Archive for September, 2005
Intelligent Conversation Cannot Use All the Qualifiers
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, How Things Work on 09/21/2005
Two people cannot communicate if all the qualifiers are put in.
If I say “To appeal to Southern white voters you have to be conservative” I could spend all day qualifying that statement.
What is “conservative” to one person is not “conservative” to another. There are hundreds or thousands of whole books dedicated to that question.
Many of the tens of millions of voters I am referring to are liberals. There are hundreds of whole books devoted to that subject.
What exactly is “white?” People get paid to write whole books quibbling over that.
But if you are in real politics, you had better understand that rule, not the quibbles.
What is a duck?
“If it quacks like a duck I call it a duck.” That’s a standard piece of common sense. But a toy can quack without being a duck.
Are you actually going to say, “I saw a quacking toy that is not a duck.”
You may think you have made a big point. But all that tells real people is that you have a lot of time and absolutely nothing to do with it.
This is a matter of seeing the trees but not the forest.
But you could argue, “The forest cannot exist without trees. He who seeth not the trees cannot understand a forest.”
Boy, that sounds wise! And I just made it up.
You can spend all day sounding wise.
There is one minor problem with spending all day with Deep Wisdom like that: You miss everything the person who said “They are not seeing the forest for the trees” is trying to tell you.
But you get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Lately I was talking about the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. I used the names Jacob and Esau, I think. There are so many name-pairs in the Old Testament.
What I was criticizing was a Methodist bishop about 1955 who said that if Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac for God, we should be willing to sacrifice the white race for God. By “God” he meant integration. I pointed out that all of us in the Bible Belt knew that God refused to accept that kind of sacrifice.
But if I mixed up Abraham and Isaac with Jacob and Esau, wasn’t my criticism absurd? I got my facts wrong just like the bishop did. Isn’t that the same thing?
Not at all. I was making a very critical point. The bishop was declaring, as a doctrine of his faith, that we had to be willing to sacrifice the white race for integration.
I was also making the point that we all knew back in 1955 that integration was aimed at the extinction of the white race.
The point I made was infinitely more important than getting the names right.
One of my commenters corrected me. I appreciated that. I would not have appreciated that if he had obsessed over it.
But if he were dumb enough to obsess over it, he wouldn’t be commenting here.
Back about 1955 a man who prided himself on his Wordly Practicality would say, “If the Greatest Thinker on earth gave a lecture with his pants unzipped, all people would remember about him would be that his pants were unzipped.”
I was just fourteen, and everybody else was impressed. But I was thinking that he hadn’t told me anything about the Greatest Thinker on earth, but he had told me a lot about himself and the people who took him seriously.
If all you notice about the Greatest Thinker on Earth ishtat he is buck naked, you have the IQ of a mushroom.
One of these days I may go back and change Jacob and Esau to Abraham and Isaac. But the fact is that I have not the slightest respect for anybody who obsesses on crap like that.
So I probably won’t bother.
Suffering is Cheap
It is no accident that theologians, including Communist theologians, talk almost exclusively about how the people need to make sacrifices.
Jesus preached one single commandment when it came to the question of how you should treat all human beings, including yourself:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
So early Christianity responded by tens of thousands of people going out into the desert and whipping themselves and starving themselves and imprisoning themselves and humiliating themselves.
What exactly does all this self-immolation have to do with the golden rule?
How about the other of the two commandments? If you torture yourself, does it show you love God?
You are showing you love by taking one of his children and torturing him.
If that makes sense to you, you need a long rest.
So why do all religions, including Marxism, love sacrifice and suffering so much?
The reason is obvious. Any retard knows how to torture somebody. Torturing yourself is even less of an intellectual feat.
It’s easy to hurt yourself.
On the hand hand, the golden rule is far more challenging. It takes talent to put a smile on someone else’s face.
Like the Communist “intellectual” the theologian has absolutely nothing to offer anybody. So he prescribes suffering. He tells you you should suffer gladly.
