Archive for July, 2005
Weekly WhitakerOnline.org Articles
The Market Pros Pay Money For Nothing!
Some things are so stupid that you are left speechless.
For many years the Wall Street Journal has reported, one after another, scientific studies that show that the advice of highly-paid market analysts is utterly useless. The funniest ones are studies that have monkeys tossing darts at the stock list and six months later comparing how well the stocks the monkeys picked did compared to those selected by market analysts who take in staggering salaries.
The results are ALWAYS dead even.
Which would be hilarious if somebody actually caught on to what was going on. But in New York they keep PAYING those analysts.
In New York “Modern Artists” have been cracking commodes or welding together tin cans and getting a hundred thousand dollars for it. This has been going on for at least sixty years.
But people buy the stuff and sell it. And everybody has thought that surely someday somebody in New York would catch on.
But the art experts keep raving over a painting of Christ in urine (NOT Moses in urine!). The cracked commodes keep selling and the art experts write treatises on them.
How can one even comment on this?
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
Primitive Medicine And Primitive Social Science
“Experts” is the title of today’s internet radio show at:
As I point out in my latest book, which you can find at READBOB.COM social scientists admit their fields are primitive compared to the hard sciences. But historians who are part of those social science departments never notice the most consistent facts in intellectual history:
Primitive sciences are always silly.
APPLIED primitive sciences are always not only silly, but their ideas cause disaster.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
But when the person with that little knowledge thinks he is an expert and everybody else thinks he’s an expert, that is a formula for disaster.
Medical history before the middle of the nineteenth century is one long horror.
As I explain on the program and in much, much more detail in my book, the bigger the title a medical expert had, the more horrible his advice was.
In December of 1799, when George Washington came down with pneumonia his doctors literally bled him to death.
As with the New York stock market analysis, nobody pays any attention to what works.
But people assume that someone sitting in a mahogany office in a New York skyscraper, in a huge corner office with a view, must know what he is doing.
For well over a thousand years, nobody questioned that Medical Authorities, with doctorates and a thorough knowledge of both Latin and Greek, knew what they were doing.
Social science is primitive. The diversity they preach IS insane. The rehabilitation they preach IS insane.
And the entire intellectual history of the last two thousand years tells us not only why it is insane, but that this insanity was inevitable.
People assume that somebody who sits in a university with the title “Professor” must know what he is doing, just as they assume that somebody sitting in a huge corner office with a view of Wall Street must know what he is doing. They took it for granted for over a thousand years that somebody with a big name who was a University Doctor and Professor of Medicine knew what he was doing.
Millions of people died operating under the latter assumption, including the Father of Our Country and millions of newborn children and their mothers.
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
Dying For The Experts
And we are dying for our assumptions today. Thousands of people will be killed on the streets of America this year because the Professors of Criminology insist that career felons are victims of society and need to be rehabilitated out in society, not imprisoned for life.
Diversity kills us wholesale. Prisons are full of illegal aliens, and every one of them has caused grievous harm to Americans. But if you want to be a respectable conservative, you have to praise Diversity and The Melting Pot and the phrase “a nation of immigrants.”
All of this is simply the result of the fact that we dare not call our so-called “intellectuals” a bunch of damned fools.
As I talked about last week on my radio show, which you can listen to any time from the archive at THE UNTRAINED EYE everybody thinks we OWE the world the right to immigrate into the United States.
All the professors and respectable conservatives say so.
That program is about the Preamble to the United States Constitution. The Constitution says very specifically that our only purpose is “We the people of the United States … and OUR posterity.”
The Constitution did NOT set up a “nation of immigrants.” Just the opposite. Like everything else, they expected the people of the United States to decide on immigration on the basis of whether those immigrants will be good for US and OUR posterity. Nobody has the slightest claim on the United States but our own citizens.
The generation of Americans who adopted the Constitution had the largest percentage of native-born Americans of any generation before or since.
