I Can’t Argue with THAT!

Posted by Bob on November 30, 2005 at 7:54 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 2 Comments »

In response to the two articles below, Anonymous says,

Conservatives get pretty lucky, too. John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Senator Mel Carnahan, Senator Paul Wellstone …

Comment by Anonymous — 11/30/2005 @ 6:02 pm | Edit This

Concerning Sonny Bono and the copyright laws: The Constitution says (Article 1, Section “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Sonny Bono was trying to get “limited Times” to mean, in his words, “forever minus a day.” He was trying to get “Progress of Science and useful Arts” to mean “I Got You, Babe”. He was successful. Thanks to the Rehnquist Court, Sonny Bono’s interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 is now the law of the land.

It’s amazing how Bob can go from the sublime to the ridiculous overnight.

I said it was suspicious that the first president and first vice president in history to resign under pressure in American history were both hated universally by the media to an extent no other president or vice president had ever been were forced to resign within one year of each other.

Anonymous said it was not suspicious because Kennedy, MLK and Robert Kennedy were murdered.

He left out Malcolm X and even Abraham Lincoln.

I can’t argue with taht.

Anonymous adds that Sonny Buono could not have been murdered because he wrote bad copyright law.

I can’t argue with that.

He left one of the instances I gave out. Anonymous needs to point out why the Ohio police, in complete secrecy, did not allow John Ashbrook’s body to be buried in the coffin at his funeral.

Anonymous needs to explain that it was just a jolly practical joke.

I sure couldn’t argue with that one either.

The Right ORDER

Posted by Bob on November 30, 2005 at 1:11 pm  
Filed Under How Things Work | 4 Comments »

I said below that that marvelous coincidence, that the first president and vice president to resign under pressure in American history resigned in the same year for entirely different reasons, occurred in “the right order.”

Vice President Agnew, whom ALL the national media hated more than any vice president in history, resigned on October 10, 1973, just BEFORE Nixon, the president the national media ALL hated more than any other president in American history, resigned.

This is another fantastic coincidence that every respectable conservative has to say that he accepts.

What do I mean by “the right order?”

If Agnew’s resignation had been delayed, he would have become president. For President Agnew to have been hounded out of office by the media right after President Nixon had been hounded out of office by the press would have raised some eyebrows.

Too much of a good thing. Every respectable conservative would STILL have to be insisting that it was an accident.

BEFORE Nixon’s resignation, the media was full of news about Watergate. So the resignation of the vice president was a relatively minor news event, whereas at any other time in American history it would have been THE headline.

But PRESIDENT Agnew’s resignation would have been front page news right after PRESIDENT Nixon’s resignation was front-page news. Even the drooling worshippers of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather woule have been a little impressed by that.

Respectable conservatives would NEVER have noticed that, or they would have lost their livelihood. But they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the national media.

Real people, even LIBERAL real people, might have smelled a rat.

So it was critical that Agnew resign BEFORE Nixon, at the height of the Watergate scandal.

How lucky it was for media credibility that Agnew happened to resign BEFORE Nixon!

How lucky for the national media that Agnew was forced to resign in the very same year that Nixon’s fall became inevitable.

Liberals have a lot of luck that way.

My boss, congressman John Ashbrook, who had never had a serious illness in his life, died at just the right time. When I attended his funeral it turned out that the casket they buried did not have John’s body in it. The police had kept it for further investigation.

Like me, the police had a lot of experience with just that sort of “accidental” death. John Ashbrook died from a hemmorage from a tiny puncture in his stomach, the sort of thing you got from swallowing crushed glass in the old days, though the methods are a little more sophisiticated now.

Once again, John died at EXACTLY the right time. There was no doubt he would win the primary for United States Senate to face Senator Howard Metzenbaum. The polls showed that he was gaining on Metzenbaum.

If John had died a couple of months later he would have been Metzenbaum’s official Republican opponent. When a fanatical leftist’s opponent dies under circumstances that strike the police as extremely suspicious, everybody but respectable conservatives smells a rat.

So John’s death, like Agnew’s resignation, occurred at just the right time, since the public does not keep up with poll results for POTENTIAL opponents.

Liberal luck is PHENOMENAL!

If you think that is all the luck liberals have, think again.

Congressman Sonny Buono was winning the Republican primary to run against one of California’s twin female liberal senators, I forget which. In the poll matchups, he was gaining on her.

Then, before the primary, Old Sonny, a lifelong skier, went out all alone on the slopes in the middle of the night and slammed into a tree.

Here we have another incredible coincidence.

Never before in history has a candidate for nomination who had a clear chance in the polls of beating the incumbent suddenly died before getting the nomination. And here were TWO of them!

And BOTH of them died before the primary!

These great historical oddities, the resignation of Agnew and Nixon in 1974 and the death of John Ashbrook and Sonny Buono, ought to go into the Book of Records.

But nobody even mentions them.

I wonder why.

The Agnew Coincidence

Posted by Bob on November 30, 2005 at 12:39 pm  
Filed Under History, How Things Work | No Comments »

Vice President John C. Calhoun’s term of office would have ended on March 4, 1833. But a senator from South Carolina died in December, 1932, so Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to take that more permanent job.

Until October 10, 1973 Calhoun was the only president or vice president who had ever resigned.

At the end of 1973, Vice President Agnew resigned and then President Nixon resigned, for totally different reasons.

What a coincidence!

Some of the media have always hated every president. But never in all history has the media ever universally hated a president the way they hated Richard Nixon.

They hated Agnew just as unaimously.

When Nixon and Agnew won election in 1968, Nixon assigned Agnew the job of denouncing the national media. In a famous press conference Agnew referred to them as “the nattering nabobs of the press.”

