Archive for August, 2005

The Blog Will Continue

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.

Respectable conservatives.


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.

They’re there.

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.



Brain Surgery on Capitol Hill

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.



“For Your Own Good”

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.

It wasn’t.

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.


1 Comment

Reply to H.S.

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.



“Nigger” Is NOT a Southern Word

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.


No Comments