Archive for August, 2005
I am announcing this week in the regular whitakeronline that I am retiring from it for a year, at least.
It has come out, hardly ever missing a week and with special editions, for exactly seven years.
My team has agreed to my quitting, and they and I are the only people who have put any effort or money into my work, so I owe no explanation to anybody else.
The blog is all I will be doing, and if there are any technical problems, it can end abruptly.
I’ve been fighting alone for too long and my health is paying for it. I went down this road years ago and I will not do it again.
Only I can fully understand how much we have accomplished.
Political correctness is not LIKE a religion, it IS a religion.
Anti-racism is a code-word for genocide, liberals and respectable conservatives demand immigration and integration for ALL white countries and ONLY for white countries.
The left is now recognized as so silly that only our refusal to laugh it out of existence keeps it alive. Its shadow, respectable conservatism, will go with it.
These concepts are now firmly rooted in the minds of thousands of people, and they will take hold.
When the first edition of my book was sold out, my goal had been reached. Those concepts, like laughing at the professor-priesthood and the commentators, are dynamite. It took all I had, but me and my team got them out there.
I know what real power is, and it is not being called Mister President. A President’s options are severely limited.
Power is not accumulating vast sums of money.
Power is not doing something BEFORE someone else does it.
These are satisfying things, but they are not POWER.
Power is making things happen that simply would not happened otherwise.
It is hard to explain to anybody who has not spent his life doing exactly what I have done what my little team and I have accomplished.
In the future, it will seem so obvious that no one will notice that we did it. Everything seems inevitable in retrospect.
My ideas are “out there” now. There are millions of pages writers HAVE to fill, and while they avoid my personal writings like the plague, they cannot help stealing them and using them.
I had to spend years coming up with and perfecting these concepts that seem so obvious now. THEN I had to get them OUT when anybody who is in the establishment can SMELL how dangerous they are.
It is good to have all my knowledge and experience and dedication and endless thought.
But after that, you have to get all my work out of one man’s mind and somewhere in the public discourse. That is gargantuan task.
A chess master knows he has won the game five to ten moves before the end. Often a master will concede the game to another expert when no one else can understand why.
I have been in this game an awfully long time. I am a master of it.
It’s time for me to quit.
While I was on Capitol Hill, a big bill dealing with the blind came up. Hundreds of blind people were on the Hill lobbying for the bill. They had trouble getting directions because people didn’t know how to approach them.
They had flexible, extended black canes, which intimidated people. They were asking passersby for directions, but most people just went on by. They didn’t know how to get around the canes diplomatically.
I dealt with this insurmountable problem by saying, “I’m coming up to you on YOUR right. Don’t swing your cane that way.”
I then gave them directions, using open spaces, which they could sense, the little eating places on the Hill they could smell, and so forth.
Soon the sighted people they had with them were calling me for directions. They said I knew the Hill and I knew how to direct blind people. They asked me about my training.
Others on Capitol Hill were impressed by this. They asked how I performed this miracle.
This is what I said, almost verbatim:
“Well, I figure the big problem with being blind is that you can’t see anything. So I think, ‘If I couldn’t see anything, what would I want somebody to do for me?’”
This was what they called Whitaker Logic, and they enjoyed it immensely.
If you work on Capitol Hill, you have to deal with people on the basis of what they know, what they can understand, and what they can do. I can toss blindness into that mix without any trouble.
Also crutches, a wheelchair or the fact that a person is ugly. A beautiful girl confuses me as much as any other man.
How about the fact of having the proper ATTITUDE toward someone who is blind or in a wheelchair?
The other day I was getting my teeth cleaned and the technician said, “I hear thunder.”
I replied, “What would you like me to do about it?”
She knew I was kidding, but that is my attitude toward blind people, ugly people, teenagers with acne and everybody else. I deeply wish they did not have that problem, but what am I supposed to do about it?
I don’t have any handicapped “training,” but I have dealt with a lot with people like that because I seem to be good at it.
The only handicapped I have actually had professional experience with were retarded children. Dealing with them is the easiest and pleasantest thing on earth.
Retardeds have a grasp of logic that escapes people who think they’re smart. My brother was working in a retarded home as a pediatric neurologist so he was called to the emergency room when one of his patients had to go there.
The boy said, “Dr. Whitaker, I feel just awful.”