For Nixon to assign somebody as his hit man for the press was exactly like Al Capone playing “good gangster, bad gangster” and making one of his henchmen the BAD gangster. Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the era knows that the one man the media hated as much as Nixon was Agnew.

The Washington Post finally GOT Nixon.

But remember, not one nationally elected official, meaning no president or VICE president, had EVER resigned under pressure before 1974.

No one but me has EVER mentioned the incredible coincidence that Agnew resigned JUST BEFORE Nixon did, and that no one ever said he had anything to do with the Watergate scandal that brought Nixon down.

No, Vice Presdient Agnew had an entirely different scandal that crought him down just at the right moment.

After intense investigation, which happened just as the Nixon impeachment became inevitable, it was discovered that Agnew had done some dirty deal when he was Governor of Maryland.

Now here’s another little tidbit: ALL officials in Maryland had done things like that. Everybody knew Maryland politics were as corrupt as Louisiana politics were when anti-Duke bumper stickers read, “Vote for the Crook, It’s IMPORTANT.”

Even James Edward’s supporters in Louisiana knew he was so crooked be made a snake look straight. ALL politics in Louisiana make a snake look straight.

And Agnew’s Maryland was famous for being even WORSE than Louisiana.

Maryland was so bad it was even in hot competition with New Jersey.

This was, and is, common knowledge.

So William Rusher referred to Agnew’s resignation as “a necessary preliminary” to Nixon’s removal from office. It would do the media no good to get Nixon our and thereby make Agnew president.

If the press had thrown its entire resources into investigating them, we would have had at least a dozen vice presidents resign from office.

So there are two possible expanations for the incredible coincidence of 1974.

Since this coincidence is NEVER discussed, the one that is accepted by default is that, by an amazing coincidence, the first president AND vice president to resign under fire in almost two hundred years of American history happened to resign in the same year.

The other resignation is the one I wrote in the first book I wrote in my own name: “Both Nixon and Agnew, whom the media hated as they had UNANIMOUSLY hated like no other president and vice president in American history, happened to resign in the same year and in exactly the right order.”

No one else discussed it quite this way. In fact, except for Rusher’s ironic comment, no one, liberal or respectable conservative, discussed it AT ALL.

If a respectable cosnervative, who is making a good living in the media, even SUGGESTS that the national media can be corrupt in the way that any other group with power and money can be corrupt, he will lose his money-making status as a “respectable” conservative.

All respectable conservatives must say, in chorus, “The media is biased, but they are all HONEST.”

Most Amazing and Least Noticed

Posted by Bob on November 29, 2005 at 2:16 pm  
Filed Under Musings about Life | 7 Comments »

The most amazing thing about Aryan society requires a roll of drums. We are the first and only society in history where the following can happen.

Someone produces statistical proof that magic works and ghosts are all about us. It is unlikely, but let’s say it happens.

Does our society, based on science, then collapse?

No. We say, “Damn! I would never have imagined such a thing could happen.”

Then we factor in the fact that magic works and ghosts exist and go on with our lives.

In this century, three concepts of hte universe have held sway, the old Newtonian physics, Einstien’s physics based on light speed, and Heissenberg and quantum physics.

For the first time in history the truths contained in three different concepts of the universe existing side by side didn’t even ause a ripple.

I was just a kid at the time but I remember the trouble Gallileo caused. His intellectual world was based on the Old Testament, and the Old Testament said in the clearest terms that God created the firmament, the firm earth, and spread the heavens above it. When Galileo looked through the telescope invented in Northern Europe he found the earth was not the only firmament.

Copernicus had said much the same thing. But Copernicus was a Pollack, so what did HE know?

Galileo was put under hosue arrest. He was challenging the entire universe his society was based on. One person put it perfectly:

“Do you think that a man with a tube with a piece of glass in each end can overturn the whole History and Authority of the Church?”

Actually a guy with a tube with a piece of glass in each end DID overturn the whole Authority of the Church.

In fact, there has not been a Catholic school since 1700 which did NOT go with the tube instead of the Authority of the Church.

This has gone so far that before his death Pope John Paul mentioned the possibility of removing the Catholic Church’s condemnation of Galileo as a heretic. It didn’t happen, but it could.

One of the most important documents on which the Papacy based its temporal power was the Donation of Constantine. This was a forged document which was supposedly written by the Emperor Constantine which explained the reason he moved the capitol of the Roman Empire from the city of Rome to Constantinople.

In the Donation, Constantine said that, due to a miracle, he was giving all of the Western Roman Empire to the Pope. So he, the lesser of the two, had to move to the East, since the Pope owned the West. If you read Dante’s Inferno written inthe fourteenth century, Dante believed the Donation was genuine.

Actually the Donation was silly. It was forged inteh eighth century using the scholarhip of the time. It ws FULL of absurdities. For one thing, it was written in the wrong language. The Latin in it was eight-century Latin, not fourth-century Latin. And the Roman upper class wrote in Greek back tehn anyway.

The Donation got EVERYTHING wrong. It cited the wrong divisions of the church at the time of Constantine and so forth.

One of the heroes of all ages was the man who exposed the Donation. All the scholars in the fifteenth century knew it was bogus, but he wrote the book that exposed it. He stated flatly that he expected to be burned at the stake for it.

Everybody else had kept quiet. But this was the sort of person who comes from Aryans. He just couldn’t STAND for something that was obviously true to be ignored.

That was the ONLY reason he did it. Any of our Heroic Practical Men would tell you he was a fool.

But the Aryan world is not based on Practial Men. Our real hero escaped from the stake. He was surrounded by Aryans back then.

Our society discovered statistics. We found the Bell Curve. It is a very heretical Curve. It says that whether you succeed in battle does not depend on what the priests and Authorities determine from Traditional values, but one simple probabilities.

