Simplism
Posted by Bob on June 27, 2005 at 1:01 am
Filed Under How Things Work | 3 Comments »
In his Foreword to my book, Joe Sobran said I could use a few more statistics and citations. Others have criticized me for a lack of citations.
You would be stunned if you knew how many citations I could quote. Someone just explained to me about the Cathari. I have read tracts about the Cathari, many of which claim that they did not believe what they were accused of believing.
When the debate over race comes up, I have read it ALL. So I could spout the whole wealth of evidence on my side and the others could do what they always do, shout “racist” and cite Recognized Authorities.
I am 64 years old and I don’t get paid for this, so I don’t play that game any more.
Everybody calls me “simplistic.” I would love to found a school of philosophy called “Simplism.”
So instead of repeating the mountains of information on race, I go back to what everybody is arguing about. They all agree that brown countries are poor and stagnant.
The “racists” then try to explain why black countries are stagnant and the anti-racists get paid to prove, brown country by brown country, that this is all a gigantic, consistent accident. The citations on both sides are endless.
I’ve read them, and I don’t want to be one more citer of citations.
So I return to the original point that both sides agree on, the one they are arguing about:
Brown-skinned countries are stagnant. Putting it that bluntly upsets the “scientific racists” every bit as much as it does the anti-racist. They want to prove it is true by EXPLAINING it.
I just go back to the fact that it is true. I go back to the fact that the anti-racists are betting the entire future of the human race on the idea that this is an accident.
I say that is bad. I say that is evil.
And I have not used a single citation to prove how smart I am or how learned I am.
Before Western Science, every society had a complete explanation for everything. So they asked no further questions and they went nowhere.
In Western Science, “one experiment is worth a hundred Expert Opinions.” In other words, no matter how many citations you have, you are just citing people. Every confident man, including every priest of all the Old Religions, had a motto: “Things are not as they appear.”
All of them made a great living by saying that and their societies stagnated.
It may be God or it may be evolution, but something gave us eyes and those eyes were given us for a very good reason. If you got into an airplane and the pilot said, “I am flying this plane entirely on the principle that things are not as they appear,” the passengers would panic.
But those same passengers always listen to people who want to lead them on the same basis. Those people give them endless citations and Words of Wisdom. Those people reject the simplistic notion that a fact is a fact and that the person who ignores it PAYS for it, big time.
After all these years of education and reading about everything you can cite, I have concluded that what is true is true.
I am a Simplist.
About Bob’s Blog
Posted by Sys Op on June 26, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Filed Under Blasts from the Past, Bob, How Things Work, Musings about Life | 6 Comments »
Reminder:
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.
There Bob Goes Again!
Posted by Bob on June 26, 2005 at 10:54 am
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »
There Bob Goes Again!
Mark thanked me for getting off religion. Just like the time I went off on Zoroastrianism I have been arguing religion and, as Mark put it, putting him to sleep the way sermons did when he was a child forced to go to church.
My apologies again. The problem is that I am a Bible Belter, and we used to talk about the Bible around the dinner table the way Yankees just naturally talk about …
Well, whatever Yankees talk about.
By the way, in Canada the courts have ruled that you are only allowed to quote Politically Incorrect passages from the Bible in the home or in a church. Quote them elsewhere and you are arrested.
In case you think they’re joking, a CATHOLIC BISHOP was arrested in Canada for the offense of quoting those non-PC parts of the Bible outside his church and outside a home. I reported on that earlier.
I have yet to hear any outrage expressed by church “leaders,” Catholic or Protestant, in the United States.
But none of this is an excuse for me to bore readers.
I got frozen out of the Traditional Christianity group on Stormfront for my views, but it served one excellent purpose.
People have STOPPED throwing THEIR VERSION of God at me.
Oddly enough, the result of my beating that issue has been that others have stopped beating it in my presence.
In that sense, I am a bit like Mark. When I do a lot of work, and it is work, to boil a political issue down to its essentials, I want people to read what I just said CAREFULY before they go off on some tangent.
And I want THEM to WRITE their thoughts on what I say. What I do NOT want is to read some quote from somebody generally relating to what I said. And the easiest way to quote something and seem profound is to copy something out of the Old Testament.
That is SO tiresome!
Everything goes into politics, your version of religion, including your atheism, your pet peeves from childhood, being raised around the group that calls itself The Greatest Generation as I was. I spend a lot of time picking real politics out of my pet peeves.
Believe me, it is always a temptation, when I have an audience, to drift off into my pet peeves and get off the subject we have in common, the subject I am there to discuss.
So it is not too surprising that I tend to drift off into religion.
Please understand that I am not Pope Robert I or Professor Whitaker or any other Voice of God. Almost every single fault I denounce is the direct result of the fact that I have committed those errors repeatedly and very seldom is my cure permanent.
If I denounce it, chances are you’ll catch me doing it myself.
6/25/05 Bob’s Weekly WOL Articles
Posted by Sys Op on June 25, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Filed Under WOL Weekly Articles | 1 Comment »
Weekly WhitakerOnline.org Articles
June 25, 2005
Castles in the Air
One Castle Just Fell
No Show
Why the Whole Thing Looks Different to Me
Fun Quote:
“The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a “C” the idea must be feasible.”
– A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service.
Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.
.
Using Time
My internet radio program this week is about the fact that the Soviet castle in the sky fell, and the American castle in the sky is ready to go, too.
It is called “Idiocracy.”
America’s established religion, Political Correctness, is sitting on nothing. It is made up of mindless, bureaucratic fools who have promoted each other to titles that sound great, but mean nothing.
They are living on inertia, just like the Soviet Union did for so long. Only a cold-blooded murderer like Lenin or Trotsky or Stalin and finally Brezhnev could keep the system going by terror.
Nobody believed in any of that Marxist nonsense anymore than anybody really believes in Political Correctness today. All they have left is a more subtle form of terror. They can get you fired. They can withhold a college degree.
Outside the United States, this terror is less subtle. You say the wrong thing and you go to prison, though a much nicer prison than the Gulag. Under capitalism you are ruined professionally instead of being sent to Siberia.
Each system that is run by mindless go-alongs and which does not work must base its power on its own form of terror.
No one predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire.
No one is predicting the fall of Political Correctness.
That is because the people who get paid to do all the public predicting assume the system they are studying rests on something.
But the Soviet system rested on nothing.
The same is true of our present system.
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
One Castle Just Fell
The reason that the USSR fell is because it was sitting on nothing.
Not one single professional Sovietologist, not one, had any inkling that the USSR and its empire were about to collapse.
I have looked it up, and not one single “expert” had the slightest inkling that this was about to happen. Almost every time I mention this fact the person I am talking to says he heard about somebody who predicted it. I asked for a citation.
No citation.
I have searched.
Let me repeat this:
Not one single expert on the Soviet Union, who got paid the big bucks to know all about the Soviet Empire, had the slightest idea that the whole thing was about to go down.
What happens to a business consultant if he hasn’t the slightest inclination that his client’s competition is about to go under?
Every single one of those experts, inside and outside of government and the universities, cost thousands of dollars to “educate” and they all got paid good money.
They ALL failed.
Completely. Utterly. Inexcusably.
So what happened?
They all kept their jobs and most of them have been promoted since. All of them will get great pensions for the job they didn’t do.
