Archive for September 9th, 2005

Bareassed Amphibians

– Bareassed Amphibians

Some years ago I did a Whitakeronline.org (see the archives) article called “Kinky Sex.”

After I had hooked readers with the title, I explained the article was about economics. Why would Sweet Ole Uncle Bob use a dirty trick like that?

I taught economics in college.

I taught a basic economics course at 8 am on Monday morning.

Everybody in the room, including me, had a BAD hangover.

Basic economics is a required course in many curriculae. It is BORING.

Basic economics is boring at best. But at 8 am on Monday morning in a hungover class it was TORTURE for me and the students.

So can you blame me if I snuck my discussion of economics in under the title “Kinky Sex?”

I went to the XXX section of my local DVD store and rented the Muppet Movie, “Kermit’s Swamp Years.”

One Muppet Frog in the movie is accused of wearing a certain type of pants, so he shows he wears no pants at all by showing his Muppet doll backside. In the “commentary” version of the movie Kermit announces this was the most controversial scene in the movie, the first time the backside of an amphibian has been exposed to public view.

I was a bit disappointed.

But if I can use “Kinky Sex” I guess Kermit can use a bareass amphibian.

I still think it’s a ripoff, though.

It’s like back in the 1950s when my brother and some friends of his, all in their teens, were delighted to find that they could get into something called “The Passion Play.”

2 Comments

A Brilliant Tribute — Annotated

Right after my retirement I got a letter of praise from one the people I try so hard to reach.

My quotation of his support was right above my quotation of the encouragement of a female black guard who read my book from cover to cover and who thinks it’s terrific.

What I write is simply true. Nobody with a good brain has any trouble with it. It cuts through the crapola and says what we all know.

Now that, brothers and sisters, is a VERY hard concept to explain.

Anyway, this brilliant appreciation of EXACTLY what I am trying to say needs some more commentary. So I repeat it below with my own comments enclosed in **********

It is a burden to a person with my modesty to reiterate such instinted praise. It offends my natural modesty.

But for you, dear reader, no sacrifice is too great.

A Brilliant Tribute
Filed under: Comment Responses— Bob

Dear Bob,

After I wrote to you the first time, you posted my message on your blog
and guessed that I’m a “respectable conservative.”

The truth is even worse, I’m afraid. I’m a liberal, I come from a long
line of Yankees, and I live in San Francisco.

********There is NOTHING worse than a respectable conservative.

******** Liberals hit us from the FRONT.

******** In any war, your objectives with the ENEMY are 1) rout him, 2) kill him, 3) capture him.

******* Collaborators, like respectable conservatives, you just shoot.

So why do I like your stuff? Well, being a liberal, I favor scientific
method over authority and very much dislike established religion. And
you have, in my opinion, written the most convincing justification for
science and secularism that I’ve ever read.

********* I believe Christ’s kingdom is not of this earth.

********* He said so.

I’m also against genocide and racism, and you’re the least racist person
I’ve ever come across. As you see it, no group of human beings should
be treated as animals or angels. Instead, you believe that human beings
should be treated as human beings. You accept that anybody who is human
will do both good and bad, and when you see him doing something bad, you
do him the honor of saying so. People don’t come less racist, or more
humane, than that.

********* Many thanks. I am a decent human being, defensive of my own and respectful of others.

********* It takes great perception to cut to that simple reality despite today’s brainwashing, aka, “education.”

It doesn’t really matter much, however, that I call myself a “liberal”
and that you call yourself a “conservative”.

******* I am about the least conservative person you will ever meet. In today’s political dialogue I have no choice but to ally with that category.

******* Liberalism has become the code word for the established religion of Political Correctness. I have fought it all my life and have had to ally myself with respectable conservatives and so-called “Christian” conservatives whom I despise.

We’re both white American gentiles, which means that we’re kin, and kinship is the only foundation
upon which a democracy may be erected.