My brother replied, “You’re sick, you’re in a hospital, you’re SUPPOSED to feel awful.”
The boy said, “OK.”
He told me that story because we both wish other people could deal with simple logic that well.
I do not know a single person who thinks he or she is judgmental.
That is how I know for sure that I am.
The piece below is about how nobody thinks they’re cruel. They are doing it for your own good.
The word judgmental is exactly like the word cruel.
Nobody thinks he’s judgmental. They are dong it for your own good or because “someone has to make a decision” or because they are not speaking for themselves but for the Cause or for God.
One of the greatest inventors of all time was the priest who first said, “You do not have to do what I say. You have to follow the Law of our Supreme God Ukka which I have revealed to you.”
A more colloquial form of this phenomenon is the endless Sayings of Lincoln. As one person pointed out, “If Lincoln said half the things people quote from him he wouldn’t have had time to do anything else.”
What happened, of course, was that Ben down at the country store thought of something really good. But the other guys didn’t want to say “Ben said this.” It wouldn’t impress anybody. So they described it as a Lincoln Saying.
The first priest, Ukka’s boy, didn’t try to enforce anything himself. he just said, “Do this or my big buddy Ukka will hit you with eleven plagues and you teenage daughter will have the biggest outbreak of zits on record.”
Lenin was not judgmental. He just executed people by the millions for the sake of Marxism. A dead man’s writings are as good as an unseen Ukka.
How do you tell whether you are being moral or judgmental?
It’s a matter of judgment.
Those four words should have been the motto of the Spanish Inquisition.
While a person screamed in agony being burned slowly alive, a cross was held in his face.
None of this was for sadism or revenge. The Inquisitors actually believed that they were doing it for the victim’s own good. They believed that the fire he was in was far less agonizing than the flames of Hell. And Hell, they sincerely believed, is forever.
There was the slightest chance that the dying man or woman would confess at feeling the flames, and the soul would be saved.
Today many Christians still believe exactly that, but they would never use it to justify burning a person alive with a cross in his face. But within the belief system of the Inquisitors, it was in fact for the heretic’s own good.
“To make an omelet,” Said Lenin, “You have to break eggs.”
Even most “intellectuals” have finally condemned Stalin. But Lenin is still their hero, a True Idealist.
“To make an omelet you have to break eggs” was the motto of the Red Terror that Lenin, not Stalin, put into action. The eggs were people, millions of them. If Lenin had not died when he did, he would have gladly killed tens of millions more:
“”It does not matter if there are half a billion people in the world or two billion people in the world, ” said Lenin, “It only matters that that half a billion are COMMUNISTS.”
Lenin cared less for a human being than a sane person would care about eggs. Stalin killed tens of millions of people, but Molotov, who knew both men intimately, said, “Compared to Lenin, Stalin was a pussycat.”
I believe him. I believe Molotov because Stalin was a thug, and Lenin was an Idealist. Even murderous thugs get tired. Idealists are tireless.
There is absolutely nothing an Idealist won’t do to you for your own good. Compared to the good of the world Lenin thought a single human being was less than nothing.
Everybody who lives to be my age remembers that the filthiest tricks ever pulled on them were done in the name of Righteous Indignation.
From breaking important promises to ruining your life, it is always moral indignation, or “for your own good” that is the excuse.
If you have a choice to be whipped by a sadist or by someone who is convinced he is doing it for your own good, pick the sadist. He will stop when his arm gets tired.
In New England they had a saying, “The Lodges speak only to the Cabots. The Cabots speak only to God.”
In New England a really classy person did not speak to those who were beneath them.
I was raised to consider that trashy.
There is tale about General Lee which shows how different the Southern mind is. As General Lee passed, an old black slave stood up, took off his hat, and said, “Good day, General Lee.”
General doffed his hat and said, “Good day to you.”
A French reporter, who did not believe in race distinctions but did believe in class distinctions, was astonished. He said to Lee, “You have just taken your hat off to a SLAVE.”
Lee replied, “He cannot be more courteous than I am.”
I don’t know how many of you are familiar with the Tar Baby Story in Uncle Remus’s tales. The Tarbaby was just a lump of tar with a hat on.
How could a lump of tar be a TRAP?
Nobody who read Uncle Remus’s tales had any question about that. To them, it was understood that not speaking was an invitation to a fight.