We have plenty of experts on every aspect of our ruling religion, just as the Soviets did. But what was clear to Yeltsin, that the system was built on nothing, was something no expert INSIDE the USSR would be allowed to hint at.
And our experts OUTSIDE the system were just as oblivious to the fact that the Soviet Emperor had no clothes.
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
No Show
In 1982, anyone who said the USSR was about to fall would have been laughed out of the room.
But what happened when the pressure was on was a game of dominoes:
1) Gorbachev renounced the terror that had kept the USSR going since Lenin’s Red Terror in 1918.
2) Suddenly people started saying what everybody was thinking, “This system is silly, is childish, the dream of a bunch of professors who never did a day’s work in their lives.”
3) People began to QUESTION. And that was the end.
Suddenly the Republics like Estonia and Ukraine started saying, “Why SHOULDN’T we be independent?”
People started asking, “Why are all other WHITE countries rich and we live at a level a third-world country would consider embarrassing?” The Confederate flag started showing up.
We all remember the crisis when Gorbachev was arrested and Yeltsin took his stand on top of a tank.
We all remember waiting for the Soviet Army to show up.
It never showed up.
NOBODY believed in the System. The Emperor was as naked as plucked chicken and had been for years.
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
Why the Whole Thing Looks Different to Me
Everybody else sees Political Correctness as a giant, unbelievably powerful monolith. Which is exactly how the USSR looked in 1982.
I repeat, in 1982, anyone who said the USSR was about to fall would have been laughed out of the room.
You see a huge, totally dominant system built on unimaginable amounts of money and power.
Above all, you see Evil Geniuses at work backing that system with their lives and with genius and subtlety and endless ruthlessness.
Like Yeltsin, who was from the Russian version of Pontiac, South Carolina, I see a bunch of wimps and ignoramuses like the Soviet bureaucrats. Yeltsin saw a Potemkin Empire in Russia.
You are too much a product of our system to be able to see it as it is.
All those grim-faced Sovietologists were complete morons. They looked at the USSR as a power forever. Respectable conservatives perform the same service for our own Idiocracy.
Push it hard and it will fall to pieces. The universities are a wonderful place to start. Tens of millions of young people are paying off back-breaking student loans, and every one of them knows he was cheated.
Tens of millions of young people are trying to start families, and each child will require the payment of college costs that are skyrocketing and show no sign that there will be any limit to them when their children reach college age.
Everybody knows that. Only I SAY that.
Our Idiocracy is ready to fall.
Go to
and let’s push it over the edge.
6/25/05 Insider Letter
Posted by Sys Op on June 25, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Filed Under Insider Letter Archive | No Comments »
(Reprinted to Blog from email list of 6/25/05)
*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***
I have exercised a staggering amount of power in my life. None of it fit any of the macho clichés.
If you want to know exactly how to handle huge amounts of money, you can get endless amounts of advice in your local bar. Find a guy who can’t afford a drink and buy him one. He will give all the advice you ever wanted to hear about how to make and use money.
People who have never actually handled large amounts of money can tell you exactly how you can make money grow and where it should be put.
Ask a real self-made multimillionaire exactly what you should do with large amounts of money and he will probably give you no answer at all. If he does give you advice, it will very cautious and lengthy and, above all, it will not be anywhere near as interesting as what you will hear in the bar from the guy whose drink you had to pay for.
The person who has never been responsible for large sums of money can tell you all about it.
Exactly the same rule applies when it comes to power.
At a recent convention a nice old guy was marching around telling everybody, “Mao Tse Tung said that power comes from the barrel of a gun.” This gentleman, of course, had never had any power at all, so he knew all about it.
The fact is that no war hero ever made any difference in real history. People worship war heroes and despise the guys in the suits. But the fact is that the reason thousands or millions of guys are out there dying in their uniforms is because a few guys in the suits PUT them there.
Much more common is another piece of Wisdom people who have never had any power or money love to repeat:
“Power is all about money.”
The wonderful thing about this piece of Wisdom is that it sounds so good. It is just the sort of thing a person who has never had either power or money loves to say, because it shows he knows all about both power AND money.
Boy, that sounds not only Practical and Wise, it sounds MACHO:
“Power is all about money.”
It reminds me of a poor little very rich guy named George Soros. Soros has billions of dollars and hates George Bush with an obsessive passion. He spent $27 million in the 2004 election and had not the slightest impact on the results.
It would have been less embarrassing for Soros if he had accidentally HELPED Bush by his efforts. What was really embarrassing was that he had not the slightest impact at whatsoever.
Money is exactly like water. As Rudyard said in his poem “Gunga Din,”
You may talk o’ gin and beer
When you’re quartered safe out ‘ere,
An’ you’re sent to penny-fights an’ Aldershot it;
But when it comes to slaughter
You will do your work on water,
An’ you’ll lick the bloomin’ boots of ‘im that’s got it.
When you don’t have water, water is everything. When you don’t have air, air is all that matters. When you don’t have money, money is all that matters. But if you DO have water, you may talk of gin and beer and despise water. When you have no trouble breathing, you use the expression, “It’s as easy as breathing.” When you’re broke, like the guy in the bar, money is everything.
Let me explain a simple rule to you about power and, separately, about money. Many, many times the Wall Street Journal has reported the results of actual experiments comparing highly paid financial experts with monkeys.
In every case, the monkey spins a wheel or throws an object and the investment is made on the basis of what the monkey hit on. Those results are then compared to a wide range of — let me repeat this –- advice given by highly paid financial consultants.
In every case, the results are dead even. But real people with real money still hired those same financial consultants and paid them the big bucks. These tests were scientifically conducted, but no one pays them any attention.
It just FEELS better to lose your money on the advice of big-time consultant than on the basis of a dart-throwing monkey. Everybody would consider you a complete idiot to bank on the monkey, and everybody, including you, would not feel bad about banking on the same consultant all the other moneyed people bank on.
In the real world, the fact that it amounts to exactly the same thing means nothing to you or to others.
Exactly the same thing is true of highly-paid political consultants. Once you are a name in the business of political consulting, you will always be a big name in the field of political consulting.
This is because of Whitaker’s Rule of Political Consulting. Two kinds of people hire big-time political consultants. One is the guy who has a lot of money and suddenly decides he wants to be a senator or at least a congressman. He hires a big name.
When he fails, nobody blames the consultant. It was silly, everybody says, for the rich guy to have thought he could buy that office in the first place.
The few times such a rich guy wins, all the credit goes to the political genius, and he charges more next time.
Have you ever noticed that, after a presidential campaign, you hear all about the geniuses who guided the winning campaign and you never see a word about the big-time campaign managers who LOST?
Losers are not news. You only hear about them when they win.
Whitaker’s Law of Political Consulting says that once a man attains the status of political genius, you will only hear about him when he wins. For that reason, once you become a big-money political consultant, you will always be a big-time political consultant.
The same is true of financial consulting. Nobody wants to hear about the losers. So they only hear about a financial genius when he wins.
So the guy in the bar actually believes that all a man needs to make his money grow is one of the financial geniuses only rich people can afford. That, he tells you wisely, is the only reason rich people make money and he needs you to buy him a drink.
I never had the heart to ask such a person if he ever heard of rich people who LOST money.
I never had the heart to ask that same man if he ever heard about it when a big-time political consultant LOST an election.