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
Our So-Called “Intellectuals” Are Nuts And We Obey Them
Yet our so-called “liberal intellectuals” with their obedient little respectable conservatives in tow, insist that, 1) We are a “nation of immigrants” and we OWE third worlders the right to come here, and 2) the principle on which America was founded is The Melting Pot and we need lots of non-white immigrants here to increase Holy Diversity.
And nobody QUESTIONS that!
(Reprinted to Blog from email list of 7/30/05)
*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***
c/o Time Warp Mail Service
Dear Mr. Franklin,
You are facing extremely serious legal problems.
1) Your invention of bifocal lens.
You have no qualifications whatsoever in the fields of optometry or ophthalmology. You are ordered to cease and desist from the use or discussion of this product.
Lawsuits have been lodged against you by people whose bifocals have broken and gashed their skins. Others say that they confuse the eyes and cause double vision.
2) Your invention of the stove
Your Franklin Stove has caused serious injury to a very large number of people. Children playing have bumped into it and been burned by it. You have no Federally-approve set of directions for its use, so you are personally responsible for every accident that occurs in using your product.
3) Your discovery of the Gulf Stream
As with optometry in the case of your invention of bifocals, you are practicing meteorology with no degree or other qualifications in the subject.
While no one has yet been able to formulate an actual lawsuit against you on this subject, you have made a laughing-stock of yourself by going outside the field of printing, where you do have some actual credentials.
You are in deep trouble in other areas.
Your comments about Quakers, Indians and other minority groups were definitely Hate Speech.
You are charged with manslaughter and armed robbery in aiding and abetting in the robbery of America from the Native Americans.
Other charges are pending.
The Association of Experts, Lawyers, Professors and Other Authorities in the Year 2005
The reason I need to quote the e-mail I will quote is to show that even the other side realizes how valuable I am.
As Benjamin Franklin said at the beginning of his autobiography, my ego has a lot to do with it, but I would not brag if there were no reason for it.
In this case, there is a very good reason. I am sixty-four years old. I have had two nervous breakdowns, brain surgery and a heart attack. I have been through drug and alcohol addiction and recovery.
I won’t be in a condition to do what I do forever, and it is important to use me while I am.
Only my tiny book team truly realizes how critical this is. Only they put their hearts and souls into waking people up to this fact.
They are getting to be people who can take over when I am hanged or put away in nuthouse.
But they’ll still miss me. This explains why I am to a large extent irreplaceable.
I suffered plenty for taking the side I have taken, but I got away with writing many, many things other people have been destroyed for saying. That is because I’m GOOD at it.
Both of my earlier books written in my own name were more radical than this last one. But both of them were published by mainline publishers and both were critically praised by the liberal Publisher’s Weekly and Kirkus, and both were recommended for purchase by the leftist Library Journal.
They praised me through clenched teeth, and said so. They hated what I said, but there was no other professional writer and insider who was in a position to write what I wrote. They admitted that, though they hated what I said, I was a pro who needed to be read.
My present book, Why Johnny Can’t Think: America’s Professor-Priesthood is not as politically radical as the others, especially the first one, A Plague on Both Your Houses. In that book I demanded the preservation of the white race and threatened revolution.
William Rusher ended his Foreword to A Plague on Both Your Houses by saying that if liberals did not back down, “Whitaker will see them on the barricades.” Even the review by the John Birch Society referred to it as “this tough little book.”
So it is hard to explain to someone who is concentrating on violence or hate or revolutionary content why my present book is totally verboten.
The simple fact is that it would RUIN a publisher. Why Johnny Can’t Think: America’s Professor-Priesthood treats all the big book-buying groups as intellectual lightweights. I make FUN of them and I back my laughter with incontrovertible and well-known examples.
The establishment rests entirely on its reputation for Grim Authority. Those people are aware that there is something silly about them, and if the public, as Joe Sobran says in his Foreword, “gave them the horse laugh they deserve,” they would disappear like the Soviet Empire did.
If I was able to do my job, this establishment, which looks as permanent as the USSR did in 1980, will go down amidst laughs, pointed fingers and ridicule.
