY Odin lost his other eye. Richard Wagner, who celebrated the old Germanic religion in his Neibelungenlied, said that Odin lost an eye for his love of his wife, the Goddess Freya.
Modern Odinists say that Odin lost an eye to obtain Wisdom.
The problem is that those who hark back to the adventurous lives of old Germans and the Vikings are romantics. For them it is blasphemy to think that the Father God would give an eye for anything less than romantic love or for True Wisdom.
If one knows the old religion, one offends today’s Odinist more than he offends Jehovists. What Odin gave his eye for brings him to down to the bottom of our mental hierarchy with a loud, dull THUMP!
Odin hung in pain on the world-tree, Yggsdrasil, and suffered and lost an eye in exactly the same way that Jesus hung on the cross. You say that you can understand why Jesus was easier for Odinists to accept. Naturally many have used that to reconcile Odinism with Jehovism.
It won’t wash. Odin suffered on the world tree as Jesus suffered on the cross, but Jehovism was altogether different.
So why did Odin hang on the World Tree?
Odin suffered on the World Tree to know some more facts, simple information, simple truth. Odin, the Father-God, hung there to LEARN.
This throws our Jehovist minds into total confusion. In the Middle East, the definition of God is that He already KNOWS everything.
When the Moslems conquered Persia the first thing they did was to burn all the old writings in the Persian script and all the books of the old religion, Zoroastrianism. When the question came up of what to do with all those writings by philosophers and all that information on the Far East and the history of Persia, the Imams agreed on this point:
“Those writings that are true are already contained in the Koran and the Old Testament. Those that contain anything that is not in the Koran are untrue and dangerous. We do not need what is already the Koran. What is not in the Koran is unnecessary or dangerous.”
So they burned it all.
This was not an idea that the Islamic Imams invented. The reason hieroglyphics suddenly became a forgotten form of writing the minute Christianity took over was because knowledge of hieroglyphics was forbidden and mountains of papyruses were burned.
And, indeed, it was said, “Those writings that are true are already contained in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Those that contain anything that is not in the Old Testament are untrue and dangerous. We do not need what is not already in the Bible. What is not in the Bible is untrue and dangerous.”
This quote is just a few words off. It is probably no accident that the two statements were the same, though they were uttered four centuries apart. Every country that became Moslem was required to adopt Arabic script. Yiddish is old German and Slavic, but it is written in Hebrew script.
The Middle East requires the destruction of anything that is not in the Holy Script. American Indian writings were burned when the conquistadores took over America. Everything that needs to be knows is already part of Wisdom, and it is already written down in the Holy Script.
Rule One for every form of Jehovism is that God, by definition, knows everything. God IS Wisdom, and Wisdom stands above Truth, worldly wisdom and, most of it, Towers above mere factual information.
So absolutely nobody understands how the Father God could hang on the World Tree and suffer for mere factual information.
And the entire history of Western Civilization is the slow, agonizing triumph of the search for mere truth against the Middle Eastern mentality.
And that, not the Ten Commandments, is the entire foundation of Western Civilization.
Richard was talking about he would like to make comments, but he was often worried about getting his spelling and his grammar right.
Let me tell you a little story.
When I was doing press conferences for coal miners and Boston Southies and Louisville electrical workers and farmer’s strikes and stopped up the whole city of Washington with Independent Truckers, I was all they had.
Try to understand our position: We didn’t HAVE anybody but me. On one side was the entire journalistic and educational establishment.
Conservatives denied having anything to do with these anti-busing Southies, these wildcatting coal miners. To keep their place in the spotlight, to make their livings, respectables had to stay away from these “ignorant fanatical Catholics and backwoods fundamentalists.”
I was ALL they had.
I was country when country DEFINITELY wasn’t cool.
I am the single biggest reason why country in politics IS cool.
But back then there was only one person who called them up and said, “We have a professional journalist, a legal secretary and a professional political writer. We’re providing anything you need free. We’ll be where you need us to be. What do YOU, repeat YOU, want?”
The professional political writer was me. It was far more a matter of guts than credentials. I had written a big political book with a Foreword by the publisher of National Review. I was published in National Review. My book had been recommended for purchase by the Library Journal.
Publisher’s Weekly gave me rave reviews, so did Kirkus, so did the New York Times Review of Books.