The whole point of buying the guy a drink is to relax and listen to his nonsense. It’s all for fun.
But out in the real world where real power and real lives and real money are at stake, this macho crap is much, much less amusing.
Bob
Spam and Junk Mail
Posted by Bob on June 25, 2005 at 10:55 am
Filed Under Comment Responses, General, How Things Work | No Comments »
I get a LOT of spam when I go to moderate your comments.
The fact is that I almost never moderate YOUR comments. If I find that I have accidentally deleted one of YOUR comments, I always apologize in the blog and ask you to send it again.
But I usually accidentally erase YOUR comment because of the spam. I have to erase each piece of spam because I have to search it carefully to be sure the huge pile of spam does not hide a real comment.
Which is exactly the reason we all hate junk mail so much.
Junk mail is irritating and a lot of bother. You find your mailbox full of junk you have to throw in the garbage. Worse, when you leave home awhile and pick up your mail at the Post Office you have to sort through pounds of junk mail to find any real mail.
But that’s not the worst of it.
The worst of it is that you have to CAREFULLY pick through all that bulk crap because that important little envelope from the Internal Revenue Service or somebody you need to hear from is buried in it.
And no matter how careful you are that junk mail is going to cause you to MISS something important.
I have exactly the same problem with the spam that comes in my e-mail and in moderating your comments.
Today’s Gnosticism is Wordism
Posted by Bob on June 24, 2005 at 11:19 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | 1 Comment »
We desperately need to demystify some of these words that sound so abstract and intellectual.
Peter was talking about the Gnostic Heresy.
The Gnostic Heresy is alive and well today and this needs explaining clearly and simply.
The Gnostic Heresy in early Christianity was what I call Wordism today.
The Gnostic Heresy was simply the idea that the only people who got to Heaven were the scholars. You obtained salvation by spending all your time digging through the Old Testament finding the most obscure passages and learning the Hidden Truth, the Key to Salvation, that was hidden in them.
What Gnosticism condemned was the idea that you could attain Heaven by common sense and common decency. What Gnosticism condemned was the concept that one could attain salvation by getting out among the sinners and telling them the simple truth.
Gnosticism said that Heaven was for the Learned, not for the masses.
We call those same Gnostics today “professors.” The common sense and decency of the Founding Fathers is not for them. They do not see the practical cornerstone we call the Constitution. They believe the true statement of what America is all about is in the Declaration of Independence, a propaganda document written right in the middle of a war in a city the enemy was about to occupy.
Today’s professor-priesthood, the clergy of our established religion of Political Correctness, love the thundering words of the Declaration that dedicate America to the French radical idea that all men are created equal. Liberals insist that America’s whole purpose is to found a New World Order for all mankind, and to cram it down their throats.
For today’s Gnostics it is absolutely repellant to even consider that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution in peacetime and for us, meant what they said. The Constitution states flatly that the only people it was written for was the people of the United States and OUR posterity. The Constitution states flatly that the only AUTHORITY it rests on is we the people of the United States and OUR posterity.
The Constitution says simply that we the people of THIS country are doing what we have a right to do, and no more. It says we are setting up our own government ON OUR OWN, not because of some obscure Gnostic principle of a World Mission.
Abraham Lincoln said, “Our fathers founded upon this continent a great nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
They did no such thing and they said so. The Soviet Union was dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and it meant to enforce that on every human being on the planet.
No wonder today’s Gnostics of this world despise George Washington and love Karl Marx, just as the Gnostics of the next world despised Jesus Christ and worshipped the Old Testament.
No Gnostic will tell you he despises Jesus Christ or George Washington. But if there were two men in all of history you could not possibly twist into Gnostics, those were the two.
Jesus never told anyone to read the Bible. He spoke in Aramaic and He quoted the scriptures his listeners knew about. He specifically condemned the High Priest to Hell who knew every word of those Scriptures and who PRACTICED them. Jesus said very, very specifically that the sinful tax gatherer in the back of the Temple who admitted he was a sinner and SIMPLY asked for forgiveness was the one who attained salvation.
There is no way that anybody can reject what was later called Gnosticism any more clearly than Jesus did. He repudiated it repeatedly, blatantly, plainly, obviously, openly – you could exhaust any Thesaurus with this.
In my little way, I try to do what Jesus did. I study so I can explain the truths of decency and good sense to the people, and discredit Gnosticism in any form.
I have read those huge tomes for the specific purpose of discrediting the idea that reading and studying Karl Marx or the Old Testament is the key to salvation in this world or the next.
And the more I study the more I realize that Jesus was dead right, and the closeted Old Testament scholars and professors, the High Priests of yesterday and today, were dead wrong and ARE dead wrong.
My Insistence that We Should Make Life Worth Living is not Entirely New to Christian Thinking
Posted by Bob on June 24, 2005 at 1:35 am
Filed Under Comment Responses | 2 Comments »
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
– Jesus Christ
The Golden Rule works both ways. A monk who starves and whips himself is doing to himself what he would never do unto others. A man who makes himself a nonviolent human sacrifice would never do that to another human being.
To paraphrase HS, you are not in charge, God is. If you owned yourself, you could do anything to yourself that you wanted to.
But you don’t own yourself. God does. And Christ told us how we must treat ourselves and others.
Purposely causing pain to yourself or others is not an option.
Making yourself and others as happy as possible is your duty.
Another quote:
“The greatest evil is physical pain.”
– Saint Augustine
And a final quote from a somewhat lesser source:
“If suffering is good, you would benefit enormously by going to Hell.”
– Bob Whitaker
Reply to HS and Peter
Posted by Bob on June 24, 2005 at 1:20 am
Filed Under Comment Responses | 13 Comments »
HS, you talk about my not using citations, but you don’t, either.
There is one citation I badly need. You say,
“As far as members of other races not thinking these things, they did and do.”
Remember I am not talking about some Chinese philosopher mentioning whether life is worth living. Some Chinese philosopher sat and talked about everything while children died and had worms in their guts around him.
I am not talking about theorizing.
If you read the Norsemen’s sayings, you will see that they were discouraging others from actually killing themselves, not because of some evil deed or some tragedy, but because they just didn’t want to live any more.
Suicide was very common in Japan, but it was only committed when one had been disgraced or done something inexcusable and suicide was the ultimate apology for it.
Philosophizing in some obscure text about whether life is worth living or committing suicide at a crisis has nothing to do with the point I made.
I have never heard that suicide was at all common in China as it was in Japan.
But, since I gave up all hope of being elected to the Papacy, my dreams of infallibility have been dashed, so I am open to contradiction on a FACTUAL basis.
I see no evidence that the non-violent human sacrifices made in monasteries and convents came from any non-Aryan tradition. Except for Christians, the Buddhists alone have chaste monks, and Buddhism comes from white India.
Again, I am open to FACTUAL contradiction.
If you will read the Christian stories of the fifth century, you will see that the ultimate heroine is a beautiful, good, intelligent woman who marries an equally fine man and then persuades him to live with her in chastity for the rest of their lives.
Chaste people did not produce many offspring. That stork story is not true.
Paul was one of the most important and forgotten peoples in history, a Hellenic Jew, a Roman citizen. Millions of Hellenic Jews existed at the time of Christ. The historian Josephus was one of them. They disappeared entirely as Christianity advanced, and I do not think it was because the Romans killed six million Jews.