The point is I am GOOD at what I do, as all the major reviewers have admitted.
My third book is also admired by the other side, though anonymously. To show this I will publish an anonymous e-mail I got and my reply.
The only person who could possibly identify the writer, even if he remembered the incident, would be Alan Bloom, who would not do so if he were alive but who died in 1992 or 1993.
The writer says he is not on the same planet with me politically. He seems to be a respectable conservative with some pretty heavy intellectual credentials. The point is that he does not agree with me, but he sees the depth of what I am doing.
I probably shouldn’t even be writing you. You don’t know me, I’m not
in your league intellectually, and we’re politically on different
But on the theory that everybody enjoys a compliment now and then, I’m
writing you to say that “Why Johnny Can’t Think” is one of the most
profound books I’ve ever read. And what convinced me was your chapter
about Odin, who gave his eye for knowledge. Not wisdom, but knowledge.
In an earlier life, I was being groomed for great things at the feet of
Allan Bloom and Leon Kass. Allan Bloom, as I’m sure you know, was the
guy who talked a Cornell college student named Paul Wolfowitz out of
biochemistry and into politics. Leon Kass now chairs the President’s
Commission on Bioethics.
Early in the process of identifying future neoconservative operatives,
Leon Kass had his students read Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Arts and
Sciences”. As an exercise in reading comprehension, he had them try
to summarize Rousseau’s argument on one page.
He was very impressed with my summary. In fact, he said that he didn’t
think that a much better summary was possible.
Actually, Rousseau’s argument may be summarized in one sentence. That
sentence is “Knowledge should be kept secret from the vulgar masses and
guarded by a tiny elite.” Many years later, Kass told the _New York
Times_ that this book revealed to him his purpose in life.
As I said, Kass today chairs the President’s Commission on Bioethics.
He’s doing his best to keep knowledge secret from the vulgar masses
and confine it to a tiny elite.
Is that the essence of gnosticism or what? But you already know about
gnosticism, I see.
Anyhow, best wishes and thanks for your work.
My reply was,
I don’t know whether you meant you should not have written me for your sake or for mine. Your reply did me a lot of good.
We are both intellectual heavyweights, and, while people who agree with me praise my work as truth, they seldom realize how deep it is.
My first (1976) book in my own name was A Plague on Both Your Houses. It was a populist book expressing grassroots revulsion at both the liberals and their collaborators, mainline conservatives. It was the result of my doing press releases for grassroots movements which they could not do for themselves. It was read and appreciated by those same grassroots protestors.
That book was reviewed for National Review by Jeffrey Hart, an English professor at Princeton, who titled his review “Read This One.” Hart said “The sheer intellectual pleasure of reading this book lies in Whitaker’s coruscating insights.”
The coal miners and country preachers who read my first book would be stunned to learn that if a brilliant man took what they were thinking and expanded on it it would be seen as a series of coruscating insights by college professors.
It struck them as common sense.
Actually, of course, it was both common sense and the brilliance one can make of it. I don’t think differently from any other American with an unshakeable grasp of reality. I just have a lot of real education on top of it. If we had real education today, my writings would be routine.
To say that my work is not appreciated by those who claim to be intellectuals is the understatement of the twenty-first century. I’m used to that, but it is very wearying, and your words are a great help.
My BoardOp was not clear about my last post – I’ll explain my purpose further.
The reason I wrote this particular entry is because I am going to quote someone for the first time who wrote me anonymously and is in no position to give me permission to do so. This is a touchy business, so I wanted to explain in detail how it fits into netiquette.
I was concentrating so hard on that point that I did not realize I may be raising other questions in readers’ minds.
For example, should you say in your e-mail that I may quote you?
It would be helpful to me if you did say in your e-mail to me if you can be quoted, but it would be wearisome for you to say that all the time. I will NEVER quote you unless I get your permission.
Some of my regular correspondents give me blanket permission in one e-mail to quote except when they specifically say not to.
