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 email@example.com
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.”