Hellenic Jews wrote their scriptures in Greek. I think if you looked at them, you would be amazed how blond they were. There are depictions of Peter and Paul from the first century, and they are both depicted as very light-skinned and one of them is blond.
A Methodist preacher wrote me that all those Hellenized Jews at the time of Christ were not Jews, they were Gnostics. That is one hell of an anachronism.
He also informed me that Christ and all His disciples were COLORED MEN, without any citation. He told me that the first white Christian was Luke. Again, no evidence.
Apparently that is what they teach at mainline seminaries now and their real religion, Political Correctness, requires them to accept it.
Peter says that Paul never hinted that people should not procreate; he only advocated sex inside marriage.
Paul wrote the Book of Corinthians. Let me quote from it:
1 Cor 7:1,2,4,8,9
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. I say therefore to the UNMARRIED (My capitalization) and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. BUT IF THEY CANNOT CONTAIN, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Paul and the Christian moral stories said that the ideal is that one should NEVER have sex in one’s entire life.
Either the Roman Empire had artificial insemination — and I would LOVE to see a citation on THAT one — or Paul is recommending childlessness as the Christian ideal.
Feminine “Ruthlessness” is no Mystery
Posted by Bob on June 23, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Filed Under How Things Work | 5 Comments »
Elizabeth replied to my article about how girls and boys are different by agreeing with me, which is always nice. But she added a more important point: that when women get into a fight, there is no quarter, no rules of engagement, no Geneva Convention.
H.S. agreed with her, as Elizabeth ended, “Gentlemen, just stay out of these battles.”
Feminists love to quote things like the old Roman Law. They point out that, according to those laws, women were reduced to cowering, helpless slaves.
But if you read real history, you see the usual proportion of Roman men, those all-powerful paterfamiliae, who were terrified of their wives.
As usual, I look for the simple explanation of this.
Here it is:
Men are physically stronger than women. As a result, women developed a form of defense that men have only gotten a name for in the last century.
It is called psychological warfare.
My brother is the father of three girls. Once when one of them was about three, she came up to him, cuddled up in his lap and said, “Daddy, I love you.”
She then went into the next room.
My brother was charmed.
A minute later he heard her five-year-old sister in the other room whisper to that little girl, “Yes, that’s how you do it.” My brother is a pediatrician, so this did not surprise him in the least.
While men are learning to be men and warriors and writing great sagas about themselves, women are also learning how to be women. I have this paranoid feeling that if anyone wrote a history of THAT, the Sisterhood would kill them.
“Doing the Accent”
Posted by Bob on June 23, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Filed Under How Things Work | 3 Comments »
They say that we are all great singers in the shower. When you are singing in the shower you can hear the music playing in your mind. But when most people actually sing to a tape recorder they are appalled at what comes out.
The same is true of people who are “doing an accent.”
I have a relative who will sometimes do a Southern accent, and he is just awful. He sounds like every New York comedian who hates the South and mimics Southerners in a way I have never heard anyone, trash included, actually speak.
All of my kinspeople not only love the South, they are Southern Nationalists. But when he does that Southern accent, this guy does not hear himself and how much he sounds like that South-hating New York Jew.
I have heard the person he is trying to sound like, and nobody could identify any similarity.
He doesn’t mean any harm, just as a perosn who thinks he can sing and has no talent means no harm.
Most people can’t sing. Most people can’t “do the accent.”
Most people can’t sing or do accents. Yeshiva University finds that out every time it puts on Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice.”
Just as a lot of people think they can sing, a huge number of Jews think they can do a stereotypical Jewish accent. They think they are hilarious. So at Yeshiva, year after year, the people looking for a good Shylock have to suffer while they listen to a hundred people who think they are doing The Offended Jew perfectly.
You have watched the same thing happen when people are looking for singing talent. It is not only painful for them, it is embarrassing. You listen to one person after another who honestly thinks he or she has rhythm and a great voice, and they are just AWFUL.
But, just as in the case of great voice, when you hear someone who really can “do the accent,” it is magical.
One Jew I know always goes into The Accent when the subject of some big sale deal camesup. He will suddenly assume a character that would make Shylock look like a Presbyterian. He moves his hands and says, “Such a DEAL! Such a deal as you never had in your life!”
If you could see him do it, you would laugh until the tears come, the way I do.
Political Correctness outlaws that sort of thing. It says “doing the accent” reinforces a stereotype.
No way.
“Doing the accent” has nothing to do with reality.
“Doing the accent” is the stereotype squared or cubed. That’s why it’s so funny.
You are not laughing because it is grim, sober reality. That simple observation is beyond the Politically Correct imagination. It requires a sense of humor, and a sense of humor requires a sense of proportion which sour-faced Political Correctness simply does not have.
If you have any experience of the real world you would no more believe a real Jews talked that way than you would believe that Laurel and Hardy were being presented as typical white gentiles.
The problem is, of course, that Politically Correct people have no experience with the real world. “Doing the accent,” like all real comedy, goes beyond reality and every adult knows it.
Politically Correct people have no sense of humor, so they see it all as a plot against Jews. At the same time they never even imagine that Laurel and Hardy or Abbot and Costello or Al Bundy on Married With Children represent some kind of plot against white gentile males.
When I lived outside of Pontiac, South Carolina, we had the only TV set around the brick plant. So the little black kids I played with would come and lie on the floor — with me in case you think they were being humiliated. They were ALWAYS there when “Amos ‘n Andy” came on.
The program was entirely black. They saw black judges who spoke perfect English. They saw black doctors. They LOVED it.
But all the NAACP noticed was that this comedy program had some comedy blacks on it. Amos was the complete idiot, just like Laurel in Laurel and Hardy. The Kingfish was the Hardy, the guy who could always fool and cheat poor old Amos and who thought he was smart because he could.
Andy, the narrator, was a black taxi cab driver who had touching scenes with his children and was a very sensible man. But the NAACP did not notice the black judges, the black doctors, Andy’s good sense, the black teachers, or anything else.
All the NAACP saw was that the two main character in a comedy show looked like fools.
Oh, and there was the lawyer Calhoun. He was the one educated black on Amos ‘n Andy who was portrayed as a fool. The NAACP ignored the black judges and said it was all a plot to make all black lawyers and all other educated blacks look like fools.
If you get a tape of the old Amos ‘n Andy show, you will find that the black lawyer who was a featured character on Seinfeld acted EXACTLY like Calhoun on Amos ‘n Andy.
Why? Because it’s FUNNY.
So the NAACP scored a major triumph by getting Amos ‘n Andy taken off the air, despite the fact it was a hit show and the ONLY black show on television. Not one of the black actors on that show ever got another major role. There were no roles for blacks, and I’ll bet every one of them was tainted forever by the NAACP for being in on this evil, racist White Gentile Conspiracy.
I once saw the actor who played Amos do a bit part on TV as a butler. I felt the unfairness of it all. He was as great an actor being Amos as Laurel was as being the complete white gentile idiot. But the NAACP put him on the human junk pile.
As for the black kids who had been there every week to watch Amos ‘n Andy, they were completely stunned. They cried. The world of educated blacks, of caring black parents and hilarious black comics was suddenly gone.
My Christian Commenters are Actual Christians
Posted by Bob on June 23, 2005 at 10:19 am
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »
My Christian blog commenters are actual Christians.