I deal with very little confidential stuff, not least because after my career, I’m sick of it. I do not put anything in e-mails I cannot afford to have quoted. Many others who have led public lives do the same.
If you WANT to be given credit for what you say, you should tell me so. No one knows better than I do that a writer deserves credit for work and insights he is proud of. You can give me blanket permission once and say if something is an exception as others do.
Though it upset me at first, I thank our BoardOp for pointing this out to me. I try hard, but I can’t think of everything, and your help is appreciated.
I NEVER quote an e-mail without asking the writer if I may do so. Even then I also ask them whether or not I can use their name.
Even then, I do not use their name unless it is appropriate.
As to anonymous e-mails, it is my responsibility to protect the writer. An e-mail is a private message even if it is sent anonymously.
I cannot ask an anonymous writer whether I can use his or her message. But with my background in intelligence and as an interrogator I can judge whether, if I had the resources and the motivation, I could find out who wrote it.
If so, I don’t quote it.
Even then, I would not make anything public that would really hurt the writer.
And even then, there has to be a very good reason to quote it.
Very few e-mails could make it through all these hurdles.
I say all this because I am studying an e-mail that I need to quote that probably does make it through all these hurdles. But first I want to make it clear that any e-mail to me is handled as confidential information by a professional in the area of confidential information.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) disposes of money by the tens of millions of dollars.
The exact amount is not known because, as with Jesse Jackson, the Internal Revenue Agency will look at the SPLC’s books about the time that salamanders grow breasts. In any case, no one questions where the SPLC gets tens of millions each year, at least.
When President Johnson’s War Against Poverty got going in 1964, huge consulting firms began to spring up all around Washington. People who got government grants would say, without any humorous intent, “The money is in poverty.”
When I was an honorary Boston Southie, my little outfit of three people didn’t even have a bank account. But we organized a joint protest of the anti-busing and textbook protestors in Washington, DC that included at least ten thousand people. Every one of them was a working-class person who paid his own way from West Virginia, Boston, Louisville and other places to be there.
Our little apartment was known as “The Kanawha Hilton” because so many working people from that coal-mining area of West Virginia would stay there when they came to Washington.
The three of us, a former newspaper man, my legal secretary wife, and I would call up grassroots protests who couldn’t afford press relations people and ask them, “What do you want us to do?”
We did their press conferences, we marched with them, we spoke for them when they wanted us to. We rode with the independent truck drivers, we worked with wildcat coal strikers.
And we paid our own way.
It came as a bit of surprise when the Communist Party’s official publication, “The World,” announced that we were “part of a highly-financed right wing conspiracy.” They named us specifically, The Populist Forum, as one of the “heavily-financed right-wing groups.”
I remember reading in the Communist World in the 1960s a that a Jewish millionaire had left them a million dollars in his will. That was a million dollars in the 1960s, remember.
It was a small item because it wasn’t that much of a deal. A million bucks was nice, but it was in no way unusual. Plenty of limousine liberals gave them lots of money and whenever the head of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) went to Russia, they would send him home with a million dollar gift in his jeans.
Once again, we’re talking about a million bucks in the 1960s. With inflation and growth, the American Gross National Product (GNP) is well over ten times as high today as it was in the 1960s, so you can just multiply that figure by ten to get an idea of how much money I am discussing here.
The Communist Daily World was called the Daily Worker in the old days. That got sillier and sillier and sillier, since there were no workers in the party by 1960, and certainly no white gentile workers. Like every other Communist Party, the American one was led by people who would not know which end of shovel you dig with.
Lenin, Trotsky and all the “intellectuals” who ran the Communist Party there and here lived the high life. The leaders of the Revolution of the Poor and Oppressed never missed a meal and none of them ever did a day’s work in their lives.
I got a comment saying “Fuch (sic) you all, bloggers.”
The e-mail address was firstname.lastname@example.org
Obviously this was not from Chris Matthews.
As you know, I hate the respect respectable conservatives show to liberals so they can be “respectable.”