In all history there has never been a society that could absord three forms of physics without a ripple. In all of history there has never been a society that had one sentence as it guiding light:

“PROVE it.”

Every other society was based largely on the statement, ‘Things are not as they appear.”

I can say to you, because we are part of Aryan, which is called “Western” thought:

“If the world is not as it appears, why did God or evolution, or both, give us EYES?”

If your little tube with a piece of glass in each end is RIGHT. PROVABLY right, we will absord it into our society and go on.

The basis of our society is an old scientific saying, “One experiment is worth a hundred Expert Opinions.”

What would DESTROY any earlier civilized order only elicits, “Damn! I would have SWORN that wasn’t true.”

Soviet society was based on the concept that mankind was a product of economics. So as soon as the Medicogenetical Institute killed that idea, Stalin had to kill them.

Oriental societies were based on philosophers who were silly. So Marxism took them over. You would not believe what African societies are based on.

Jews like Marx are the Great Authorities. And Einstein NEEDED a universe based on a certainty.

Aryans ASK the universe, “What is true.” Odin lost an eye hanging on the world tree to learn some FACTS.

The society Odin’s people produced is called “Western.” All the Old Testament and other Middle East fanatics, including modern historians, are STILL trying to find some way to shoehorn the developement of Western Civilization into the Old Testament.

The world tree Odin hung on was called Yggsdradil, and its roots were miles deep. The roots of what is called “Western” Civilization are miles deep.

What is true is simply true.

And we are the only civilization in history that could handle that.

Leading From the Saddle

Posted by Bob on November 29, 2005 at 1:18 pm  
Filed Under History | 4 Comments »

The old kings used to rule, not from the throne, but from the saddle. They were personally riding out to confront the enemy at the farthest reaches of their realms.

We find “Charlemagne” in Rome, at war with the Saxons, on guard against the Islamic threat of invation from Spain, which his ancestor had turned back when it reached Belgium, having already conquered France.

This is very puzzling to someone who has the stereotypical picture of kingship, a guy sitting on a throne surrounded by courtiers wearing silk pants.

Historians like the latter picture of leadership. They like the idea that someone sitting and writing orders is in control.

In a museum there is the elaborate office in which General Stonewall Jackson wrote his last orders.

It is a tree stump.

General Jackson was killed precisely because his own men did not know where he was all the time. He was shot by mistake by our own men.

Lee always looks in the pictures like a mellow Southern Gentleman. Actually his officers regularly had to hold him back from charging right into the battle. Once the troops were yelling, “General Lee to the rear! General Lee to the rear!” Lee, the man they counted on for their lives, had charged right into the battle, bullets flying around him.

Lee shouted, “I will withdraw, but will you beat these people?” The troops shouted they would, and would General Lee PLEASE get the hell out of there and let THEM take the risks?

Now let us come down, with a loud thump, from Generals Lee and Jackson to Bob Whitaker.

This is important:

When I write, I am not writing from a Seat of Wisdom. I am thinking out loud. I am riding around the field of ideas. If you think I have a Formula for Success, you are not only looking at the wrong person, you are looking at the wrong RACE.

Einstein, a good Jew, wanted a fixed universe based on the fixed speed of light. Heisenberg, an Aryan, was comfortable with the Principle of Uncertainty. Einstein died fighting that: “God does not play dice witht he universe.”

The Aryan and the Jewish- Chinese points of view are not only worlds apart, they are UNIVERSES apart.

MANY universes.

Einstein wanted one universe ruled by One Jehovah and One Book. None of this even OCCURRED to Heissenberg. Being an Aryan, he was interested in what truth WAS, not in imposing his Truth upon the universe.

So my intellectual life is not giving you a final truth which comes from where I am sitting.

This is a practical matter. Once people decide that I have a lot to say, they begin to ask me what we have been taught to ask of Great Philosophers:

“OK, Bob, you have given me PART of the truth, not give me the WHOLE truth.”

I am giving you what I think I have figured out. I am not even wedded to that.

You show me it is not true and I’ll go with YOU. So how can anyone think that I have some kind of rock-solid Final Truth, the one everybody else claims?

I do not try to rule, but I try to LEAD.

And I lead from the saddle.

Reply to Peter, Thanks to Tim

Posted by Bob on November 29, 2005 at 12:35 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 1 Comment »

Peter asks,

“When our government finishes its fall, how do we make sure we have something wonderful to replace it? Do we wish to be in the same mess that Russia is in now or like the afterbirths that Spain and England are? Granted the most important thing is making sure it falls flat but there will be more moves ahead on the chess board. ”

Tim said,

“I also gave them the old BW line—”they are not talking about flooding Africa with non-Africans and
Asia with Non-Asians. They are only flooding White countries and ONLY White
countries with Non-Whites. This is genocide.” (I say this stuff in my sleep these days)”

And Tim is my answer to Peter.

Petger, if you are a Christian, do the work that is before you, as Tim is doing. Tim’s constant repetition of the fundamental fact SHOULD be what you repeat in your sleep.

It WORKS.

We can have a healthy future if we plant the seeds of decency in people’s minds. No Plan is going to do it.

You plant the seeds and some healthy soil will make it prosper. But you HAVE to plant the seeds, which is a repetitious busines in every case.

The trouble with a person with a Plan is that he thinks his Plan will make a nation thrive. So he writes a Book and tries to create yet another group of Wordists who will save the world. That is path whitakeronline.org leads AWAY from.

If you get people realizing that we are facing simple, blatant genocide it destroys thir worship of Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and all the rest. If they are white, this makes them THINK.

And that, Peter, is ALL we ask of OUR people. We want them to finally see how insane things are and that courage does not consist of obedience, but of MORAL courage. We want them to start using their OWN minds. Aryans do not dream of a worlsdin which all the other Aryans run around on a golden leash.