Please note I do not put “Christian” in quotes as I so often do with others.
My commenters are very unusual Christians. In the first place, they know the facts. I always learn a tremendous amount from them. My flat statements are also questions. They give me answers.
The purpose of Bob’s Blog is to make ME think, too.
Secondly my Christian bloggers do not fit the stereotype, which so many “Christians” do, that a Bible literalist or a hard-core Catholic is somebody who goes to pieces when they are contradicted. I have found that stereotype all too often fits.
Thirdly, unlike “Christians,” inside the quotes, my bloggers are very forgiving. Look at HS’s latest reply to me. She makes it very clear that she thinks I am being a numbskull, and she warns me that the gloves have been off for quite a while inside this blog and they will stay off. She even makes it clear that what I say often hurts her.
But she also states flatly that this is the way it should be.
As I have said repeatedly, the Catholics, Bible literalists, Calvinists and other hard-core religious people I have worked with all my political career believed firmly that the others were going to hell. Except for the hard-rock atheists, who thought everyone else was silly.
And they SAID so.
To each other.
Then we all went back to fight the fight side by side.
I am very proud of my little band here.
As for those who can’t get in here and duke it out with me, they can’t stand the heat so they should stay out of this kitchen.
Not only is it very hot here, we’ve got big old iron frying pans to hit each other with.
More From the Armchair General Bob
Posted by Bob on June 23, 2005 at 3:22 am
Filed Under History, How Things Work | 1 Comment »
What I say about war comes from what The Greatest Generation would call “an armchair general.” The tiny little incidents I was in were not part of a Real War. I have never been in Real Combat.
Until this was explained to me, I honestly thought I had been. That was because of a brain trauma, I suppose. One time I did something stupid and was on my feet when a high explosive went off in front of me. It knocked me backwards on my neck and I lay there for what seemed like an hour, but was probably a few minutes, thinking I was crippled from the neck down.
Then the feeling came back. It was the best pain I ever felt. I was not a permanent paraplegic; I had just had the hell knocked out of me. A blow like that shakes the brain. I naturally would end up with delusions like the one that I was in a real fight.
So, speaking as Armchair General Bob, I would caution you about some problems with military statistics.
Let me begin with a very practical poitical matter. One of the big issues in the 2004 presidential campaign was the question of whether John Kerry was a real hero and whether George Bush the Younger was a draft dodger hiding in what the media agree was the cowardly National Guard.
When George Bush became a combat pilot in the National Guard, what the media refer to as a “draft dodge,” a person who trained as a pilot stood a better chance of dying during training than the average man who went to Vietnam in uniform.
But I STILL cannot compare Bush and Kerry in any meaningful way.
I wish I could refine this statistic. “A man who went to Vietnam in uniform” could be somebody like Al Gore, who was always kept in a relatively safe position when he went to Vietnam as a volunteer.
I do not condemn Al Gore for being in a “relatively safe position” in Vietnam. First of all, there were no really “safe” places for any American in uniform in Vietnam. Al Gore was a volunteer from the Volunteer State when he could have avoided the draft very easily.
Gore was NOT given any special privileges because his father was a United States senator. It was military policy to keep actual volunteers in relatively safe positions. I would like to make him the villain.
The problem is that he simply wasn’t.
Facts really screw up a good story.
I would like to compare Bush and Kerry, but the statistics aren’t there.
At the height of the Vietnam War there were about half a million uniformed American troops in Nam. But only about eighty thousand of those men were on “man with gun” assignments.
So I cannot compare the risks John Kerry took with the risks George Bush took. Anyone who has had practical, professional experience in dealing with military statistics will understand the difficulties involved here.
Many of the guys “in the paddies” were not in the “man with gun” classification. On the other hand a lot of the “man with gun” category did not serve “in the paddies” (which is a curious expression if you have ever seen a paddy). Many in the “man with gun” category were guards in relatively safe places.
If history were a “just so” story, I could join all the people who think Gore or Bush or Kerry was just being sneaky and evil. I could find a statistical category that Kerry was in and use it prove he was in very little real danger. I could find another statistic to prove he was in the most endangered category.
I could denounce Bush as a cowardly draft dodger as so many people do.
I would love to prove that Bush and Kerry and Gore were all getting credit for nothing. I don’t like any of them.
What stymies me is the fact that I have been cursed with a conscience. Many, many times I have wished that medical science would find a way for me to have the damned thing surgically removed.
What is “Combat?”
Posted by Bob on June 23, 2005 at 2:09 am
Filed Under History | 1 Comment »
I was raised around what I call “professional World War II veterans.” These were men who fought in WW2 and have had no life since. According to them, if you weren’t in WW2, you didn’t know what real life was all about.
I was talking to one of the more pathetic of those guys and mentioned a friend of mine who was the only soldier in his unit to come back on his feet from a battle in the Korean War. The professional WW2 vet replied, “He wasn’t in a real war, he was in a police action. I was in The WAR.”
True, not all WW2 vets are that callous and stupid. But I have never heard ONE SINGLE member of the group that calls itself The Greatest Generation have the moral courage to contradict this kind of statement by a “professional WW2 veteran.”
And plenty of them were sitting right there when the professional WW2 vets told me nobody else had been “in combat” but them.
You might as well spit on Korean War vets’ graves.
This is another reason why I have a low opinion of the group that calls itself The Greatest Generation.
My brother-in-law served in WW2 in the Merchant Marine. He insists he was “never in combat.”
He didn’t have to tell me that. Very few men who were in the Merchant Marine were “in combat” and lived to tell about it. “Combat” meant they were attacked by a submarine. Very few of the men who were on a Merchant Marine ship that got attacked by a submarine are around to talk about it.
No, my brother-in-law was not “in combat.” He just risked a horrible death at sea, never knowing when, day or night, his ship might go down under him.
For excellent reasons, I can only reveal that I have almost certainly have never been in a fire-fight that involved as many as two hundred combatants on both sides. My WW2 friends told me I had never really been “in combat.”
You sure could have fooled me.
I also knew some of the people who were trying to kill my brother-in-law. One of them was serving on a German submarine at the age of thirteen. He showed an understandable reluctance to talk about how much experience he had had “in combat.” He would have had to tell me about his success in killing people like us.
The death rate in the AMERICAN submarine corps in WW2 was one in seven. The death rate among Germans was more like 50%. And it was horrible way to die down there.
Professional American WW2 vets would probably say that all this German submariner ever did was help run the submarine while it shot torpedoes at Allied ships. He wasn’t really “in combat” unless he had been fired back at.
But he was in the same position as my brother-in-law. Very few German submarine crews who had depth charges dropped at them lived to tell about it.
So even he, a man who was in The Real War, was never really “in combat.”
Let me tell you something: I would FAR rather be in a fire-fight out in the field than sitting on a ship for months waiting day and night for a torpedo to send me to a cold drowning death. And I would take either option long before I would be willing be go down in a sub and spend months waiting for a suffocating death down there.
But what would I know? I’ve never been a Real War.
News Flash: Boys and Girls are DIFFERENT!
Posted by Bob on June 22, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Filed Under History, Political Correctness | 5 Comments »
I know what you are thinking:
“Oh, Lord, Ole Bob has started drinking again.”