So it may surprise you that I wrote back, “I knew Chris Matthews when I was on Capitol Hill. He was our opponent, but we respected him and I do not appreciate your using his name this way.”
Naturally the note came back as undeliverable. Chris had nothing to do with it.
This was a reaction, not a thought-out response.
Am I a hypocrite?
Now that I am doing interviews, I often hear the phrase “Break a leg!’
As you know, it is considered bad luck in theater circles to wish an actor good luck. So you say to him, “Break a leg!”
Recently a well-wisher told me, as I faced an interview, “Break his leg!”
I replied that “Break his leg” is not necessarily a good thing to say to a former combat mercenary. It was a joke, but it reminded me of something.
Once I was waiting for a plane in an airport in Eastern Europe.
You know how it is, in cases like that you strike up conversations with people and it turns out that the people you just happen to talk to you are amazingly similar to you. So I started talking with a guy and it turned out he was a former member of the Special Forces, Army.
The man is now wealthy, but I would be willing to bet that, like me, he got an assignment in that country and was doing the work gratis.
I know that a lot of you are experts in martial arts and will tell me I don’t know what I am talking about, but a million years ago when I was young I learned a special kick to take out a person’s knee.
When I say take out, I do not mean a temporary incapacitation. If you are in unarmed combat and you used that kick, the knee was gone forever. Maybe modern surgery can take care of it, but back then it shoved the knee backwards and took out everything that goes with it.
It is a useful kick. It puts a lot of pressure on something and I use it to shove luggage back into line and so forth. I did that in the airport. When I did, I noticed one guy who was also waiting for the plane flinch. He could see the horror I could be doing to the person such a kick was intended for.
I said to the former Special Forces man, “I’ll bet you that man there is somebody we can relate to.”
So I got that guy into the conversation and, lo and behold, he too had been Special Forces, Air Force.
It was an interesting experience on a number of levels, and I hadn’t remembered until someone told me, “Break his leg.”
You cannot imagine what a relief it is to me that my staff REALLY TALK to each other.
When our team got started I told everybody they had to be SENIOR staffers. They took over because they LOVE the idea.
When a congressman or an executive hires senior staff, the main directive is, “Do it.”
I was a professional senior staffer.
People think that the man in charge, the Big Guy, wants to be on top of everything. In the real world, that’s the last thing the Big Guy wants.
If he did, he wouldn’t be a Big Guy.
I’m not a Big Guy, but one of my staff enjoys referring to me as “Hisself.” People who don’t understand the real world feel they are really “getting things done” when they talk directly with Hisself Himself.
But if Hisself knows what he is doing, he gets staff who keep on top of things. When you talk to me, I immediately call my staff and try to remember what the conversation was about.
That’s what every Hisself does.
There are no dictatorships. All governments are oligarchies.
Don’t mistake this for humility. This is reality.
I don’t think I have humility. I think I have guts. It takes guts to delegate. I used to tell the people who worked under me on Capitol Hill, “I will take responsibility for anything you DO. I will NOT take responsibility for what you DON’T do.”
People who can’t delegate lack the guts to take responsibility for the people they trust.
I am a lousy conduit. The fact is that when you are talking to any member of my staff you are talking to the person who is really responsible for what is going on.
They have told me that they are proud, and even “damned honored” to be my Senior Staffers.
[What He said. --Staff]
I said that there no Annotated Constitution and Traeger Smith informed me that there is, and that there has been for a long time.
I am beginning to believe that there is NOTHING one or another of my commenters don’t know about. That would scare the hell out of the average college professor.
Which is one reason I am no longer a college professor.
I taught in college and I had to take over some graduate classes. Everybody there except me got to grad school by taking down what the professors said and regurgitating it. There are no surprises in class.
It is boring as hell.
No student is going to look something up to hit you with the way my commenters do. No student is going to have a point of view he won’t back away from.
I wasn’t like that, and you will notice that I didn’t make it in Academia.
This blog is entirely different. You KNOW things. You are willing to stick your necks out and be hit back.