We want a world where Aryans squabble over what is RIGHT, not over what is written. And, unlike blacks or browns or Orientals, we want OUR PEOPLE to take over, not to obey whatever creed we come up with.

If you want our people to stop being fools and cowards, you do what Tim is doing. You keep hammering in “Don’t be a fool” by refusing to question just plain genocide. You stop being a coward by avoiding the subject that is obviously in our rulers’ minds.

Get our people to thinking. Get our people to questioning. Make defiance the mark of heroism.

Do what Tim is doing.

More Reply to Mark

Posted by Bob on November 28, 2005 at 9:18 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 3 Comments »

I had a great deal to do with the fall of the Soviet Empire.

Why?

Let’s start with the fact that not on single highly-paid, degreed, awarded and honored Sovietologist had the slightest idea that the Soviet Union was about to go down in 1980. If that remark, which I have repeated, doe not hit home, not much more that I say will make sense to you.

I was in Pat Buchanan’s house when he and other Catholic theologues had returned from a visit to the USSR.

Pat said, “All the Soviets ask of us is that we take them SERIOUSLY.”

I kid you not. Those were his words.

And he was dead right.

But let us put ourselves back into 1980. The Soviet buildup and the Carter cutback had made the USSR the apparently militarily superior superpower.

In fact Pat was a major step ahead of the Sovietologists. He realized that the leaders of the Other Superpower were farid, above all, that others would think of them exactly as they thought of themselves.

Communism was SILLY.

Pat, like all theologues, had a half realization. He saw that anyone who wanted to dialogue with Soviet leaders had to recognize them as a real power, a real thing, not just a faith of western academics that, from the inside, looked ridiculous.

To return to the theme, an equation has TWO sides.

When I heard Pat say that, I felt like I did when, a few years before, Pat insisted that American troops at Normandy INTENTIONALLY died so that Europe would be open to third world immigration.

Every liberal and every official spokesman of The Greatest Generation has asid that repeatedly, but not in such blunt language. As a good theologue Pat recited the catechism perfectly.

But the Church didn’t want it put that bluntly.

Pat, as a good theologue, NEVER comes to logical conclusions. There is no OTHER side to the equation.

A good theologue is capable of saying, “We all deserve death,” by which he means that, because of Original Sin, all humans deserve eternal damnation. But he cannot come to the conclusion that every infant deserves to have hot coals rubbed into its eyes.

So if a theologue says, at the height of Soviet power, that all they ask is to be taken seriously, he is incapable of reaching the conclusion I had long since reached:

They are ridiculous and they know it.

Somewhere in the mass of words that is whitakeronline.org, I wrote a piece called “What Happened tot he Communist Conspiracy?” The first sentence was, “It went public.”

Robert Welch tried hard in the 1950s to convince people that the ruling establishment in Washington was pro-Soviet. In the 1960s they said so.

Welch’s problem was that he thought of the Communists as a Great Power, a serious group of people who really wanted to rule the world. He never looked at THEIR side of the equation.

The Soviets had all the power. The Soviets had out entire intellctual establishment on their side in a world that was divided between Communism and freedom.

How could the Reds lose?

All this left me totally puzzled. I knew they didn’t exist. They had guns and mines and barbed wire, I saw it. But there was nothing THERE.

Buchanan could say that the Greatest Generation fought to open Europe to the third world, but he could not conclude that they wanted the end of the white race. Which is exactly why what he said gave liberals the shivers.

Buchanan wrote an excelent book called “The Death of the West.” He went into all the statistics that prove that there was a program to rid the earth of whites.

He concluded that the death of the west was a decline of Catholic Church values.

Liberals can trust Pat, though they will never understand him. How can he not see what is obvious to anyone else? Why can he not understand the logical conclusions of what he says?

Because he is trained not to.

Look at the list of approved respectable cosneratives, the one show, thought the establishment denounced them, as allowed to speak for discontent with liberalism.

Buchanan, O’Reilly, Hannity, Chris Matthews, and you can add to the list. Every one of them is a perfect and trained theologue.

Falwell, Swaggert, Bakker, Bob Jones V, to the Northern Irish are added the Southern theologues.

This was titled a “Reply to Mark.”

I have yet to explain how it relates to the price of tea in China.

Mark, do you have any idea?

Reply to Mark

Posted by Bob on November 28, 2005 at 8:05 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 2 Comments »

In response to my article “Future Physics,” Mark asks , “What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?”

As a former economics professor and one who has had a lot more than he wanted to with Communist countries, I am equipped to tell you about the price of tea in China.

The price of tea in China is extremely low. It is set at a level which would cause consumers in other countries to salivate.

The problem is that you cannot GET tea at that price. If you stand in line for hours, you may get to the store before the tiny amount of tea runs out.

In other words, one problem is the price of tea. The other side of the equation is whether you can GET any tea at that price.

If you are worried only about the price of tea in China, I assure you that it is very, very low.

That would be wonderful.

If an equation didn’t have TWO sides.

No, Joe, I Did not Insult YOU

Posted by Bob on November 28, 2005 at 7:48 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »

The last article ended with “You make me sick.”

And it was a reply to Joe. Joe was trying to lay the blame on the media or the congress.

The critical sentence in the article was, “YOU in the sentences below refers to the electorate. ”

I do not want Joe to be excusing the electorate.

No, Joe, congress is not to blame. The media is not the cause of our troubles.

No one is causing our sweet, strong people to become warped.

Aryans had power and can take power again. But only if they are allowed no excuses.

Reply to Joe

Posted by Bob on November 28, 2005 at 7:35 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 4 Comments »

Joe has a thing about the congress being responsible.