Ole Brer Rabbit hopped by and said, “Good day to you.”
“And the Tarbaby, he didn’t say nothing.”
“Brer Rabbit stopped and he said, “I said Good Day to you!”
“And the Tarbaby, he didn’t say nothing.”
Finally Brer Rabbit for so furious he hit Tarbaby and got stuck in the tar.
Brer Fox, who set the trap, knew that someone who didn’t speak back would get hit. Everybody reading the story knew that anybody who refused to speak would get hit.
To a Southerner a person who does not speak is recognizing his humanity. It is an act of violence.
I think in those terms so deeply that what is native to me is amazing to other people.
Never in my life have I ever “cut someone off.” I have had many threats and enemies, but my reaction has always been to confront people if they called me or confronted me.
All my life I have felt that it was all right for a woman to refuse to speak to someone, but for a man it is inexcusable.
There are exceptions, just as there are exceptions to the rule that you don’t shoot people. But for me, refusing to speak to someone is a form of overt violence.
Michael Landon’s first movie was called “I Was a Teenage Werewolf.”
It was made when I was just entering my teens. There was a massive spate of horror movies then, all publicized by posters featuring beautiful women being attacked by monsters or maniacs.
There was a scene in “I Was a Teenage Werewolf” where a voluptuous tennage girl in a tight gym outfit was being attacked by Michael Landon as the werewolf. I must have seen that scene repeated a dozen times on television. Every time there was a discussion of violence in the movies or movies in general or any other excuse, that scene was repeated.
There was a movie called “The Woman Eater.” It showed a plant to whom women were fed as a sacrifice.
I seldom say anything complimentary about carnivorous plants, but I must say this one had very specific tastes for a vegetable. The only women it ate were young, spectacularly beautiful starlets.
In the drive-in theaters many girls would scream at the evil monster and grab their boyfriends.
A scream and a grab is usually a bother. But the boyfriends tolerated it very well.
“The Woman Eater” was a box office smash, but they didn’t make a sequel called “The Old Man Eater.” I never understood why that was.
But now to the point: this was the 1950s, remember. The rape rate was miniscule compared to today. The murder rate was miniscule compared to today.
If you think violence is caused by movies, you really need to take a look at the billboards from that day
Nor was this new.
The main advertisement for Dracula about 1931 was a huge color picture of the vampire drinking the blood of a woman whose lovely leg was exposed. It was “sex and violence” incarnate. That picture was infinitely sexier than any porn movie today that shows women naked.
In the 1930s King Kong advertisements featured the huge beast holding a squirming, screaming Faye Wray in his hand. Half the audience was female.
King Kong was made in the middle of the Depression. If poverty or violent movies caused crime, the crime rate in the 1930s would have been astronomical.
Sometimes the 1930-1960 period is referred to as “an age of innocence.” In the movies, it was anything but. People shot each other without any hesitation or moral reflection. James Cagney started as a song-and-dance man, but he made his fame by killing people in droves.
If you attacked a woman on the street, a man in the 1930s would not have hesitated to shoot you down in cold blood. Can you imagine a man doing that today?
Thay may have had something to do with the fact that women were not so wantonly attacked back then.
H.S. disagrees with evolution.
Suits me. The last thing I want is a bunch of commenters who agree with me on everything.
But, as you will see, what bothered me was not the disagreement, but something far more critical.
She misused the term “politically correct.”
Deal with the POINT. But NEVER use “politically correct” as a throwaway expression.
In this war, that is a terrible misstep. And this IS a war.
Misusing that word is more important than anything relating to evolution. It aids the enemy enormously.
Here is the exchange: HS begins by quoting me:
Whales are the only animal for which we have a complete fossil record of its evolution from one species to another.
Whales were originally a furry hooved carnivore, no more at home in the water than a tiger. But the shoreline is where the food is. While all other hooved carnivores died out this one apparently ate fish that washedup, then began to go after them in the water.
If adherents to the alternate religion of PC need for whales to have been furry hooved carnivores, you will have a thousand professors line up and swear that they did.
There is less than no scientific fact to back up the article and statements above.
Here is my reply. Bob’s Blog is not a gentle place:
Why does PC need evolution?
Evolution is the antithesis of equality and universality.