I am willing to stick my neck out and I fully expect you to knock me down when I’m wrong or when you disagree. That’s what I ENJOY.
I am an actual intellectual. I am not interested in a producing a bunch of intellectual clones who say predictable things. Old Bob is the dictator of his own little blog, but his little blog is here to hammer out what is right and what is wrong.
Ole Bob has been wrong many times in the past and Ole Bob will be wrong many times in the future.
When I am wrong, it can be embarrassing, but I also know that if you are never wrong, something is wrong with YOU.
If you’re so careful you never say anything stupid, you are not doing any serious thinking or any serious questioning.
Any person who really thinks is going to be wrong a LOT.
So when I’m wrong you tell me so.
People are always warning me against making sweeping statements. They tell me it makes me vulnerable.
Vulnerable to what?
Well, they say, it makes me vulnerable to getting caught making a mistake.
The difference between them and me is that what they call making a terrible mistake is what I call learning.
INSIGHT FOR THE TRAINED EYES
I’m scheduled to do a nightly radio program through the month of August on the same Memphis AM radio station where James Edwards runs The Political Cesspool broadcast – WLRM 1380 AM. It will start off with a new interview of me by James about my book. We will then use a combination of my Untrained Eye programs and other interviews or repeats and see how things go. The broadcasts will be streamed live over the internet, as well as archived on my website.
The program scheduled now to run from 2 – 3 in the morning, Central, and we have no idea what kind of response we will get. It is a perfect month for talking about the subject in my book, as August is back-to-school time.
The program will not be cheap. I’m funding it out of my pocket. We would be ecstatic if we could even sell enough books to cover the cost. But we’re doing this to help out James, who is trying to build a whole 12 hour-a-day populist broadcast. It is a very important project, and one whose time has come.
Here is where you can help. Radio time costs money. I have to pay for it up front. If I can get sponsors, that will make a BIG difference. If you, or anyone you know, would be willing to buy commercial time, please email me at Bob@whyjohnny.com.
Here is the deal. We are going to sell a one-minute spot to run on all 23 shows for $100.
That is less than $5 per spot. We will even record the commercial for you, if you don’t have one already.
My staff and I are doing all of this on a voluntary basis. I’m funding this out-of-pocket. If we could line up 3 or 4 sponsors, that would really give us a good start.
If you know anyone in Memphis with a business, or anyone with an internet business, or anyone else interested in advertising, please have them email me at Bob@whyjohnny.com.
Remember this is an FCC licensed broadcast, and we don’t need anything silly or distasteful. All ads will be subject to James’s and my approval.
As he says, “ON to victory.”
We all have strong opinions, or we wouldn’t be here.
From time to time I indulge myself in arguing about religious opinions or history. I have a certain nostalgia for the time when we could have afforded to fight out our particular views out with each other.
Doctors can fight each other over their particular theories of treatment, but when the plague comes, they are all there working day and night, side by side. Every doctor is welcome and it is a huge relief to see another doctor, no matter how you disagree with him on important medical issues, there beside you.
Some of us are hard-core Catholics, some Calvinists, some evangelicals, some athiests, and some whateverthehell I am. Some of us are pro-capitalist, some of us are socialists of the nationalist kind. When I looked years ago the largest political party in Jordan was called the National Socialists, but they are hardly Nazis, they were socialists of a nationalist kind.
So I am glad to have you here, your stance on evolution or anything else be damned.
To us today World War I is bewildering. All those countries in 1914 had monarchies, they were white, the were all empires, and yet they were destroying everything over issues that were trivial in the world picture.
If we save our people the time may come when we can take our differences seriously again. My hope is that by then we will be able to enjoy that luxury while at the same time keeping our eyes firmly on the importance of what we are all here to protect.
Weekly WhitakerOnline.org Articles
You know the place in the Post Office where they put up pictures of escaped felons and Public Enemies?
I saw my photo up there. Underneath it said,
The Annotated Constitution
A book I will never write would be called The Annotated Constitution. It would go through the Constitution line by line and say what the courts have done with each clause.