What is the congress? Congress is a bunch of people who get reelected every two years.

There is omething we must get over: a lot of people see that congressmen keep getting reelected. They therefore think the congressman who keeps getting reelected is independent because “He’s got it made.”

Backwards.

YOU in the sentences below refers to the electorate. The congressman gets reelected because he has your formula down pat.

A permanent congressman is someone who could not care less what happened to YOU.

Why?

Because an equation has TWO SIDES. You vote for someone who is not too extreme. You vote for someone who gives you the line that convinces you and does not offend the Powers That Be.

A permanent congressman is someone who gives you the line that convinces you and does not offend the Powers That Be.

Everybody but you makes a LIVING at this.

They have got you figured.

The electorate is the ONLY responsible group. Anyone else can blame “the congress” or “the media” or “The Communist Conspiracy.”

I was part of the group that played you like a cheap musical instrument.

I just don’t think my people should allow themselves to be treated like that.

That’s OK for blacks. That’s OK for Orientals. That’s OK for Old Testament freaks and others whose whole lives consist of Obedience.

That is NOT OK for Aryans. That is even less OK for AMERICAN Aryans.

You make me sick.

Future Physics

Posted by Bob on November 28, 2005 at 6:55 pm  
Filed Under Musings about Life | 3 Comments »

Now that I know there are some other physics geeks, I mean students of science, in my audience, I want to go out on a limb.

PLEASE don’t write me this was terribly boring. I have spent many hours listening to people speak to each other in languages I did not understand. It was pure cruelty to me.

But this is WRITTEN.

That means you do NOT have to sit there through the whole endless crap I did.

Scan it. If you don’t like it, forget it.

PLEASE don’t write me about how boring it is. I will figure you are an idiot for not being able to scan it.

But I’ll try to be more diplomatic than that.

OK.

Quantum physics says — yes, I know the quibbles — that electrons come into and out of EXISTENCE on a random basis.

Before it collapses into a Black Hole matter weighs a million tons a teaspoonful.

What is a Black Hole? A Black Hole is gravity field which light cannot escape.

Why is it Black?

Because we can only see light.

OK. Let’s remember simple statistics. Once you get into the thousands, much less the millions, things even out. We live in a consistent universe.

Did you notice the word “WE?”

We experiment by what we observe. Do you understand the word “observe.?” It means from the observer’s point of view.

It is not just the observation, but the observer’s point of view that determines the equation.

An Equation has two sides.

We exist INSIDE the equation, not outside. Electrons do not come into EXISTENCE on a random basis. They come into the equation of which we are a product in a bell curve.

But when you get into the quadrillions, much less the googles squared, the bell curve is nothing.

The equation of which we are part has two sides, and we, the observer, are one of those.

Have I made myself sufficiently obscure?*

* From IMAS

Future Physics

Posted by Bob on November 28, 2005 at 6:55 pm  
Filed Under Musings about Life | No Comments »

Now that I know there are some other physics geeks, I mean students of science, in my audience, I want to go out on a limb.

PLEASE don’t write me this was terribly boring. I have spent many hours listening to people speak to each other in languages I did not understand. It was pure cruelty to me.

But this is WRITTEN.

That means you do NOT have to sit there through the whole endless crap I did.

Scan it. If you don’t like it, forget it.

PLEASE don’t write me about how bring it is. I will figure you are an idiot for not being able to scan it.

But I’ll try to be more diplomatic than that.

OK.

Quantum physics says — yes, I know the quibbles — that electrons come into and out of EXISTENCE on a random basis.

Before it collapses into a Black Hole matter weighs a million tons a teaspoonful.

What is a Black Hole? A Black Hole is gravity field which light cannot escape.

Why is it Black?

Because we can only see light.

OK. Let’s remember simple statistics. Once you get into the thousands, much less the millions, things even out. We live in a consistent universe.

Did you notice the word “WE?”

We experiment by what we observe. Do you understand the word “observe.?” It means from the observer’s point of view.

It is not just the observation, but the observer’s point of view that determines the equation.

An Equation has two sides.

We exist INSIDE the equation, not outside. Electrons do not come into EXISTENCE on a random basis. They come into the equation of which we are a product on a mathematical basis.

Have I made myself sufficiently obscure?

It’s EUROPEAN!

Posted by Bob on November 28, 2005 at 6:26 pm  
Filed Under Musings about Life | 1 Comment »

One episode of Seinfeld showed him wearing a fur coat and carrying a purse. But, as the characters kept saying, it wasn’t a PURSE, it was a European wallet.

At the end of the show, someone snatched Jerry’s purse. Someone told the cop, “That guy snathced this guy’s purse.”

Seinfeld shouted shouted, “It’s not a purse, it’s EUROPEAN!”

Then the show ended when Seinfeld shouted, “OK, it’s a PURSE!” At that point the show ended with a freeze-fram of Sinefeld with his hands in the air, with his fur coat on.

Before AIDS hit the scene, we bigotted rednecks kept saying that the reason womens’ fashions were so ridiculous was that all the clothes designers for women were queer. This vicious accusation was simply quoted by the mainstream media to show how ridiculous the idea was that womens’ clothes designers were queer.

All they had to do was to put us bigots’ words in quotes: “Fromer KKK leader X says womens’ cloths designers are quote queer unquote.”

Which proved that they weren’t.

Then AIDS hit. Barbara Walters did a special bemoaning how AIDS had wiped out the designers of womens’ clothes, who were Great Artists?

“Why is it,” Barbara Walters continued, “That homosexuality gives a man such a perfect appreciation of colors and designs …” And so forth.

Knowing networking as I do, I would guess offhand that if you were NOT a homosexual you weren’t admitted into the mutual admiration club that is womens’ fashions.

