Archive for February, 2005
I talked below about my sister who moved into a rich community and began to denounce guns. I warned her that criminals LOVE an area that has plenty to steal and has no guns. As I explained, two black thugs went right into my sister’s house and beat up both her and her husband.
They got beat up because they fought back.
But after that incident my sister, having a healthy mind, immediately changed her whole attitude about guns.
She said so. She didn’t act like she was right all along. She just said she was wrong.
So what? We’re all wrong a lot.
The reason I bring this up is because I just called her and she reminded me of an incident I had forgotten. She’s my sister, and she is every bit as bashful as I am about admitting it when she makes a mistake.
The incident was this: before she moved into the wealthy community, her husband was abroad and she was worried about some men who were coming around to her house too often.
So she called me and said, “Bob, sleep here a couple of nights and bring your gun with you.”
I slept there a couple of nights and I brought my gun with me. I seem to remember her dealing with those guys downstairs while me and my gun were upstairs.
A protected woman is different from an unprotected woman. My sister is dangerous enough unprotected. With an armed brother upstairs she is enormously convincing.
My sister sent me on home. I had served my purpose.
And if I can serve that purpose again, I will be there in a flash.
I love it. I love facing bullies down.
I have bragged before that I once knocked a cop out cold who was beating women in an anti-busing march and they didn’t dare arrest me. I sort of wanted them to arrest me.
Every male reader will understand this:
I wanted it on record that I had coldcocked that SOB, truncheon and all.
But I was the publicity man for the march. Nobody in Louisville wanted to announce that I had knocked a cop out cold who was beating on women.
I was relieved that they didn’t arrest me. You carry any arrest throughout your life. But I also wanted it on the record that I coldcocked that SOB.
I HATE bullies.
And I want the world to know it.
My replies are marked “BOB” below:
I haven’t read any of the twin studies, but I religiously read every reunited-twins article I could get my hands on back in the ’80s. In some of these, it turned out that the boys’ girlfriends had the same first names! And that was just one item in a _long_ list of identical facts in their lives.
BOB: I pointed out that I saw those studies come to an abrupt end. Phil Donahue was interviewing a man who had reunited identical TRIPLETS separated at birth. They had been adopted into Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish families respectively and their environment was different in every way.
BOB: So the man who brought them together was reciting how exactly alike they were in every way despite their upbringing, and Donahue said, “So that proves heredity is more important than environment?”
BOB: The man reacted as if he had been slapped in the face. He knew that the next thing Donahue would do was to compare him to anaziwhowantedtokillsixmillionjews. HITLER was for heredity!
BOB: Those studies ended that day.
Action is being taken to correct the homosexuality problem.
BOB: They SAY it is being straightened out. Given the Church’s inaction on molestation before, I wouldn’t believe it.
BOB: There is an old saying: “By their works ye shall know them.”
Some Catholic dioceses are better than others about that: dioceses where the selection criteria are rigorous in order to screen out the homosexuals are the dioceses with _no_ recruitment problems. And bishops are being informed by both Rome and their laity and clergy that they’d better pay more attention to their priestly role than to their administrative functions.
There are some catches in the Protestant denominations, from Baptists to Episcopalians. Funny thing – there’s a flurry when they catch the malefactor, then the story, if it surfaces afterwards, almost always turns up as an itty-bitty item on page 27A (or the TV and radio equivalent).
People don’t understand that _anyone_ who works with children can be an abuser. There are some potentially _huge_ scandals in the public schools here in the U.S. And a lot of superintendents are used to playing musical teaching positions with their rotten apples.
BOB: You know my stand on professors. I would jail any of those superintendents without parole for life, too.
BOB: But two wrongs don’t make a right. The Pope has set the precedent whereby those who cause boy-molesting are totally unpunished if they are of high rank.
BOB: I cannot imagine anything more blatantly immoral than that. This senile Pope makes the Borgias look good.