I have studied constitutional law and I have instructed constitutional law. The entire course consists of opinions by various judges. What hits you first is how short the Constitution is and how endless the judicial opinions are. The books of them fill whole rooms.
When you comment that much on a short document the document itself gets completely lost.
So I thought it would be fun to go through the tiny Constitution itself and talk about what Judicial Opinion has made of it.
I am not about to write another book now. Nobody’s interested.
But I do have an internet program and some points to make, so I decided to make a start at an Annotated Constitution there.
I did almost an hour on the Preamble to the Constitution alone. You can listen to it this Saturday at 2 pm at
THE UNTRAINED EYE will be called “Annotated Constitution – Preamble.”
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
“We the People”
One thing everybody agrees on today is that America is a Principle. As National Review says, America is a Propositional State. According to the flag ship of respectable conservatism, you and I, whose families have been in this country for hundreds of years, have nothing to do with The Real Meaning of America.
Thailand may be the Thais, Japan is the Japanese, but America has nothing to do with the people who happen to inhabit it. America is based on a Proposition, a Set of Ideas. A Patriot is one who is loyal to those Ideas.
In other words, National Review agrees with liberals that you can be loyal to America without having any loyalty at all to the American people. Respectable conservatives feel Americans should be grateful because they do not actually HATE Americans the way liberals do.
Liberals feel they are being most loyal to the real America when they are blaming Americans for every evil in the world. Respectable conservatives want to give the little people who happen to be here a little credit. They don’t know Latin or Greek, but they do try to be loyal to the proposition, the principles, of America.
It never occurs to any conservative, much less any liberal, that it is not up to Americans to be loyal to THEIR principles. The idea that they can only be patriots if they are loyal to Americans never occurs to them.
Every Judicial Opinion agrees with this.
So it comes as a shock to read the Preamble to the United States Constitution.
It begins with “We the people of the United States of America,” and conservatives don’t mind that so much.
But it gets worse. And no conservative EVER quotes the rest. You see, “We the people of the United States in 1789 could have been very idealistic and they could have set down some ideals that America would follow after they died.
But the Founders added a fatal phrase, which no conservative EVER quotes:
“And OUR posterity.”
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
“To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” That is the purpose of the Constitution.
That is the ONLY purpose of the Constitution, that is the only authority it rests on. The Constitution says nothing about All Mankind. The writers of the Constitution were trying to get it adopted by Americans. So they only claimed the authority of the American people.
You see, those same Founding fathers had just had experience with people who insisted that THEY knew what all mankind should do. America had declared its independence of such people. The whole point of the Revolution was that AMERICANS ruled America.
It never occurred to the Founding Fathers that they were writing a Constitution that told the rest of the world what it should do.
Nothing could have been more alien to those who wrote the Constitution than the idea that they were writing abstract principles that All Mankind was required to follow.
About fifty years after the Constitution was adopted, John Quincey Adams stated this principle again. Someone was asking America to defend freedom around the world (sound familiar?) and John Quincey Adams replied:
“America is the friend of all people’s freedom, but we are the defenders only of our own.”
Loyalty to America is precisely what every liberal and every respectable conservative says it is not.
Loyalty to America is loyalty to “We the people fo the United States of America… and OUR posterity.”
(Reprinted to Blog from email list of 7/23/05)
*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***
In the last Insider Letter I explained what real power was and how one plays the game.
It is a very private game.
As I said, one who uses the real thing is not that interested in credit. In fact, it is a straight tradeoff. The more power people know you have the less effective you are.
The president of the United States has very little real power. To get elected and reelected he must keep his options very limited. What the people you read about fight for is the title.
When I first went to Capitol Hill, my boss told me, “Bob, I spend all my time talking to people and taking care of problems and meeting deadlines and reading. I have no time to THINK.”
Then he said, “I want you to THINK for me.”
You may say he was handing power over to me, but that’s not true. If John Ashbrook had said, “You just do the thinking and I’ll do whatever you want done,” that would have given ME a lot of power over him.