All that sounded great, and I was right out there on the streets and in the fight.
I was a former professor. But a total rebel like me had no credentials to compare with anybody in the media or even the conservative elite.
But I was ready to tie up the whole city of Washington in a traffic jam. I was willing to knock a cop out cold who was beating women in a march in Louisville. The only reason I wasn’t officially arrested was because I would have held a press conference that would have embarrassed the Louisville police to death.
Back to the basic point: I was ALL we had. So we inflated my credentials to the sky. If you read what we wrote about this spokesman Robert Whitaker, you would think I had turned down a dozen Nobel Prizes because I was too brilliant to bother.
I was ALL we had, so we made me big stuff.
The problem is that some of our own people believed our propaganda.
Think about that a minute and then you will understand the experience I want to tell you about.
I was talking to an old hard-nosed coal miner who was a fighting leader in the battle against filthy textbooks in Kanawha County, West Virginia. He was trying to talk to me, but he had heard all of OUR propaganda about me. He couldn’t talk because he worried he would use bad grammar and sound ignorant.
It was HORRIBLY frustrating for me! I wanted to hear what he had to say. He was having a case of stage fright with this galvanized god we called Bob Whitaker we had created to deal with the other side.
This man was a hero. The last time I saw him afterwards we were taking him to get his hand fixed after he had thrown his fist out of joint knocking the hell out of a guy who had crossed his picket line.
This man had saved lives down in the mines.
The FBI tried to frame this man when somebody set off a bomb to knock in a school door one Sunday — I assume FBI plants had done this harmless thing. When the FBI picked him up for it, he laughed. He told them:
“I’ve been dealing with high explosives in mines all my life. If I had set off that much explosive, the hill that school was standing on wouldn’t be there, much less the school.”
He was a better man than I will ever be. He was what I lived to represent.
This was the man who was worried about his GRAMMAR talking to this demigod we had created against our enemies named Bob Whitaker.
I was looking him straight in the eye as he struggled trying to talk to me. I was thinking, “Don’t be a fool.” The whole point of pumping me up was so I could represent YOU. YOU are what I am about. I’m smarter than THEY are, and I can take that whole crowd on for YOU. To them, I am a guy who was taught by two Nobel-Prize-winning economists. To you I’m Bob from Pontiac, South Carolina.”
I was begging him to TALK to me.
Damn it, gang, TALK to me.
There is not a modest bone in my body. I AM a genius. I was born with one hell of a brain, and I scare our enemies because I am so smart I can laugh them to shame. I am at so high a level that a PhD or a big-time news anchor doesn’t mean a thing to me.
When I attacked William Buckley he was afraid to face me.
I am one hell of a weapon for you.
The greatest compliments I have received were these:
1) At a joint march between West Virginia textbook protestors and Boston and Louisville anti-bussers I had organized, where thousands of working people came to Washington at their own expense, a West Virginia coal miner was talking to the Boston crowd. He was wondering why the Boston crowd had such a big fight about who would be their representative at the joint press conference I had arranged. As I walked up, I heard him say:
“Whitaker speaks for us, and he’s not even a hick.”
Coal miners don’t just say, “He speaks for us.” If you are from outside their territory, West Virginians don’t trust you, much less say you speak for them.
That made the whole thing worthwhile.
I am the only Honorary Boston Southie you will ever meet. Southie is NOT a trusting place. But he used my name because it carried a lot of weight in Southie.
He hadn’t seen me walking up. I LOVED that.
I am so smart I don’t have to take those guys with the credentials seriously. Give me a chance to face them and I’ll make them look like the fools they are. Not one of them is about to face me.
I scare Alan Colmes to death. I scare Hannity to death. I’ve talked to them both.
Bill O’Reilly is a moron compared to me. You can use me to take our enemies or our wimps apart and they KNOW it.
I take YOU seriously.
I was a professional interrogator. I will figure out what you are telling me.
I’m REAL smart, remember?
I am also 63 years old. I will not do you any good if you don’t TALK to me.
Dammit, gang, TALK to me!
On Thanksgiving I am stuck between people who deny history and people who get history wrong.
According to the Thanksgiving theory, the Pilgrim Fathers founded America in November of 1620. Each November we celebrate that piece of pure unmitigated hunk of equine fecal output.
Then there are those who say Thanksgiving has nothing to do with thanking God.