Neither the theologian nor the “intellectual” has anything to sell.
So they sell you pain and sacrifice, the easiest and cheapest commodities there are.
Can God be a Man?
Posted by Bob in Musings about Life on 09/20/2005
In our last exciting episode below I discussed the controversy that convulsed the early church, “Can the man Jesus, who was clearly a man, also be God?”
In the end the Middle East never accepted the idea that the G-d of Israel could be man and that is a major reason it is now Islamic. There is one God, and he is God.
North of the Middle East the doctrine that Jesus was both God and man was accepted.
North of the Middle east the debate completely reversed itself.
Instead of asking whether the man Jesus was God, the debate became whether the God Jesus could have been man.
Let’s bring this right up to date. There is not a single church today which would not be offended by the idea that Jesus the man ever wanted to have sex with any woman.
THINK about it before you react to this statement. Can you imagine telling any conservative Christian that Jesus wanted to go to bed with any female?
Jesus was God. He had no lust.
Can a man with no lust be a man?
This concept of Jesus had very practical consequences. In the centuries following the Council of Nicea Jesus became more and more God. The people who had looked upon Jesus as the mediator between themselves and God began to see Jesus as being as forbidding and as unreachable as Jehovah.
That is where Mariology came from.
People began more and more to pray to Mary, the Holy Mother, as the person who could understand us lowly humans. Jesus was as far away as Jehovah.
For over a thousand years theologians denounced the “Cult of Mary.” Augustine fought it. St. Thomas Aquinas fought it.
But Western people wanted someone human they could pray to, like the old gods.
Finally Mary was accepted as the human mediator with God, as the human being who could understand both God and men.
Once the idea that Mary had a direct link to God was accepted, Mary began to become a part of God in the eyes of theologians.
So once again, the theologians asked, “If Mary is a part of God, can she be fully human?”
One thing all of the church fathers agreed on was that any human being conceived by sex was conceived in sin. Jesus was conceived to the Virgin Mary, so he was the only exception.
But what about the Virgin Mary herself? Was SHE conceived in sin? Finally in 1854 the pope declared The Immaculate Conception of Mary to be dogma, and anyone who denied it was a heretic.
Mary was not conceived in sex. She was part of God.
Mary was a part of God, and therefore she could not be fully human.
As I keep repeating, Buddhist theologians have been proving for decades that the Buddha could not have come from the “dirty” womb of a female. And Christian doctrine now holds that Mary could not have come from the “dirty” sex act and that Jesus could have had any thought of the “dirty” sex act.
In the world of Islam, a man cannot be God.
In the Christian world, God cannot be a man.
Both are heresies.
And as Screwtape said, Satan doesn’t care how you got Down There. He just wants you There.
An obsession with sex is great way to get somebody Down There.
It doesn’t matter if the obsession is with having sex or with not having sex.
As long as your obsession keeps you from seeing Christ as both man and God, it can be used to get you straight to what Screwtape referred to as “Our Father Below.”
This illustrates that people always get so obsessed with their own cultural concepts that they forget the basics. That is an excellent lesson, even if you have no religion at all.
Can a Man be God?
Posted by Bob in Musings about Life on 09/20/2005
I keep pointing out that church history is a fascinating guide to how the human mind works.
Gautama Buddha made it very clear that he was enlightened, but very much a man. But Buddhist theologians have developed complex theories to show how their Buddha did not come out of gthe “dirty” womb of a woman.
The gigantic community of Hellenized Jews who became the Christian Church still had trouble with the idea that Jesus, who was very much a man, could also be God. A majority of bishops believed that Jesus was above the angels, but below God.
Jesus the man had come back to earth and shown the Apostles that he was a man by eating a piece of fish and allowing the Apostle Thomas, the original Doubting Thomas, to put his hand into the wound in Christ’s side.
Jesus had sat and EATEN with the sinners, the tax-gatherers and usurers.