I am genuinely interested in your answer to this, since it fits into the kind of thinking I am trying to inculcate.
Evolution is a bone of contention between atheistic forms of wordism and Christian forms of wordism. Karl Marx hated religion so he tried to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, and Darwin refused. Marx felt he had an ally against wordist Christianity, which is based on the Old Testament.
But in terms of Bob’s Blog, a fight between two forms of wordism is not important.
Professors rue the day they ever coined the term “political correctness.” It gave a name to their whole campaign of terrorizing everybody who used the wrong words.
Since then they have backpedaled desperately. They say the term political correctness was just a joke. They use it on talk shows to mean saying the right things about religion.
Anything to divert people from the real and limited meaning of the term political correctness. For once their ploys have NOT worked. For once the public knows exactly what the term political correctness means and it is the only word to describe this phenomenon.
Conservatives who use political correctness for anything they don’t approve of help the professors enormously.
If evolution is necessary to political correctness I would certainly agree that a thousand professors would line up to support it before midnight tonight. But I have NEVER heard evolution mentioned as a motivation for ANY human action in ANY social science class. Social science, political correctness, avoids any discussion of heredity whatsoever.
I repeat, what is it about evolution that is politically correct?
Professors hate Old Testament wordism, so they use evolution against it. But that is a battle between two forms of wordism.
When it comes to environment versus heredity, professors avoid evolution like the plague.
And I repeat, if you expand the term politically correct to include anything you do not agree with, you are aiding the enemy.
You may be right on your opinions and facts. But NEVER aid the enemy by your terminology.
Please note that everything I have said here has to do with political strategy, not evolution.
Words are our weapon here. Don’t use them against our own side.
I was listening to Deac, a very, very black man, while we were working the transfer on the brick plant.
“Deac” was a preacher. That’s why we called him Deacon. We gave his tiny church a bell.
Deac weighed about 120. But that huge iron transfer with a load of wet bricks was something my brother and I both could not move. Deacon could. He could move he whole thing and talk at the same time.
He was talking about “niggahs.” He kept correcting himself by saying “colored people.”
The reason Deacon said “niggahs” was because it was easier for him, for me, for my brother, for everybody in the Deep South. Both “Negro” and “nigger” have hard “r’s” and for a Southern a hard “r” does not come naturally.
Which is why a Southerner who was trying to be as polite as possible without bowing to Yankee pressure would say “Nigrah.” Any Southerner who said Knee-Grow was being obviously unnatural in an attempt to get Yankee approval. Every Southerner could tell that.
Hard consonants and hard vowels simply did not fit in with our speech pattern.
I was endlessly grateful to Stokeley Carmichel, founder of the Black Panthers, when he pointed out that black people have a problem with that ridiculous word KneeGrow, too, and from that moment on it would be “black.”
The civil righters were interested in humiliating Southerners. How blacks spoke bothered them and their paid Negro Leaders not in the least.
For a Southerner, the word “nigger” is not as totally absurd as the word KneeGrow, but the hard “r” is not natural to us.
Of course, the word negro is a Spanish word which means black. It is pronounced nay-gro, with the rolled r. English is the only language which does not roll its r. Nay-gro would be very easy for a Southerner to say is he could roll the r.
The word naygro was the only term known for blacks when the first black people arrived in Jamestown in 1619. John Smith wrote in his diary, “Twenty niggurs arrived today.” So apparently that was the way he pronounced it.
The first twenty blacks to arrive in Jamestown were not slaves. They were indentured. Slavery was legalized in Massachusetts before it was legalized in Virginia. Those twenty blacks arrived in America over a year before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.
The first Virginia Legislature, the Virginia House of Burgesses, was also elected in Jamestown in 1619.
America was founded at Plymouth Rock, you know.
Whales are the only animal for which we have a complete fossil record of its evolution from one species to another.
Whales were originally a furry hooved carnivore, no more at home in the water than a tiger. But the shorelineis where the food is. While all other hooved carnivores died out this one apparently ate fish that washedup, then began to go after them in the water.
Ambulocetus, the “walking whale,” looked like a crocodile with fur. That is what the original hooved carnivore evolved into. There are thousands of skeletons of these animals that link them directly to whales. It must have mated and had its offsrping on land and it only swam in fresh water.