But he did not tell me to do my own thinking for me any more than he asked someone he was dictating a letter to write his letter for him. I was hired to do HIS thinking for him. That is a matter of loyalty, which a senior staffer has to have in large amounts.
Many times what I wanted was not what John Ashbrook wanted. I was paid to think of exactly what John Ashbrook would like to say if he had the time to think of it and I was paid to get what John Ashbrook wanted.
Since what John Ashbrook wanted and what I wanted were almost always the same thing, this gave me a lot of power to do what I wanted to do. But I never even shaded anything I did for him my way.
A couple of times I put my job on the line by saying I simply could not go along with something. He would have another staffer do it. In one case I think my refusal was what decided him on an issue.
But it was all in the open.
More than once he had to take my word for something and go for it without knowing exactly why, as when we saved the Hubble Telescope. But it was always something he would have wanted if he had had the time to think it over and which he was later grateful to me.
Real power is, as I said, a very private business. Often when I tell someone something I am not interested in their agreeing with me. What I am telling them is a means by which I can judge them.
The best example is what I tell them about John Ashbrook’s death. John died in April of 1982. For fourteen years the entire civil rights establishment had been fighting to get Martin Luther King’s birthday declared a national holiday. John had stood in the way.
Two months after John died they got their national holiday.
There are two Houses of Congress. John was one of 435 members of one of them.
A minority member.
Yet he stopped the whole civil rights establishment from getting its way and they got it two months after he died.
I mention this and watch the reaction of the person I am talking to.
They NEVER get it.
They want to talk about presidential primaries and third parties, where they think the real power is. No one has ever even asked me HOW a lone congressman was able to stop the whole civil rights establishment cold.
I have said that if you want exciting financial advice, you just need to go to a local bar, find a guy who can’t afford to buy his own drink, and he will give you lecture on how money should be invested and a sure-fire way to make real money. The guy who has never had money knows all about it.
The guy who has never exercised any power can give you endless advice on it. In fact, he is even more clueless about power than the one you buy the drink for is about money.
At least the moocher in the bar knows where real money IS.
People who lecture you about real power don’t even know where power is.
One thing that causes black people to wake up sweating in the night is whether white people mean what they say.
If you listen closely, a lot of the dialogue among black people boils down to, “White people say they don’t mind me marrying their daughter, but what are they really THINKING?”
I would be humiliated if I worried about something like that. Your opinion is your own. Just don’t keep me from doing what I want to do.
But it is a major, and openly declared, concern of non-whites: What does this white person REALLY think of me?
If I worried that much, in public, about what non-whites think of me I would be a candidate for psychiatric care.
The healthy attitude among Americans has always been to insist that other people let me do what I want to do. What they THINK about what I want to do is not my concern.
Not only do other people have the right to disapprove of me, they have the right to SAY they disapprove of me.
But the modern doctrine says that whites must not only consent, they must APPROVE, right down to their toenails.
A movie showed Alan Alda as an idealistic and, therefore, liberal United States Senator. One of the high points of the movie was when he was on a Senate Committee and an old Southerner was testifying before it. The Idealist, played by Mr. Alda, brought out a quote from a private conversation the old Southerner had had in which he said he was STILL for segregation.
The old Southerner had consented to integration, but he had not, down to his toenails, APPROVED of it.
Now if that revelation had been that, in a private conversation, a LEFTIST had said he was a good Stalinst and he was STILL a good Stalinist, the Idealist would have denounced that revelation as McCarthyism.
But it never occurred to those producing the movie that the revelation that an old segregationist was still at heart a segregationist was anything but Idealism in Action.
It is nowhere near enough that a white person ALLOWS non-whites to do as they wish. The white person must be totally converted. He must WANT the colored guy to marry his daughter.
It is very hard to explain the obvious to people. The simple fact that nothing could be more humiliating to a non-whites than worrying about what a white person THINKS of him is totally beyond the understanding of non-whites.
I have tried to explain it to them. I might as well be speaking in Ancient Greek.