Back to Seinfeld and his “European wallet.”

In the early 1970s there was an all-out effort to get men to carry purses, wear “bell-bottomed trousers” that were straight out of womens’ clothing store, and “Italian heels,” which were high-heeled boots that were also straight out of a womens’ store.

It wasn’t queer, it was European.

When I was on Capitol Hill, one of the male stars on M*A*S*H* showed up to testify. The girls rushed out to attend the hearing.

Liberal or conservative, they were sickened. “He had on high heels and he was carrying a PURSE!”

I don’t know if anyone else remembers the guys walking around in bell-bottoms with purses and high heels and blow-dryed hair.

It was the Latest Thing.

It was the sign of Progress.

And no one remembers it but me.

Actress

Posted by Bob on November 28, 2005 at 6:04 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »

In response to my piece on “My Girl Friday” Elizabeth described a movie in which Ethel Barrymore, the queen of THE Barrymores, played a real bitch.

Ethel Barrymore alternated between roles which made her the soul of kindness and the sort of mean old woman you have nightmares about.

Which, in my naive definition, is the definition of the word “actress.”

Political Correctness has stricken the word “actress” from the English language. Try to find the word “actress” in any review or any discussion of the theater today. It is sexist.

So “actress” is now the “A” word. We all know what the “N” word is.

You know how they had to expand the area codes? Soon they will be expanding the alphabet to accommodate the letter words.

(Parenthetically, which is why this is in parentheses, I still chuckle at what joe o said:

(“A few years back, McDonalds would have a sign under the arches showing how many hamburgers they had served in their history. Perhaps each European nation should have a sign at each international airport indicating exactly how may jews that particular state believes were killed by the nazis.”)

But the idea of calling Marilyn Monroe an “actor” is simply beyond my reach.

She was, in fact, an excellent actress. But calling her something with hair on his chest is something I cannot do.

Answer to Derek

Posted by Bob on November 28, 2005 at 5:20 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses, Politics | No Comments »

Derek says he didn’t think blacks COULD vote in New York in 1940.

Actually they could vote in New York long before then, and Roosevelt cultivated THEIR LEADERS.

Please note my emphasis here.

If you know real politics, you know that 90% or more of blacks do not VOTE. They parade on orders.

In 1932 Herbert Hoover lost his reelection bid by the most crushing majority any movern president running for reelection has ever suffered. The Great Depression destroyed him.

BUT what very few people know is that Hoover got more votes in that overwhelming defeat than any presidential candidate ever got before 1932, including 1928 when Hoover won election overwhelmingly. This is a critical point. What happened in 1932 was that milllions of NEW voters went to the polls who had never gone before.

In the case of white voters, almost everybody who had voted Republican in 1928 voted Republicans again in 1932. It was not a matter of the electorate switching sides. It was a new electorate.

In fact, the only massive SWITCH was the black vote. In 1928 they trooped to the polls and voted 90% for the Party of Lincoln, as they always had. In 1932 they trooped to the polls and voted 90% for the Democrats, If you know ANYTHING about politics that means there was not a change of MIND, but a change of ORDERS.

In the South blacks were prevented from voting because whites there felt that blacks would not VOTE, they would be organized into a mob.

Guess what happened when blacks got the vote in the South?

His Girl Friday

Posted by Bob on November 28, 2005 at 12:47 pm  
Filed Under History | 2 Comments »

I was just watching the 1940 Cary Grant comedy, “My Girl Friday.”

The plot revolves around a man who is being railroaded to execution because he shot a cop.

But, as the Grant character says, “He was a COLORED cop. You know how that is. That’s a lot of votes.” The shooter was white. We see him in the movie.

A reprieve comes through, but the mayor hires the man who brings it to bribe him from letting anybody know about the reprieve. The mayor goes to prison for attempted murder, thanks to Grant and His Girl Friday.

This is a comedy, so this part of it is forgotten.

At one point the mayor says that if the man is not executed it will cost him two hundred thousand votes.

Can you guess WHICH votes?

This was in 1940.

Reply to Zachary

Posted by Bob on November 26, 2005 at 3:42 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 1 Comment »

You folks are making me hop, and I LOVE it!

Zachary says,

“Some theologians you guys are. You’re morons. I myself am a Christian White Nationalist and I can’t help but laugh at your ignorance of history and Biblical Scripture. You make a mockery of the Bible.”

Zachary, I would not talk about the Old Testament if I didn’t think it was important. I make a mockery of the people who twist it.

You have taken the Old Testament and gotten a healthy attitude from it. You and I both know a LOT of people who have taken both Testaments and made them into something sick.

If I remember correctly, Jesus said those people would come along and do just that.

The earliest and probably the most important debate in Christian history was the one between Peter and Paul about whether converts had to be circumcized. I cannot see how a person who takes the Old Testament as unshakeable and final truth could have concluded that a convert did NOT have to be circumcised.

I am not a theologian, I am a historian. I am sure that many who backed Peter in this said critics were making a mockery of the Old Testament. But Peter did something almost unimaginable for so many who call themselves Christians today, as my correspondence with the Methodist Doctor of Theology below demonstrates.

Peter saw he was wrong and said so. He then went on with his job, which was spreading the Gospel. Can you imagine a modern theologian doing THAT? Have you ever heard a modern theologian admit that he was justplain wrong and go on with his real job?

Ther is another astounding differene between Peter and modern theolgians. He did not try to hog all the action. He gave Paul the job of preaching tot he gentiles, because he felt that he couldn’t do that job.

Amazing!

I repeat, Zachary, can you imagine ANY modern theologian or preacher doing THAT?

The Book has survived a lot worse trials than Bob Whitaker’s insisting that it is not on the same par with Gospel.