Then the ambulacaetus took several evolutionary steps. It adapted to salt water, it adapted to mating and having its offspring on land, and it grew a lot.
Actually later seagoing whales still had their two legs that were useless for anything but holding on while mating. And they all remained hunters long after they became ocean beings.
Eating krill came later, much later.
I have talked about the people who in America long before the Indians. The Indians, of course, killed them and took their lands. My theory of why their travel left few traces is not only time, but also because they probably followed the coastline. A people used to foraging the sea would not care so much about WHICH beach they were traveling across.
The one thing that is always changing historically is the coast. There are towns in England that were there in historical times and are now under sea. They found the dead at Pompeii after they figured out where the seacoast was in 69 BC and looked there for the people who were waiting for ships.
Earlier people had searched the present coaswt because they didn’t know it had changed, even though St. Augustine’s episcopal sea at Hippo is long since under water.
There is enormous evidence that man made a partial transition to sea life. Even the hairs on our backs are positioned for better swimming. Our lack of hair in general is an adaptation to sea life.
There is a very long list of things man has that are obvious adaptations to water.
Also, dolphins have a huge brain, bigger than ours. They too were once furry animals.
We need to look at ancient, very ancient shorelines to find this critical step in our own evolution. Science only accepted continental drift in my lifetime, so we are very backward in that respect.
Recently a person wrote me a note approving of my comments.
IN MY OPINION, he made one fatal error.
He said, “Political Correctness is a religion, or at least a set of rigid beliefs.”
I wrote him and then I wrote a piece in this blog about how, in trying to be sophisticated, he had justified the whole academic priesthood.
No, I said, Political Correctness is not “a rigid system of beliefs” as distinct from a religion. Political Correctness is a RELIGION.
The whole excuse for the professor-priesthood is that it is not a religion, but a rigid set of beliefs. The Constitution does not outlaw the teaching of “a rigid system of beliefs” or political bias. It absolutely forbids the establishment of a RELIGION.
So I invited this writer, who had been praising me to the skies, to explain to me the difference between a religion and what he called “a rigid system of beliefs.”
Remember, this is the distinction the enire professor-priesthood survives on.
He never wrote me again. He was offended that a letter of praise should be answered with such vicious criticism.
Don was one of my best commenters. He was also a great admirer of mine. I have an ego like anybody else and his praise made me feel good.
But then I jumped all over Don for something he said that, IN MY OPINION, was dead wrong.
He never wrote me again.
What really bothered me about this was that the former commenter and especially Don had long passed the Jehovah Bit. The Old Testament Jehovah, like other pagan gods, wants people to mindlessly tell them how wonderul they are.
There was nothing mindless about Don or the other commenter I raised hell about.
The guys I turned off had actually read what I said and understood it perfectly. They had gone ahead with what I said and made it the basis of further thinking. They had every right to expect a little diplomacy from me.
But this is Bob’s Blog.
There is no diplomacy here.
You use pseudonyms, so there is no reason for you to be embarrassed. I will jump all over you and you have every right to jump all over me.
If you are a mindless moron like “Sue” I will say so. I only replied to “Sue” because she was a perfect example of standard and packaged mindlessness.
I said so.
You I reply to because you are worth it and you can take it. If you piss me off, I will act pissed off.
If you are, IN MY OPINION, dead wrong on a point, I will tell you so, no holds barred. I expect you, as a thinking person, to look at what I say and deal with it.
This is Bob’s Blog.
There is no diplomacy here.
I think every reader is just like me. If I try to find a quote in a book it disappears.
So I remember a quote from C.S. Lewis’s little book, “The Screwtape Letters,” that I am going to use here without being able to find the exact words.
“The Screwtape Letters” is a set of letters from Screwtape, a Senior Demon in Hell, a retired Tempter, to his nephew Wormwood, a new Tempter, about how to persuade a person go to Hell. It is a great book for ANYBODY to read, not just Christians.
When I was in alcohol and drug rehabilitation, I sponsored a lot of people.
I would give “The Screwtape Letters” to my sponsorees to read. The same advice on the plausible excuses the Devil gives people to sin are exactly the same ones a drug addict can give himself for going back to using drugs.
Drug rehabilitation is not the only place the advice in that little book is useful.
If you’re in politics, “The Screwtape Letters” is a warning against all the exuses you give yourself for misusing power. It reminds you that you are not the genius you think you are. The excuse you thought you came up with is as old as Adam.