But, honestly, the idea that boys and girls were the same was Sacred Writ in the 1970s. It was the first line in the Feminist Bible. In order to be professor, you had to swear to the idea that the only difference between little boys and little girls was that little boys were given toy guns to play with and little girls were given dolls.
The reason for this was to force little boys into the role of ruler and aggressor and little girls into the slavish role of child-bearers for the men. The whole thing was a male plot to dominate women.
I am not joking. That was Gospel on campus. Society had conspired to keep women “barefoot and pregnant.”
More than once a woman would find I was a right-wing Southerner and she would say, “If you had your way, your wife would always be barefoot and pregnant.”
Liberals don’t believe in stereotypes, you see.
My reply was, “I appreciate the compliment, but all I could really guarantee would be the barefoot part.”
Most feminist leaders followed their own advice and never got pregnant. But a few years after the movement was at its height, a stream of articles began to appear that was written by feminists who had actually had a child or two. They all reported, with amazement, that a little boy and a little girl were different before they could walk.
No toy guns. No dolls. They seemed to be BORN different!
Gosh, what a surprise!
Back in the 1950s every ad for a horror movie always showed a beautiful woman being attacked by a male beast or a male murderer, or being carried off by same. In the 1970s this was held up as an example of Society forcing women into the role of victims.
They ignored the fact that half of the people seeing those movies were female.
Men as aggressors is not a mind-set that is exclusive to men. Every serial killer who goes to prison finds a stack of amorous letters from women.
I tried to be fair, and wondered if aggressive females get the same kind of fan mail.
Well, somehow I doubt that Elena Bobbitt gets a whole lot of marriage proposals, but I could be wrong.
Historical Fact as Historical Fiction
Posted by Bob on June 21, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Filed Under History | 4 Comments »
This is from Book One of the Arthurian Saga by Mary Stewart. It takes place in the fifth century, which will require a little arithmetic on your part.
When Christians met Mithraism, Christians honestly believed that the Mithraism from Iran had copied Christian doctrine, just as Old Testament fanatics today believe that the Magi had to know the Old Testament.
They’ve got it backwards.
So here is Mary Stewart’s very accurate portrayal of Mithraism in the fifth century:
“ I knew I had seen more than was in the painting. I had seen the soldiers’ god, the Word, the Light, the Good Shepherd, the mediator between the One God and man. I had seen Mithras, who had come out of Asia a thousand years ago (500 BC). He had been born, Ambrosius told me, in a cave at mid-winter (December 25), while shepherds watched and a star shone….and then, after eating his last meal of bread and wine, he was called up to heaven. He was the god of strength and gentleness, of courage and self-restraint.”
Mary Stewart is a good Catholic. But she does not depend on ignorance to confirm her faith.
A Very LONG Blog: Aryan Suicide
Posted by Bob on June 21, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Filed Under How Things Work | 11 Comments »
Long Blog: Aryan Suicide
There is nothing abstract about history.
One of our invaluable commenters got me off of the Zoroaster kick because he was BORED by it. That is EXACTLY what I want to hear from you. If Ole Bob is going off on a tangent, tell me so.
It took me weeks to realize what I had done wrong. I had not explained WHY I went off on Zoroaster, and I had let the theoretical discussion take over. I would never have realized this if somebody had not said, “Bob, you’re BORING me.”
History is important, and people who read this Blog know it. But they also know when I’m drifting off.
What I should have done was to make it clear that Zoroaster is important because the Magi and the whole Persian religion discredits the Old Testament fanatics, the ones who worship The Holy Land and who think Jews are the Chosen and who make Israel the basis of our foreign policy.
Another thing one can learn from real history, if he gets his nose out of the Old Testament, is the suicide complex we Aryans have in us. We are all aware of the disastrously low birthrates among whites and of the white obsession with hating our own race.
This is not new.
When we think of suicide, we tend to think of Japanese seppuku, a.k.a., hara kiri. But Japanese suicide is self-sacrifice. They do not WANT to die. They give their lives as an apology or to save face.
The Japanese do not lock themselves up in convents and monasteries. Buddhists do that. And Buddhism came from India when it was Aryan, not from the Oriental races.
The Buddhist ideal is to escape from the Wheel of Life. Aryan India accepted the idea that the spirit never dies, but goes from one body to another. Transmigration of souls was not a religious concept. In exactly the same way we assume one dies and that is the end of it, it would never occur to an Aryan that the soul died with the body.
Which is why Buddha was an atheist. He believed in the transmigration of souls as a scientific reality, not as a religious concept.
Nirvana was added on later. Buddha wanted to die. He wanted oblivion because life is a burden.
As the Spaniards say, “If life were worth living, we would not need so many philosophers.”
If you read the wisdom of the old Norsemen, you will find that an astonishingly large proportion of it is devoted to reasons why one should not commit suicide.
As with so many other things, Indo-Europeans, from ancient Aryan India to Zoroaster in Iran ( which means “Aryan”) to the Norsemen to old Spain, invented an entirely new concept: ”Is life worth living.”
The question of whether life was worth living never occurred to any amoeba or any ape or any African or any Oriental. The question itself was a new invention.
Mark Twain said, “I have never met a man over fifty who would be willing to live his life again. That tells you whether life is worth it.”
Christianity has been shaped by Manichaeism. Manichaeism was the original faith of Saint Augustine and countless others. Manichaeism says all life is evil, all life is bad.
But Manichaeism came from a part of history every Old Testament freak is desperate to ignore. When Mani, founder of Manichaeism, was born in Iraq in the fourth century, there were two great religions, the Christianity which ruled the Roman Empire and Zoroastrianism which ruled the EQUALLY POWERFUL Persian Empire.
Mani reconciled the two great faiths of his day, Christianity and Zoroastrianism. Christianity was already largely Zoroastrian. If you concentrate on the Old Testament, you can ignore the fact that the Jews got their idea of salvation from the huge Persian Empire, not the other way around.
But there was a poison hidden in both Zoroastrianism and in the tradition with which Christianity became warped. Mani concluded that the one theme that the two great faiths agreed on was that life was bad, that all life was evil.
St. Paul had said as much: “It is better to marry than to burn.” But it was best of all, said St. Paul, to be completely sterile. Today we like to translate this into saying that illicit sex is bad because sex is bad outside marriage. That is NOT what Paul said. Paul made it clear that ALL procreation was evil.
Paul made the concession that marriage with children was allowable, for Jesus had blessed the Marriage at Cana, but he didn’t LIKE it.
For Paul and Augustine as with Gautama Buddha, it was not suicide if it was not violent. Rotting away in a monastery would do just fine.
But the ideal was the end of life.
And here is the big point:
This is not about SEX. This is about life itself. Paul, St. Augustine and Mani were not condemning sex outside of marriage. They were condemning life itself.
And none of this was Semitic. From India to Persia, the Aryan has concluded that life itself is a bad thing. In Spain and in Norseman philosophy, we see Aryans struggling with this question that no one else ever asked.
Semites never asked the question.
All this is relevant right now. Threatening people with eternal damnation if they commit suicide was a good terror tactic, but it won’t work any more.
The simple fact is that the whole world today thinks in Aryan terms. Nobody wears Oriental clothes anymore. No African lives like an African. Not a single Eskimo lives the old Esquimo/Inuit way.