As you can see from the comments, some agree with me and some don’t. That is why both of us are here.

We are not on the same par with Peter and Paul, but we should follow their example.

Peter Hit the Nail on the Head!

Posted by Bob on November 26, 2005 at 3:13 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »

Peter hit a point that needs emphasizing.

I keep saying that my approach WORKS. Peter explained what that MEANS. Read what he says CAREFULLY:

“Yes, Bob I too agree that your quips work. ”

“The trick is to learn the signs of success. For example when we have hit home, the other may switch topics. But if the other replies with something unkind and below the belt, he has lost, is aware that he has lost and will not be worth pursuing, although anyone else listening may benefit from what they hear. Gentle parrying from someone one considers honest can be a sign that he is interested at least intellectually. Keep it low key and conversation normal, and if the person brings up the topic again, we have the right to reply. ”

RIGHT!

In a discussion, most people naturally want to come out on TOP. They want to LOOK good.

I am trying to save my race.

So when I say my tactics — and they involve a hell of lot more than “quips” — WORK, I do NOT mean they make the other guy concede your point. What they do is put the other person in an impossible position. So Peter has put in a critical piece of coaching that I left out.

We want the other guy to go away gunshy. We want him to realize for the first time in his life that what his Mommy Professors told him can’t stand up among adults.

Above all, our talk is aimed at the OTHER people there. We want them thinking, “Lord, I don’t want to be in the position of that poor bastard. If I had come up with all the so-called wisdom on race my professors filled me with, I would be squirming in my chair the way he is.”

Peter, this is the kind of comment I really need and I really treasure.

Public Secrets

Posted by Bob on November 25, 2005 at 2:44 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, How Things Work | 9 Comments »

I have one major advantage over theologians when it comes to understanding what Jesus Christ said. That advantage is that I have been in and dealt with many totalitarian and authoritarian societies. Jesus was speaking in a place where he could have been stoned to death on the spot for saying the wrong thing.

As usual, what I have to say that is of use to you consists of looking closely at a fact that is so obvious that those who get paid for making learned comments on words completely overlook it.

I have pointed out that Old Testament fanatics put most of their faith on Jesus’s statement that he did not plan to erase one iota of the Jewish Law. So, as one Old Testament fanatic put it, “Seventy percent of the Bible is the Old Testament.”

Not one of these people ever considers the fact that if Jesus had said anything else, he would have been stoned to death on the spot. If they ever noticed this, it would put Old Testament Christianity in a very tenuous position.

And you couldn’t become a Christian without full circumcision at any age.

Another obvious fact like this is that the Declaration of Independence, which is so often quoted an objective statement of principles, was written in wartime. In fact, it was written in a city that would soon be occupied by enemy troops.

Nobody ever even MENTIONS this when they discuss the Declaration. I guarantee you that it was very much of the minds of those who wrote and adopted the Declaration. The Declaration was a cry for help and a bid for foreign support, not an abstract declaration of real American principles.

This brings us to today.

If we are going to deal realistically with the society in which we live we must have a more realistic grasp of the reality we live in.

So let’s face one reality: everybody knows that what is really ailing our society is not discussed in the media.

People on our side keep quoting the media and those who make their livings in the media, left and right, as if what they say is what people believe.

They therefore reflect an understanding of our reality that comes straight out of a cartoon.

I like to rent DVDs and listen to the commentary version of the movie, where the movie is played with running commentary from the people who made the film. Nobody is more Politically Correct than movie-makers, but in every commentary they are bitching about the “political correctness nuts” who criticize them and threaten them with violence.

Out in the real world, not only does EVERYBODY know about political correctness, the people who live in the real world all consider it a pain in the ass. But people on our side keep acting as if only they knew what is allowed in the media is silly.

You simply cannot deal with political reality if you keep living and commenting from inside a cartoon.

Reply to Joe

Posted by Bob on November 23, 2005 at 10:36 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 4 Comments »

In reply to my article about Joe Sobran not liking me any more below, Joe Rorke wrote the following:

“Perhaps it is not so. If Joe didn’t personally tell you that then all you have is what someone told you. I respect Joe Sobran and I appreciate his work. People have a right to choose their friends. If you don’t like me, it is your right to not like me. I am not interested in being liked. But respect…..that’s another thing. I expect to be respected. My job is to respect others. I respect Joe Sobran. I respect Bob Whitaker. There are many people, admittedly, that I don’t respect. There is always a reason for this. I don’t ask anybody to like me. But they must respect me if we are going to have any kind of relationship. I may dislike you and still respect you. Respect, in my opinion, is the important thing. ”

Rorke, as I said inthe article, Joe Sobran has ignored my messages for months.

Rorke, I spent decades as a loose cannon rolling around decks in Washington. This is NOT the first time I have had people reject me suddenly.

Let me remind you that NO ONE confronts me. I spend endless articles on how to make people who are wrong feel the exact way you know they do NOT want to feel. I gave examples of how I got everybody LAUGHING at professors for well over forty years.

I teach what I DO. My coaching comes from practice.

It WORKS.

NOBODY confronts me.

Joe Sobran is doing what everybody has ALWAYS done who knows my reputation.

This has happened more times than I can count.

THAT, Rorke, is respect of the most demonstrative sort.

I don’t care what Joe thinks of me personally. He did the best writing in my book in his Foreword. He lost a really good job at National Review because, though he was an old friend of William Buckley’s and one of Buckley’s proteges, he simply would not back down from his principles.

Joe Sobran has paid and paid and paid for his principles.

A man like that cannot get rid of my respect, whether he wants it or not.

Joe Sobran Doesn’t Like Me Any More and My Reaction is Odd

Posted by Bob on November 23, 2005 at 2:08 am  
Filed Under Bob | 3 Comments »

Joe and I used to pal around in Washington. We drank many a beer together at his house and he thought I was great.