Anyway, back to the book.
In “The Screwtape Letters” God is the Enemy.
In one case Screwtape says to Wormwood, “You and I have never been human (Ah, that great advantage of the Enemy).”
God had been human in the form of Jesus.
But what Screwtape was saying was that God had LEARNED something by being human.
I do not know of a single Christian denomination that would not consider that statement to be heresy. According to all Christian dogma, Jesus already knew everything anyone could ever know about human beings. He could learn nothing.
I think about Lot, when he persuaded Jehovah to go down from a hundred righteous men to a single righteous man. I think of Moses when he tried to persuade Jehovah to have mercy on his people despite their lapse into sin.
A human being like Moses or Lot understands how much easier it is for a man to understand the weakness of humanity than it is for an All Powerful Entity to understand it. Try to imagine the Old Testamment Jehovah being whipped and condemned to the cross and then crying out, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
I am now twice the age Jesus was when he died on the cross. I cannot hate anybody, though I am capable of doing things to bad people that would make a normal person tremble. If someone is doing evil things, I will do absolutely anything to stop him.
But not because I hate him.
At my age I cannot see anybody making a mistake that I have not made over and over and over in some other way.
In fact I cannot see anybody doing something wrong that I WILL not do in the future.
I am not only fallible, I am incurably fallible.
Buddhists have written endlessly to prove that Buddha was never in the womb, which they consider dirty. Confuscius, to whom it never occurred that he was ever anything but a philosopher, is now worshipped as a god.
Everybody tries to make the founder of their faith into a perfect being.
So every denomination says Jesus was The Perfect Man. He could learn nothing by being a man.
To me, The Perfect Man is not human like me.
I hope Jesus wasn’t perfect. I want him to judge me the way he would judge himself. But that’s heresy.
Orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus, The Perfect Man, learned NOTHING by being human.
Lot and Moses may have persuaded Jehovah to be a bit merciful. But Jesus, who suffered the ultimate agony, was persuaded of nothing because he was perfect already.
So C.S. Lewis slipped into a very common heresy, condemned by every Christian denomination, in saying that Jesus LEARNED by being human.
It may be the wisdom of my Odinist ancestors. I cannot believe in a god who never learns.
When a person who is thought to be straight announces he is actually a homosexual it is called “coming out of the closet.”
But sometimes the closet door doesn’t swing exactly this way.
Back in the 1970s the biggest hit was a group called “The Village People.” Greenwich Village in New York City was at that time the largest enclave of homosexuals on earth. So The Village People dressed themeselves in macho homosexual outfits, The Cop, The Indian, The Cowboy and so forth and sang a bunch of songs that became wildly popular.
All the hits had homo themes, like “YMCA,” since the Young Men Christian Association was at that time getting a reputation for being where homosexuals stayed. So everyody assumed the Village People were all gay.
I doubt anybody will mistake me for a fan of Gay Liberation, but I think the songs were good. They were professional grade. And therein lay the problem.
You can’t just wander into Greenwich Village or anywhere else and just accidentally pick up five excellent artists. So they found the best five they could get.
Anywhere they could find them.
For many of the upper middle class fans of the Village People, the major thrill was not that they were listening to first-class music, but that they were Making a Social Statement. Gay Lib was just getting started and all the socially progressive Yuppies wanted in on it.
Then a horrible rumor began to appear in the scandal sheets. Some of the Village People were NOT gay!!!! A lot of fans were outraged, and not just the gay ones.
Finally, the PR people for the Village People made the statement so many people have issued before and since, “The sexual orientation of individual members of The Village People is not open to discussion.”
Yessir, the closet door swings both ways.
SF SATURDAY Town Hall Web Radio
Listen from 3 to 4 PM Eastern Time:
WHEN **LIVE** ON AIR
[You may need to copy/paste that URL into your media player's "File" "Play URL" box to go directly to the server. If it stops for some reason, re-click the .pls link above to be sure you are connected to the broadcast server.]
Bob will be on Stormfront answering questions from there or the blog comments.
SF Townhall Forum (August 27th) with Bob Whitaker and then at the upper right of the posting area near the top, hit “Last” to get the to the last page where he’ll be posting.