Scott made some excellent points about my last blog entry, “Men and Women.”
Before I get to his points, I want to quote one statement he made:
“I believe some people could even have a higher tendency to murder.”
They do. Identical twins who were adopted by widely different parents at birth tended to commit the same crimes at the same age, and that can’t be a result of their environments.
Identical twins have identical genes. They even have the same fingerprints. So the ideal way of testing heredity versus environment is by tracking the many identical twins who were adopted into entirely different environments at birth.
Plenty of this has been done. Have you noticed that you NEVER hear about those studies?
If ANY of those studies came out in favor of environment over heredity, if ANY of them did, you would hear about that study every day. You don’t EVER hear about ANY of them.
Falwell, Robertson and the rest say homosexuality cannot be inherited because it is a sin, an act of will. As Scott points out, those same preachers insist that man is born of a sinful nature.
But these “Christians” are not satisfied with saving souls. They have to dictate cosmology and say the world was created in six days. They have to dictate medical research by saying a fertilized egg is as important as a five-year-old child. And they have to dictate genetics, too.
As to Scott’s point about boy-molesting priests, every all-male community fosters boy molesting. In the Victorian all-male “public” (meaning private) schools, almost every Senior Boy had a young bed-mate.
But a priest only molested little boys personally. Every Catholic bishop knew that some bishops were causing THOUSANDS of little boys to be molested by transferring boy-molesters from church to church. The bishops who knew about it, and ALL of them did, were as guilty as the bishops who did it, and those bishops were worse than the priests who did the molestation.
The entire Catholic episcopacy deserved life without parole.
Great Blog entry. Just a comment on homos…
Where Falwell, Robertson, et al go wrong is that even if homosexuality were inherited, and in some cases the tendency might be, it would still be a sin. They spend so much time insisting it’s not inherited, but out of the other corner of their mouth they say we are born with a sin nature, which is true. Everyone has a weakness. Everyone has a sin nature. I believe some people could even have a higher tendency to murder. Does this mean they will inevitably murder someone? Perhaps they have a hot temper and have a hard time controlling themselves. This doesn’t excuse them for murder… they would still go to jail. Not all hot-tempered people kill.
Why are so many priests child molesters? Could it be that many homos who want to repress their nature join the priesthood because of Catholicism’s arcane rules against priest marriage and, since they wouldn’t marry anyway, want to try and serve God that way? Some would naturally stray and, like many homos, their true nature would come out in the form of child molestation? Some might stay true and repress it all their lives, staying celibate, and good for them if they do! But either way, there is no excuse for homosexuality. They should still go to jail.
In a world gone mad, I have to keep stating what should be obvious.
This makes me feel a little crazy myself.
Anyway, here’s another point that should be obvious to a sane person:
The whole point of men and women is the children.
John Galbraith, a leading liberal, talked about “The Higher Economic Role of Women.”
In my review of his book in National Review, I suggested that he write a book entitled, A Higher Role Than Economics.
Oddly enough, Galbraith never replied to this suggestion.
Like all liberals and respectable conservatives Galbraith insisted that intelligent white women should dedicate their lives to being economic units.
Like all liberals and respectable conservatives, Galbraith felt that economically productive women should not be wasted producing children. We could IMPORT children from the third world.
Why not? According to liberal and respectable conservative theology, all children are equal. It’s all a matter of Conditioning. So why not let smart white women be Economic Producers while we bring in adopted third world children to be Conditioned Americans?
If they learn the Bible, who cares what color they are?
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson agree that nothing can be inherited. They say God says so. They have both said over and over that if a tendency to homosexuality were inherited, homosexuality would not be a sin.
So God says there can be no inherited tendency toward homosexuality.
All the “Christians” tell us that there is nothing more Holy than adopting third world children. I insist that they have no right to do this, because they have no right to give away the country that belongs to white children.
Nobody will allow that point of view to be aired publicly, least of all the “conservative Christians.” So intelligent white women are either Economic Units or conduits for teaching the Bible.