Every “Christian” loves to say, “We are all sinners” but he never BELIEVES it. The average self-styled Christian today would have led the mob to stone Jesus.
So when the Hellenized Jews accepted Christ they did not doubt he was a man, but the traditional faith of Hellenized Jews held to the idea that G-d was invisible. So Jesus was the savior and above the angels, but he was not God.
The Council of Nicea decided that Christ was both God and man. The idea that Jesus was above the angels but not God became the Arian Heresy.
There was an exact geographical split. The Hellenized world finally accepted the idea that Christ was both God and man, but in the Middle East, which had enough trouble accepting this savior in the first place, the idea that a man was also God was repeatedly challenged. The Arian Heresy caused constant rebellion against the church and kept it permanently weak.
In the end, a non-Christian faith took over the Middle East with astonishing ease. That faith said that Jesus was above the angels but below God, who stands alone.
That faith is called Islam.
If you a Christian, a Moslem or an athiest, this is a terrific lesson in human nature.
If you are not obsessed with labels, you discover that the thinking of the Middle East remained the same. If you are to understand the Moslem Shiites, you must understand that Iranian thinking is still in the Zoroastrian tradition.
Don’t get this backwards the way a theologian would. I am NOT saying that Middle Easterners were influenced by Arianism, I am saying that Arianism appealed to Middle Eastern thinking. Islam did not win out there because of unreconstructed Arians. Islam won because it appealed tot he same ingrained thinking that made Arianism so strong in the Middle East.
Middle Easterners want a G-d who is invisible, all powerful, and who regards men not as fellow men but as less than his slaves. There is only one God and he is God. There is no room for a God who is just another man.
Shiites do not exist because of a lingering memory of Zoroastrian wisdom. They are Shiites because of a mindset that their own Zoroastrianism appealed to.
It was not the theology of Islam that appealed to the Middle East, it was their natural mindset. This is a complete mystery to the theologian. He believes that mindsets come entirely from theologians. He believes in quotes, not in cultures.
Truck
Posted by Bob in Bob, Musings about Life on 09/19/2005
I was dragged out of bed at five in the morning in a third world country because the army needed somebody to drive a truck.
This was not in my job description and they apologized for it. You don’t bring somebody thousands of miles to do KP or drive vehicles.
It was one hell of a truck.
Now it happens that I was raised on a brick plant so I COULD drive the thing. But what was interesting was that they just assumed I could drive it because I was an American. They think Americans can drive anything.
The reason I could drive it was because there is a subtle difference between the weight-to-value ratio of brick as compared to, say, Ming Dynasty vases. When you truck brick, that booger is HEAVY.
I have been repeatedly assured since then that heavy trucks had less than the one hundred and fifteen forward gears I remembered, every one of which required double-clutching. I still remember each of the 115 vividly.
On a two-lane highway, which was all we had, when you got up behind a slow driver you had to go back through the series again. I conceived a personal hatred for slow drivers that I retain today for those who cruise in the passing lane.
Well, I drove the truck, though I doubt it ever got over what I did to its transmission. I was told later that when it heard somebody with an American accent it would run away.
Recently, decades later, I finally realized why they assumed that any American could drive any truck. I was passing a pickup on an Interstate highway and it suddenly occurred to me that in many American movies they saw showed us driving pickups as easily as cars.
Obviously we saw no difference between cars and trucks.
I don’t blame them for making that mistake.
But I don’t think that poor truck ever forgave them.
No Professional Study of the Future Has Anything to do with the Future
Posted by Bob in How Things Work on 09/17/2005
This is a followup to the piece below, “Highly Qualified People Predict the Future.”
There is a group of professionals who call themselves Futurologists. A professional, by definition, is someone who gets PAID for his work. You can only be a Futurologist if someome PAYS you to be. So in order to be a professional futurologist you must produce a future which someone will pay you to produce.
By definition a PROFESSIONAL Futurologist says that things to come will be what those with money today consider plausible and desirable.