These are two groups of driveling morons. It is exactly like today’s political “debate.” We have arguments between idiotic liberals and moronic respectable conservatives. How am I to choose between two groups of people who are not even within a country mile of anything resembling reality?
Jimbo tells me repeatedly, and probably correctly, that my ignorant comments on theology make me look foolish. He is kind enough to say that my comments on other matters are often brilliant, but my ignorant ramblings on theology undermine my authority.
Jimbo is worried because he thinks the points I do make on matters I know about are important. He does not want people to lose faith in them because I make stupid remarks in other areas. I appreciate his concern.
But the blog is precisely where my little clique gathers. This is the place I CAN make a clown of myself.
When I opened the Comments section of the blog, I dropped some responsibility on YOUR shoulders.
In the blog, my ignorance is as important as my knowledge. My ignorance is the ignorance of a lot of people. I don’t say anything that has not occurred to others. If I say things that need correcting, it is up to YOU to correct me.
When this blog started, I put this in caps:
DO NOT HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING I SAY IN MY BLOG.
Let me repeat that, since my putting this in shouting all-caps doesn’t seem to have sunk in:
DO NOT HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING I SAY IN MY BLOG.
The blog is not a class. The blog is a seminar. This is an old man meandering through his thoughts. You can learn from that. An intelligent person can get a lot out of what I say. But what you get out of it is up to you.
But this is where I learn, too.
I want to have a place where I can make a fool of myself.
This is what us Southerners call “porch talk.”
When I was in college, many people would say, “I got my real education in the bull sessions.”
This is the bull session.
This is the porch talk.
A man who thinks he knows everything will never learn anything. All my life I have found that the most important things I learned I discovered by making a fool of myself.
It is amazing. You can sit down with an Authority on any subject and ask respectful, diplomatically-worded questions and he will give you carefully worded almost-replies. You won’t learn a thing from him that he has not already written for publication.
But if you make a flat statement that hits his sore point, he will dump everything he knows on you. He will get back to basics. He considers you a fool, and he wants to prove it.
Many an Authority HAS made a fool of me.
But I don’t mind at all. I am not worried about how I look. I am listening carefully to the basics he is talking about that he would NEVER have gotten into if I had been respectful.
My strategy is to make it perfectly clear that he is dealing with an over-educated redneck from Pontiac, South Carolina. And when I make the flat statement that infuriates him, he realizes I am not just being modest.
He goes ballistic, and he tells me what I want to know.
I call this moral courage.
If you are afraid of being made a fool of by The Great Man, then you will get nothing out of talking to The Great Man. You should stop talking to him personally and just read what he wrote.
None of the Great Men I ever talked to ever got bored. They either really can’t give me the basic answers I wanted or they go away feeling satisfied that they showed that moron what a fool he was.
Meanwhile, said moron has gotten exactly what he wanted.
Unlike the Great Man, I know that I will always be a fool. But I hope to be the fool you need.
I want to be a good fool.
I want to be God’s Fool.
A little child thinks that since he can’t see you when he closes his eyes that means you can’t see him. That game is called peek-a-boo.
We were all raised with “don’ts.” We learned that morality consists of NOT doing things. So if we DON’T do things, we are guiltless.
Our legal system has gone nuts about this.
“I would rather let a hundred guilty men go than convict one innocent man.” All my life that was the motto of American justice.
Only lately have we begun to realize that if you let ninety-nine guilty men back out on the street, you will kill more than one inocent person.
You voted not to convict because you did not want to “play God.” If you give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, you did not give some innocent person whom that person will kill the benefit of the doubt.
You have played God.
When you say, “I would rather let ninety-nine guilty people go than convict one innocent person,” you are really saying, “I would rather let ninety-nine people I CAN SEE go than to convict one innocent person I CAN SEE.”
The reason? You can’t SEE the people those ninety-nine felons will kill.
That game is called peek-a-boo.
When you decide against stem cell research, you are not innocent. Embryonic stem stem cell research may be useless. But you can SEE the stem cell you destroy. If you don’t destroy it, it will either 1) die on its own or 2) not be created at all.
So, if You don’t do it, you are not responsible for the results, right?
The power comes with the territory.
As I have pointed out in WhitakerOnline, the Oriental version of the Golden Rule is totally different from ours. The Oriental version says, “Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT have them do unto you.”