August 27 – Criticism Is Not Hate
(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. Re-click the .pls link to be sure you are connected to the streaming server.)
Download FREE Winamp media player
Weekly WhitakerOnline.org Articles
Criticism Is Not Hate
That is the title of my program this week, Saturday 3pm at the The Untrained Eye.
You can download these programs anytime you feel like it. The magic of the Internet.
One of the sure signs of a authoritarian state is the silencing of criticism.
1) Every authoritarian state always begins by silencing all criticism of its doctrine and
2) No authoritarian state ever says it is silencing criticism just to be mean. It ALWAYS gives a Reason.
Nationalist governments pass some kind of Patriot Act. The very name of that Act comes straight out of George Orwell. Anyone who criticizes the government is declared to be attacking National Unity.
Hitler, Mussolini and Franco are all spinning in their graves right now because they never thought of that wonderful title, The Patriot Act, for their policies.
After the defeat of the Axis in World War II it was as inevitable as the rain that the new authoritarian regimes would base their authoritarian regimes on being AGAINST Hitler and Mussolini.
Those who oppose Bush’s Patriot Act are exactly the ones who want authoritarianism in the name of being ANTI-nationalism and ANTI-racism.
An old politico like me yawns and says, “So what else is new?”
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
Business As Usual
The United States is the only country on earth which has a first amendment protecting freedom of speech. The very concept of freedom of speech is alien to every culture outside the West, so multiculturalism is a good way to wipe out the whole idea.
But even in the West, Europeans have always taken it for granted that everything must be regulated, including speech. As I pointed out in “Two Europes, One America” the red (corrected) liberal states in the United States and Canada think exactly like Europeans. If Teddy Kennedy or the average American liberal sat down with the average European, they would not have a single point of serious disagreement.
Liberals and Europeans want to suppress diversity of opinion and they want to do it in the name of fighting racism and nationalism.
This is as surprising to anyone who has the slightest grasp of political history as the sun coming up in the morning.
It is well known that generals are always fighting the last war. So France hunkered down in 1940 for another trench war like World War I behind its Maginot Line.
It is also true that civil libertarians are always fighting the last fight. When a “civil libertarian” talks about “dictatorship” he is looking for a German with a moustache talking about racism, nationalism and anti-Semitism. If we can just stop racism, nationalism and anti-Semitism, he says, we can be free.
And he is willing to go to any lengths in the name of freedom. So the state must use all of its power to suppress any mention of race or nationalism. In order to stop racism and nationalism and to preserve freedom, some freedoms will have to be sacrificed.
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
Stalin’s Fight for Freedom
Stalin’s 1936 Soviet Constitution guaranteed absolute freedom of speech. The Stalinist government also sent anyone to the Gulag for ten years, which was usually a death sentence, for saying anything anti-Semitic.
No one was ever acquitted.
In The First Circle Aleksander Solzhenitsyn recites from his own experience the case of a Jewish bureaucrat who used that law to his advantage. Anybody who said anything bad about him he denounced as anti-Semitic, and the police were at that person’s door within a week.
This man’s enemy was charged with anti-Semitism and, no one was every acquitted.
That’s one of the reasons Stalin’s Russia was such a model of freedom.
Many and many a liberal said so.
But for those of us who have our doubts that Stalin’s Russia was a free country, the term Hate Laws is frightening.
-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
European Jews Have Set Up The Next Pogrom
After World War II Jews in Europe pushed through Hate Laws in Europe which are exactly like Stalin’s. If you even say in a restaurant that less than six million Jews died under the Nazis, you are given an automatic one-year sentence in prison.
Any other form of criticism about Jews gets you straight into prison. This law now applies to any white gentile criticism of any group that is not white and gentile.
The ironic thing about this is that Europe will be fifty percent Moslem by 2050. And the average European Moslem likes Jews less than Hitler did.
Once again what is happening is as surprising as the sun coming up in the morning. Jews are going to be sent to prison in droves under the Hate Law they passed.
This process has already begun in Russia. A display put on by a Jewish group in a Jewish building was declared to be insulting to the Orthodox Church. The Jews were convicted and sentenced to TWELVE YEARS in prison. Only a world outcry by World Jewry got this sentence commuted to a heavy fine.
Over five thousand very prominent Russians have petitioned to have Judaism declared to be a form of Hate Speech. They quote extensively from the Talmud and other official Jewish documents as evidence for this claim.