Everybody is desperately quoting books by dead men to show that the third world is about to take over. If you know anything about statistical trends, and if you get your nose out of that dead man’s world, you will realize that the third world birth rate is headed for a bust that beggars the imagination.
The threat to the white world is not third-world multiplication, it is white world interbreeding, the program of genocide.
Telling whites it is their duty to have children will not do the job. Traditional Values with the threat of damnation behind it will no longer do.
Aryans ask, “Is life worth living?”
You can rail at hem for being “spoiled” or “being without a sense of Duty,” but Aryans will not be cowed by that. The day of the Puritan and the priest is over.
The day of the nice guy, who would settle for whatever society chooses to give him, is over.
Only I seem to see that this: Aryan thought rules absolutely. What we call Western Culture is Aryan thought. The Aryan question is:
“Is life worth living?”
If you want life to prevail, forget the old maxims and Get Tough nonsense.
If you want life to prevail, the question is, “Is life worth living?
If you want life to prevail, you must make the answer:
“YES.”
Historical Fiction is Righter than History Books
Posted by Bob on June 21, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Filed Under How Things Work | 6 Comments »
If you read a really good piece of historical fiction, you get the story straight and true.
If you read Mary Stewart’s best-selling series on Merlin the Magician, you will see that she has a huge introduction saying exactly where the fiction is, and at the end a long explanation and the sources.
Mary Stewart has to satisfy an infinitely harder audience than a professional historian does. She is facing millions of readers, and at least a hundred thousand of them are history fanatics. Every word she says is going to be scrutinized by people who LOVE history, who read history all the time, the more obscure the better.
And all of them use the internet, which connects them to even more fanatical history buffs. No historian has to deal with anything remotely similar to this. A few other historians read his stuff to quote it or to disagree with it.
Either way, it doesn’t matter. If someone disagrees with him in a journal, he gets a quote in a journal and he gets to reply, which also adds to his resume: Publish or perish.
Notice it doesn’t say, “Publish something worthwhile or perish.” You just cite all your publications in your resume.
Long publications resume good.
Short publications resume bad.
Ugh. Beat chest.
And that REALLY is all there is to it. Just fill up pages with publication after publication. Nobody is going to read all that crap. And nobody is going to care if you were right or wrong.
Historical fiction is a whole ‘nother thing. They READ it. They read it over and over. They are fascinated by it.
And if you get something wrong, you’ll never live it down.
That is why I think so many of the really great writers of historical fiction are female, like Colleen McColloch who reads Greek and Latin fluently, knows all about Roman Law, and founded a Department of Neurophysiology at an Australian University in her real job as a doctor.
Margaret Mitchell, Inglis Fletcher, the list of female geniuses in historical fiction is long.
By the time you get half my age, you should know that men are the romantics, women are the Practical Side of the human race.
Which is why mostly male historians can play their games, while women write the real stuff, the stuff that is called historical fiction.
Never Confuse Forgiveness With Condoning
Posted by Bob on June 21, 2005 at 4:10 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, Comment Responses | 2 Comments »
A person on Stormfront agreed with my simple theology.
I appreciated that very much.
But this comment was appended:
“I am involved in church and I love it very much. But it is hard for me to see interracial couples there. But, does God not have mercy on them, as He has had on me, a sinner? What do you think Mr. Whitaker? If you have time, that is. ”
My reply was:
Jesus Christ forgave those who were murdering Him, in His final agonies.
No one seems to notice that this is one of the greatest acts of mercy in all of history, as well as of courage.
Those who understand this least are those who can recite every passage of the Old Testament and who talk almost entirely of God’s Retribution.
Christ forgives those who truly do not know what they do or those who repent, no matter how heinous their crimes: murderers, thieves, sodomites, child molesters and even the perverts who destroy the white race.
The black man who wants blond beauty only to destroy it by producing children he would not touch if they were someone else’s is pure evil. The white woman who helps him do that is even more guilty.
Remember, if that same girl’s mother had done exactly the same thing, her Loving Black Husband would have had nothing to do with her, and she knows it.
The children must live with what they did, and their children after them, which is worse than mere killing.
It is possible Christ will forgive them. But I think they know what they are doing. But that is with God, not me.
But none of this makes sodomy or any other perversion or murder or theft less than what it is. Forgiveness must NEVER be confused with condoning.
The Untrained Eye - 2 pm ET TODAY!
Posted by Bob on June 18, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Filed Under General | No Comments »
Now Join the FUN with Coach Bob!
Hosting SATURDAY’S SF Townhall WebCast
Listen from 2 to 3 PM Eastern Time:
http://67.43.157.31:8000/listen.pls
My Saturday show this week at 2 pm at,
will be about how to discuss our issues. The archives are here.
(If your computer doesn’t automatically begin streaming the program when it is ON THE AIR, or won’t play our recorded programs, you might want to download the latest Winamp 5 free player below.)
The program will be played again at 6 ET for all those who didn’t get the word about the moving the show to the same time as the weekly shows are broadcast.
.
Download Winamp media free player
6/18/05 Bob’s Weekly WOL Articles
Posted by Sys Op on June 18, 2005 at 1:36 am
Filed Under WOL Weekly Articles | 2 Comments »
Weekly WhitakerOnline.org Articles
June 18, 2005
Using Time
We Need A New Approach For A New World
Who Are We?
Fun Quote:
Beware of marriage counselors who have been divorced and remarried several times.
Ex-spouses make good references.
.
Using Time
During my professor days, I often had to teach basic economics at 8 AM on Monday morning. It was a small nightmare.
First of all, basic economics is very, very boring. Secondly, a lot of students had to take it. Thirdly on Monday morning about everybody in the class, including me, was trying to recover from the weekend.
Spending fifty minutes talking about a notoriously boring subject when you and everybody else in the room feels like hell is a very, very unpleasant thing to have to do.
So I hit on a formula. I told the class that, if they listened to every word I said, my lecture would be over in half the time, twenty-five minutes. After twenty-five minutes, I kept the students who weren’t listening in for the whole fifty minutes. I just sat there and felt bad and let the rest go.
Soon I didn’t have to keep anybody.
And I found on tests that the class remembered what I said during that twenty-five minutes better than they remembered the material in any other class.
I could say it all twice in twenty-five minutes if everybody was listening.
No one was interested in this.
The job of a professor is to give fifty-minute lectures and sign a piece of paper that says a student took a course. It makes no difference whether the student learns anything. To get promoted a professor has to devote his life to pleasing other professors.
Other professors give him his degree.
Other professors decide whether he gets published.
Other professors vote on giving him tenure.
Other professors decide whether he gets promoted.
One published article is more important to a professor than a thousand students who learn the subject from him.
But the fact remains that twenty-five minutes well used is better than fifty minutes of routine lecture.
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
We Need A New Approach For A New World
My Saturday show this week at 2 pm at
will be about how to discuss our issues.
You have heard a thousand debates between “both sides.” You could write what the liberals are going to say and what the respectable conservatives are going to say. This way, the media says it has free speech and that it presents both sides.
This “discussion” consists mostly of conservatives trying to prove that they are less “racist” or “isolationist” or whatever than liberals say they are.
It is far, far worse than a waste of time. It is totalitarianism with a pretence of two sides.
Like a professor, a respectable conservative gets paid for filling a time slot. He could do it in his sleep. You could do it in your sleep.