******* If you said that out loud in a liberal or respectable conservative gathering they would lynch you.

“Democracy” is a Greek word that means “rule of the people.” It does not mean “rule of opinion.” Rule of opinion, whether that opinion be the Public’s or the Supreme Court’s,
can be many things but it cannot, by definition, be democratic. But you
have already made this point much better than I can.

My main point in writing you today is: 1) to let you know that I’m not,
contrary to your guess, a “respectable conservative” and that the truth
is even worse;

********* No. You are explaining that you do not belong to the category that would make a maggot gag. (see FOOTNOTE below)

2) to let you know that if your writings have managed to
get beyond the Stormfront types and reach *me*, a left-leaning San
Francisco liberal, then your work is truly “out there” now and your
decision to call it a day is therefore entirely justified.

I’m very glad that you’ve decided to continue the blog, however. It’s
nice to know that there’s at least one place on the Internet that can
offer enlightenment not only about life in Washington and the history
of Christianity, but also about Baywatch and the Village People.

******** Wait until you see my discussion of Kermit and bare-assed amphibians!

Best wishes,

FOOTNOTE:
Thanks, Lake!

4 Comments

White Gentiles Suffer Just Like Humans Do

Senator Inouye of Hawaii hates whites.

One of his favorite statements is that there were fifty million Indians in the continental United States when the white man got here. Whites wiped them out.

Well, he admits, whites didn’t kill them all personally. The white man’s diseases did most of the work. How the Indians suffered from the white man’s diseases! The white man suffered not at all.

How did white people get this magic immunity from al those diseases that came to them from other parts of Europe and from Africa and Asia? For example, whites had a greater immunity to smallpox than the Indians who had never encoutered it before had. How did Europeans get that immunity?

They got that immunity because, in wave after wave, whites died and were permanently crippled and disfigured by smallpox. The SURVIVORS had more immunity. That ‘s why they survived.

Whites had a greater survival rate against alcohol. Why? Because they had been drinking the stuff in huge quantities for thousands of years. Alcohol has killed hordes of white people in every generation.

Alcoholics suffer. Even if they are white gentile alcoholics.

Historians whine endlessly about how “the white man’s diseases” made Indians SUFFER. But my ancestors suffered from those diseases a LOT more and a lot longer than Indians did.

But that’s not SUFFERING. White gentiles can’t SUFFER like minorities do.

Like HUMANS do.

3 Comments

A Woman’s Place

In the early 1800s a woman’s name could appear in the newspapers exactly three times, when she was born, when she was married and when she died. Any further mention of a woman’s name found the writer facing a duel at dawn.

I read an 1831 edition of an early novel called “The Spy.” It was about the Revolutionary War. In the story a woman went secretly to see General Washington. What was fascinating to me was the very lengthy footnote to this, entitled “For the English Reader.” It explained that a lady of good family could travel alone in the United States without fear of molestation, as was not the case in England.

How the world has changed!

Women were generally prisoners. A family that prided itself on its blood line could not tell where a girl had gotten pregnant unless she were under their noses. When a queen had a baby the room was full of observers. Every movement of the baby was carefully monitored by witnesses.

A lot of the stories about The Man in the Iron Mask say that he was a twin of Louis XIV who was hidden from sight because he looked just like the king. All the movies show the babies being brought out of the birthing room.

They how the baby being brought out of the room by one woman alone.

Never!

What they do not show was the roomful of witnesses who watched every step of the process.

A woman’s life was dedicated to having babies because she had to have a LOT of them. Queen Anne had twenty-one children, and not a single one of them lived.

Women were not the only ones who had no “me” time.

Louis XIII died when Louis XIV was five years old. His mother ruled with the advice of Cardinal Mazarin until Louis reached his fourteenth birthday. Then the cardinal died, and Louis had to make the decision to take all power into his own hands.

One book describing this talks about the fact that, when he heard the news, Louis went into his bedroom alone for an hour to think.

The book then adds another fascinating sentence:

“That was probably the only time in Louis’ entire life that he was completely alone.”

Louis lived for 77 years, but he was never alone at any time.

Women were prisoners. Kings were prisoners.

Only the “common people” were free.

And they had a few problems of their own.

2 Comments