My Golden Rule says, “DO unto others as you WOULD have them do unto you.”
My Golden Rule makes me fully responsible for all the power I have. This is what frustrates and infuriates many people about my refusal to simply condemn stem cell research and forget it. This is what frustrates and infuriates people about my refusal to simply condemn capital punishment.
“Bob,” they say, “just let it go.”
But I repeat what Martin Luther said, “Here I stand. I can do nothing else.”
Science is forcing power on us.
I, for myself, cannot play peek-a-boo with it.
Here I stand. I can do nothing else.
Just a note.
I was watching someone talking about the punishment of the basketball players who ran up in the stands and beat fans. One of the fans involved was being interviewed. He was asked by Greta Sustern about whether a particular player was “punished enough.”
He went into the usual routine:
“I am not the commissioner. I don’t make decisions like that …”
And so on and so on. A lot of people quote the Bible or say, “I don’t play God.”
But what if you DO have to “play God?”
Think about it.
All this talk about theology reminds me of one of my favorite jokes.
A brand new theology student started praying one night. He prayed about mankind, he prayed about each particular sin. Then he started praying for each country.
After about two hours, when he got to his thirty-third country, he hears a Voice from Above that said,
“You go to bed, son. I’ll take back over now.”
I misstated Richard’s position on Jews being especially saved.
As Jimbo says, I am an idiot on theology.
We really do need a discussion on why Jesus didn’t speak Persian in Israel, though.
I wouldn’t touch theology if people stopped preaching at me. But if you reserve the right to preach creationism or on stem cells or Holy Israel, I am going to preach back.
If you don’t want me to talk religion at you, you don’t have a license to preach at me.
They are closing down the old mental hospital, the “State Hospital” as it was euphemistically called, in Columbia. So much for all those people who said I would end up there.
I’ll have to go to the new one. I hear they make house calls.
The State Hospital was opened around 1830, but this particular building was built around the turn of the century (for some reason, South Carolina had the first state-sponsored insane asylum in the United States).
And up there on the building, in concrete, is the word “Asylum.”
In 1900, the word “Asylum” was Politically Correct. Instead of the “madhouse,” where mad people were kept from harming the public, it was an “asylum,” a place of refuge, for insane people, which was the Politically Correct word for people who were not sane, instead of “madmen.” Today the term “insane asylum” is right up there with the N word, so seeing it in concrete on the old building was sort of nostalgic.
Today P0litical Correctness is trying to remove the words “Anno Domini” and “Before Christ.” As always with today’s Political Correctness, the problem with those words is not that they are factually incorrect, but because they state the exact truth.
Our New Year began with an attempt to date the birth of Christ. 2004 means, literally, The Year of Our Lord, “Anno Domini.” Years before AD were called Before Christ because that’s exactly what they were.
Political Correctness must change that. So they came up with two substitutes:
BCE = Before the Common Era and 2) CE = Common Era
We’ve been down this road before. In 1830 slaveholders in Augusta, Georgia were correcting an Englishman who referred to “blacks” and said the correct word was “negro,” which means black in Spanish.
In 1905 the correct word was “colored people,” as in The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The first major indoctrination campaign of the NAACP was to force people to use the word “N” and above all to capitalize it. The term white, they said, was not to be capitalized because that is racist.
Then we went through black and African-American.
The term that is out of date this year labels you as anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
But once the present campaign has beaten everybody into shape and made saying BC and AD as Nazi as saying C…mas, someone is going to start thinking about the term “Common Era.”
WHOSE “Common Era?” This is s not the JEWISH year 2004. This is not the CHINESE year 2004. This is not the MOSLEM year 2004.
As a matter of fact, BCE and CE are right back where we started. They just say that the white European year is now everybody’s common year. So a new campaign will begin.
People make a living with this nonsense.
We are running out of alphabet.
First there was the N word. Then there was the L word, either “lie” or “liberal”. Then came the F word. The courts have declared the G word unconstitutional in public places.
You know, the G as in “In G… We Trust.
We are now face to face with the C word.
You know, as in C…mas.
C…mas is outlawed so we use “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings.”
Nobody objects to celebrating New year’s because it is just the beginning the beginning of a new year’s beginning on January 1,2005 Anno Dom…
Oops, I mean, Common Era.