The internet is breaking into this. But when an internet radio show goes on, it follows the old media rules.
Those of us talking on the internet spend most of our time trying to prove we are not who liberals say we are. We are called haters, so we use the useless old conservative tactic of quoting minority hate speech to prove we’re not the haters.
You know the drill.
The other regular media habit we have inherited is slavishly filling up a time slot.
This is a new medium. We need to develop a new approach.
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
Who Are We?
Are those of who oppose Political Correctness just here to fight liberals?
Are we just here to provide “the other side” in the standard debate liberals set up?
No. We want to replace them completely. Destroying leftism completely is just a tiny first step.
That means the purpose of discussion is not to show we are not the “haters” or whatever other label the other side makes up.
Our job is to make OUR points.
Before you slide away and repeat the “they are the haters” crap, let me repeat what I just said:
That means that the purpose of discussion is not to show we are not the “haters” or whatever other label the other side makes up.
Our job is to make OUR points.
IF preventing the ongoing program of genocide against whites is racism, then we are racists. IF dedicating America to “ourselves and our posterity,” and to NOTHING else, is isolationism, then we are isolationists.
Screw it.
Your job is to make YOUR point.
This is called “staying on message.” No matter what they say, your job is to make the point that YOUR race is being subjected to genocide. Your job is not to make the other side stop saying mean things about you.
Your job is to make the point that we need to make a natural alliance with Russia to get out of using Middle East oil. Israel doesn’t like that.
Your job is to explain why all major Jewish groups have declared war on white gentiles for a very human reason. Your job is NOT to give an entire obsessive history of Jews except where THEY hurt US.
Is this anti-Semitism? Every minute you spend trying to prove it isn’t is a precious minute lost.
Your job is not to prove to every person who thinks he speaks for God how your ideas fit his.
Your job is to say what everybody knows and what almost everybody understands. Your job is to get the mainline back into power. Nut cases, right or left, are not your concern.
Stay on message. Tell the truth. Don’t discuss THEIR obsessions or THEIR labels. If you do, you are FAR worse than useless.
6/18/05 Insider Letter
Posted by Sys Op on June 18, 2005 at 1:34 am
Filed Under Insider Letter Archive | No Comments »
(Reprinted to Blog from email list of 6/18/05)
*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***
The whole point of WhitakerOnline.org is to spread ideas.
This is why respectable conservatives are so absolutely vital to liberals. Respectable conservatives have endless hours on the media, and they give the impression there is some sort of opposition in America. And almost everybody who reads WhitakerOnline spends his entire time and resources backing respectable conservatives.
So I ask very little. All I ask is that those who read WhitakerOnline USE my points.
For example, my book makes the point over and over and over and over that Political Correctness is not LIKE a religion. It IS a religion.
PC could be proven legally to be a religion.
So someone read my book, read WhitakerOnline.org and, predictably, he comments, “Whitaker says Political Correctness is like a religion.”
This makes me very, very, very tired.
You see, he had been reading respectable conservatives, and they were using that kind of language. You have to be gentle. You have to correct those well-meaning people, so he naturally used the fatal word “like.”
Conservatives spend their entire time 1) proving that they are not racists or isolationists or whatever the latest liberal charge is and 2) trying to show they want exactly what liberals want and they have a better way to get it. So they want “assimilation” and they have decided that this “melting pot” and “diversity” can be accomplished better their way.
I keep pointing out the “We the People … and OUR posterity” is the ONLY purpose of the United States. The Founding Fathers were exactly what liberals now call racists and isolationists, and they said so.
And I keep pointing out that is the ONLY authority on which our actual Constitution is based. That is the ONLY purpose of our Constitution.
But the problem is, once again, that you are getting your wording from respectable conservatives. When a liberal or a respectable conservative hears that, he says, “But that isn’t ALL there is.”
Once again, that huge difference is exactly what I said. The Founding Fathers did not LIKE government. It was set up precisely to be limited to an exact authority and an exact purpose and absolutely nothing else. It was not to help Iraq. It was not to protect illegal immigrants. It was not for all mankind or other people’s concerns.
The Founding Fathers accomplished their charity personally. They did not believe the government should be the instrument of anything it didn’t have to be.
I said, “anything.” If you want to convince liberals and Old Testament wordists that the United States Government is supposed to spread Political Correctness or the Gospel of Jehovah to the world in general, I wish you hadn’t read my stuff.
I said Political Correctness IS a religion. If you say it is LIKE a religion, I wish you hadn’t read my stuff.
I mean what I say, and what I say is not like anything you will read anywhere else.
The distinctions ARE the whole point.
Bob
Do You Laugh or Do You Cry?
Posted by Bob on June 15, 2005 at 9:59 pm
Filed Under Political Correctness | 6 Comments »
When Jesus walked the earth, He was asked over and over how he could be the Messiah if He was not going to make Israel independent of the Roman Empire.
His answer was, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
In case that is not a broad enough hint, they asked him specifically if Israelis should pay Roman taxes. He said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” This was not exactly a HINT.
But practically every preacher who claims to take the Bible literally stands there and tells us that a true Christian must fight for the POLITICAL independence of what he calls The Holy Land.
He is saying that Christ was not a true Christian. Christ had no interest in the political independence of the State of Israel and said so.
I think I’ll ignore the so-called Christians and go with Christ.
The Very Practical Implications of My Religious Discussion
Posted by Bob on June 15, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Filed Under General, Political Correctness | 1 Comment »
If you subscribe to what I said below, defending some Holy Land or some Chosen People has no place in Christianity.
Our recognition of Israel’s right to take and hold Arab territory is based entirely on religion.
It is a pure evil.
I Agree With Mike and HS on Christ’s
Posted by Bob on June 15, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Filed Under Comment Responses | 3 Comments »
If you look at the comments on the article below, “This ‘God is Sort of a Spirit’ Thing Mystifies Me,” you will find what I see as an unusual note of agreement. If HS or Mike do not agree, they will definitely say so.
I will not include their comments here because I would like readers to get used to reading the comments themselves.
Here is how I summed up what we agree on:
Theologians write millions of words — literally — about who they, meaning Christ — feel
like forgiving.
Christ died for our sins. He forgave those who did not know what they were doing. This
means it takes a positive effort to AVOID being part of His sacrifice.
Jesus also said, “and forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US.”
What Jesus said was that He made the one sacrifice that will ever matter for every person
who is not positively bad, not just for those who read the Old Testament right.
As I say, I will fight for the right of a person to stand in the church door and demand a
correct theology. In fact, as a Wordsmith myself, I kind of admire the theologians’ ability
to make what Christ repeatedly said into a paying institution and hundreds of millions
of words.
St. Paul said, “We must be all things to all men.” That was simple enough: We Christians go to THEM, we don’t sit inthe chrch door waiting to examine them when they come to us.
To avoid Christ’s sacrifice, you have to positively evil: “For God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only begotten Son…”
That doesn’t sound like a God who is champing at the bit to damn almost everybody.
“Forgive them for they know now what they do.” That is enough to be part of Christ’s sacrifice. He said so.
“Forgive us our trespasses” not because we satisfy some theologian, but “as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
How do you make that complicated?
I would hate to face the Judgment in the shoes of a theologian.
I cannot imagine anything more evil or more a rejection of Christ’s sacrifice than standing in the church door turning people away.