A professional predictor does not get a dime for being correct. It makes not the slightest difference whetheranything he foresses happens or not. All that matters is that his idea of the future is approved by the right people NOW.
So Futurology has absolutely nothing to do with the future.
Futurology, like every other professional field, has a sign on the door that says, “Heretics not welcome.”
And there is one thing about things to come that one can say with absolute certainty:
The future is ALWAYS heresy.
Busy People
Pope John Paul II was a very fine man, but he never had time to talk to me.
I never expected him to.
So my relation with the Pontiff was entirely impersonal.
What gets me is people who act like the Supreme Pontiff but who also expect me to have some sort of personal obligation to them.
To me, a “busy” person is, to the extent he is busy, a non-person to me in exactly the same way I am a non-person to him, as I am a non-person to the Pope.
I wish him well. He wishes me well. That’s all very well. Isn’t that, well, just very well?
Now that I am retired this is easy. If someone is preoccupied, that’s just fine. But don’t expect me to act like you are an emergency when you suddenly need Ole Bob.
I am out of the emergency business. Speak now or forever hold your peace.




To My Friend Traeger Smith
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 09/19/2005
It is taking me a long time to come up with a reply to Traeger.
Normally I would feel guilty about this, but the fact is it takes me a while to think of what I want to say to something important.
And this is even more important: I no longer work on a schedule. I no longer work on obligation.
Since I threw it all up, my blood pressure has dropped twenty points. People want their names remembered. People want diplomacy. People want prompt replies.
I no longer provide any of those things. And my blood pressure is down.
Too much of what I say sounds like a quip when it is deadly serious. For decades when someone asked me, “Is he friend of yours?” I have replied, “I don’t know know. I am a friend of HIS.”
This is not a quip. This is many years of hard experience talking.
Traeger never required any of those things from me for him to remain a friend of mine.
I have always known this about practically everybody else except Traeger: the person who says he’s my friend is always one sentence away from despising me. What is called friendship by most people is a very slippery thing.
I no longer worry about this. Common courtesy comes to me from my upbringing, but pretending to admire nonsense or respecting standards that mean nothing to me is like constantly smiling for the camera. If you are a sociopath, it is easy. If you are an honest man, it wears on you.
If you are a monomaniacally, obsessively honest man like me, it is a burden you must eventually lay down.
Whitakeronline had the world’s deadest list. Through the years I begged readers to put my ideas into newsgroups. A vanishingly small handful sometimes did that. Their time was devoted to Clinton’s immorality, to Iraq, to the front pages. They kept e-mailing me comments from great leaders who were saying again what other writers had said repeately my entire lifetime.
I cannot list the number of Great Crises like Clinton and Iraq that I have had to listen to people obsess about through the weary decades. No one who was obsessed with them a decade ago can even remember them now. But what I was trying to tell them, upstream against the torrent of Latest Things, is still as current as tomorrow’s history book.
And nobody noticed.
I am not talking about how hard this was on me. I am talking about how this led me into TWO nervous breakdowns and was heading me into another.
When I announced my retirement I asked people to read my archives and THINK about what I said and how THEY could USE it.
I could count the number of people who are doing that on one mutilated hand.
All I ever asked was an outlet for my ideas. I’ve got that now.
I do the blog because it is a two-way street.
For now.
I have already said far more than can be swallowed by people who put me tenth in a list of priorities which consists of eight items. No one but me understands what I am doing. That is why it is so effective.
I work hard to boil concepts down as far as it can be done. Then I sometimes get replies that say, “I agree with you.”
Big deal. Then I get e-mails quoting other writers they agree with.
If other writers are doing the job, why should I knock myself out?
I now have my blog and Stormfront and may be some easy internet radio shows I am STILL trying to get set up for.
I need very little little help with this, but I am still tenth priority in a list of right, so it is all frustration.
And I am out of the frustration business.
Did I mention that my blood pressure has dropped?
4 Comments