These statements are still an integral part of Jewish doctrine. If they were in the official documents of any other religion, a person preaching that religion would receive the automatic one-year sentence in Europe. If he remained a part of that faith, he would be given a second, longer sentence.
Do you really think the ever-growing Moslem vote in Europe is going to ignore this opportunity as their power grows?
And once this policy becomes firmly established in Eastern and Western Europe, do you think that every word the proponents of Hate Laws have said will not come back to destroy them here?
(Reprinted to Blog from email list of 8/27/05)
*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***
Harry Truman had two enormous strokes of luck that gave him two terms in the White House.
The first was recited by William “Fishbait” Miller, who was the House Doorkeeper for some thirty years. Doorkeeper is a top staff position. Most of us old-timers remember Fishbait’s Big Moments. When the President would come to address the House or a joint session.
Miller would walk in with the mace in his hand and shout, “Mister Speaker, the President of the United States.”
Miller was a tiny man with a huge voice. He was called “Fishbait” because he was so small.
But Fishbait knew EVERYTHING about Capitol Hill.
The Doorkeeper is exactly like the butler in a wealthy home in the old days. He knows everything and keeps his mouth shut.
When Miller wrote his autobiography, called “Fishbait,” he didn’t reveal many secrets. But one he did talk about is a major event in history that nobody knows about.
Senator James Byrnes of South Carolina was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1941. In 1942 he gave up that lifetime appointment to become “Assistant to the President” for Roosevelt.
NOBODY gives up a seat on the United States Supreme Court for ANY other government job. But in his new job Byrnes was with Roosevelt all the time. He had obviously gotten a BIG promise from Roosevelt, and Byrnes was no fool.
It was obvious to everybody that Roosevelt was preparing Byrnes to be his successor. Byrnes would not have taken the job for any other reason.
Roosevelt was too sick to attend the Democratic nominating convention which nominated him for his fourth term in 1944. He was perfectly aware that he would not live out the term. FDR knew very well that when he named a vice presidential candidate he was naming the next president. So he told everybody who was going to the convention to tell the convention that his choice was, obviously, James F. Byrnes.
Byrnes was a segregationist and a Southern conservative. FDR’s wife Eleanor was fanatically anti-white. She went to the convention and announced that FDR’s choice was Harry Truman. “Fishbait” stated flatly what was obvious: Eleanor got Truman made vice president and therefore president.
Roosevelt, said “Fishbait,” had a fit. But there was nothing he could do about it once Truman was already announced as the nominee.
Contrary to all the crap you hear today, Truman was a VERY unpopular president. Thurmond broke with him to run as a Dixiecrat and far leftists, frankly and openly led by Communists, set up the Progressive Party to oppose him from the left. Everybody assumed in 1948 that Truman would lose.
Despite the rather stupid Stalinists who set up the Progressive Party, serious leftists realized that the election of Truman and a Democratic majority in both Houses was absolutely critical. Republicans were looking forward to exposing the heavy Communist influence in the New Deal and the World War II government.
There is no longer any doubt about this. When KGB files were opened after the fall of Communism in the USSR, everybody was absolutely astonished that even Senator McCarthy had underestimated how many Democrats, in the Administration and in Congress, were actually PAID agents of the Soviet Union.
If you read the editorials during the 1948 campaign, you will see that everybody assumed Truman was a goner. In 1946 Republicans had won a giant majority in both Houses of Congress for the first time since 1928.
By what others consider a trick of fate, Truman was reelected and both Houses of Congress went Democratic. We have all heard of the miracle of the 1948 election. We have all seen the picture of a smiling Harry Truman showing off the headline in a New York newspaper, “DEWEY WINS.”
Truman had the incredible luck of being picked by Eleanor Roosevelt, even though he was almost an unknown. In 1948 he had the luck to be the man whose election was absolutely critical to the left.
After World War II in the House, conservative Democrats like Byrnes and conservative Republicans worked so closely together on committees on subversion that you couldn’t tell which party they belonged to. During World War II they were silent because Russia was Our Beloved Ally.
If Byrnes had been elected the liberal Democrats would have been doomed. If the Republicans had won in 1948 America would have gone after Stalin the way they went after Hitler under Roosevelt.
Or it all could have been an accident.