What they are not is the mothers of a new generation of white children.
And, say liberals and respectable conservatives, the job of every man is to insist on this.
But the purpose of men and women is children, children who look like them.
There is nothing theoretical about heredity and environment. There is nothing theoretical about Wordism.
Wordism is genocide, and it makes no difference at all what the Word is.
This is a bit of institutional memory. I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m bragging, but I did spend fifty years in this fight, and I did do a lot of things.
I introduced Sam to Donald I. Warren’s book, Middle American Radicals (MARs).
In fact, Warren wrote the book because of me! Warren was a committed liberal, but he wrote Middle American Radicals because of a joint march in Washington, DC of anti-busing protestors and West Virginia textbook protestors. It was a grassroots solidarity march against the education establishment.
Warren’s book, Middle American Radicals, began with a description of that joint march.
Guess who thought of that joint march? Guess who spent months putting it together ?
Ole Bob. I had lunch with Warren when he came to DC.
Then, in 1982, I conceived and put together The New Right Papers for St. Martin’s Press, in my own name for once. Sam as always was ready to help, so I assigned him an article to be called, “Message from MARs” based on Warren’s idea of a populist revolt.
Sam did an excellent piece for the book on MARs. But he did a LOT more. As I keep telling my book team, nothing makes me happier than someone who takes an idea I give them and runs with it.
My motto for those who work with me has always been:
“I have three rules:
1) Do it
2) Do it -and
3) Do it.”
If you are working under me and screw up, I can take the heat.
Sam wasn’t working under me. Sam only worked under Sam. But he took the MARs concept and made it his own. He gave it a meaning I could not have conceived of.
You can get hold of The New Right Papers through inter-library loan or at any college library. It’s under my name. You can get a used copy cheap at Amazon or any other Internet bookseller. Sam’s article, “A Message From MARs,” is worth the price or trouble.
Bob, do YOU believe what Sam Francis supposedly may have said as quoted by a WN leader?
“Sam fearlessly grasped the racial issue from which so many, who knew better, shied away. He knew that we have less than 50 years to save North America from a successful Third World invasion which will engineer our minority status and our eventual replacement.”
Prophecy is a dangerous game to be sure for any of us. When you’re human, there are countless factors and intervening acts that affect any predictions, things no man has any control over at all.
I do not believe this. We may be deep into a bloody war within 50 years, but I don’t know of very many bi-racial couples, and ones I do know, or know of, have few, if any, children. Some have zero because they don’t want them to have to “exist in this hostile, racist world.” Which still equals not that many mixed-race people out of 6 or 7 billion people worldwide.
Musings to be sure.
Sam may have said that in a column. Those of us who write a lot have said almost everything. But Sam and I thought alike in almost everything, and we both despised the Panic Deadline.
I remember a lady who said in 1960 that no political planning mattered beyond the 1960 election. She said that if John Kennedy, a Catholic, won that election there would never be another election in America.
Every four years we heard, “This is the critical election in history. Nothing else matters.”
A lot of people make their living screaming about some Panic Deadline. It is a great fund-raising tool.
It is also immoral and just plain evil.
Sam and I were political STRATEGISTS. That meant that people who set Panic Deadlines rejected every bit of real, long-term planning we tried to do.
Fifty years from today, no matter what happens,the world will still be here. Fifty years from today, no matter what happens, our children will have to live in that world. Anybody who gives up on the world fifty years from now abandons them.
I am not about to do that. Sam was not about to do that.
Sam did not believe in a Panic Deadline four years from now or fifty years from now.
In fact, Sam would tell you that only an weakling and an idiot believes in ANY Panic Deadline.
From Middle American News
“Our allies in Europe.”
Our allies against WHAT?
Back when the Europeans were gracious enough to let us protect them from the Soviet Union at our own expense, the term “allies” was pretty silly. But what is this “allies” bit today?