Joe did an unbeatable Foreword to my last book.

Then he stopped replying to my messages. If you know about Brer Rabbit and Tarbaby, you know that for a Southerner not replying is the gravest form of insult.

So someone reported a conversation he had with Joe. Joe said, “I am a friend of Bob Whitaker’s the way I am a friend of David duke’s. That is, not at all.”

I replied, “Thanks for telling me that. Joe never had the guts to tell ME that. But I am still a big fan of Joe’s.”

This wasn’t the ODD part.

What you will have trouble with is the idea that my actual reaction to Joe’s reaction was odd. How could a normal everyday person like Ole Bob react oddly?

By the way, since Joe and Pat Buchanan are good buddies and dedicated Catholic theologues, I assume Pat isn’t speaking to me either.

But this did not crush me.

Of course nobody told me to my face. I am not a person anyone can confront.

Nobody ever had the guts to face me.

Far more important, I have had the experience of hearing lists of people I knew, some of whom detested me, who had been killed. It is a LOT easier to know that Joe doesn’t like me than to hear that Joe can no longer like anything.

A really nasty life gives you the emotional skin of an elephant.

But what flattered me was that the grapevine on me got all the way to Washington. When I crossed the Rubicon — again — and started working with Stormfront and met David Duke, the word got from Russia to DC.

I have not had any official position in DC for two decades. The normal DC celebrity is forgotten if he doesn’t show up for lunch two days in a row.

But I was one of constant figures in DC. As I have said, when it came to long-term policy determination, the constant figures were not mentioned in the news or made Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.

While others jockeyed for jobs, this tiny group determined what the election after next would be about. We were very, very few.

I’m still doing that.

But I am always astounded when anybody NOTICES.

They STILL know what I do.

And that gives me deep, odd satisfaction.

Reply to Mark

Posted by Bob on November 23, 2005 at 12:49 am  
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »

Mark says,

“So what happens when Isreal or a European country issues a warrant for Bob Whitaker because he has posted “anti-semitic” and “holocaust denial” writings that are available on the internet world wide?
Do the jack booted thugs come to your door and haul you off? If so, do they try you here or in the country that indicted you? What keeps any of us from being arrested for crimes against the PC religion? And what happens to David Duke who has been indicted by a foreign nation? ”

Then I’m toast.

I crossed that Rubicon long, long ago.

I had an adverse FBI file when I was in my mid-teens.

I should have gone to prison for knocking a cop out cold in an anti-busing march when he was among the other brave law enforcement officers who were beating on women. I spent a lot of time at the police station but I was the publicity man for the march so the mayor himself told them not only not to arrest me, but to wipe any record of the situation.

I have spent a LOT of time in third-world countries fighting Communist guerrillas. That is not a friendly game. You routinly know how to commit suicide because you have seen what happens to the people they capture.

I am NOT David Irving. I am NOT Ernst Zundel, the pacifist. If they take me, unless they really know who I am and catch me unaware, it will make some news. People will die.

That is the difference between me and a soldier. A trained soldier or a trained dog will kill anything he is TOLD to kill. A cop will beat women if they piss off his superiors.

But a real citizen will kill anybody who comes to arrest him for a Thought Crime.

It is easy to ignore the arrest of David irving. I plan to make my arrest hit the newspapers.

I do not advocate INITIATING violence. But if cops come after me with guns on for the crime of being an American, I will do exactly what my ancestors did.

Holocaust Denier

Posted by Bob on November 23, 2005 at 12:19 am  
Filed Under Bob, General | 1 Comment »

As a freeborn American, I do not believe ANYTHING that ANY government requires me to believe.

That is one of the basic principles my country was founded on.

That is one of the basic reasons we came here in the first place.

I’ll die for it.

Holocaust Denier

Posted by Bob on November 23, 2005 at 12:19 am  
Filed Under Bob, General | No Comments »

As a freeborn American, I do not believe ANYTHING that ANY government requires me to believe.

That is one of the basic principles my country was founded on.

That is one of the basic reasons we came here in the first place.

I’ll die for it.

Good Quotes From Unikely Sources

Posted by Bob on November 22, 2005 at 11:32 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session, History, How Things Work | 1 Comment »

I love the North Carolina saying, “You’re ugly, your feet stink, and you don’t love Jesus.”

Like ALL Southern wisdom, it completely escapes outsiders.

That statement makes fun of a phenomenon I see all the time. I often quote people I abhor when they say something that is just plain GOOD.

Others are blind to the smart things their opponents say because if they are evil Nothing they say can be rational. This means that ugliness, foot odor, and always being wrong.

And they’re probably perverts to boot.

If I thought this way, one of my favorite quotes would ne er have come from Senator Fulbright of Arkansas, the hero of the opposition to the Vietnam War.

Like commenter Simon, Senator Fulbright was the kind of animal I hate more than I am capable of hating even the most obnoxious and loud-mouthed New York Jew. Like Simon, his point of moral pride was that he was a white man who wanted the end of the white race.

Fulbright was a public segregationist and a private integrationist.

As a senator from Arkansas, he was a part of the Southern Caucus which filibustered against all civl rights legislation. Back then Arkansas was not the diaper-soiling population that it is now is. It was very Southern. So Fulbright had to be a segregationist to stay in the Senate.

If Fulbright had not been a public segregationist there was a point at which he could have Secretary of State. He wanted that more than anything else in the world. he had always loved foreign affairs.

Remember that the Fulbright Scholarships, which Clinton took, were named for him.

But in order to be in the Senate Fulbright had to disqualify himself for the post he desired most. After all, he could not have been considered for Secretary of State if he had not been a senator.

So a reporter, an ardent opponent of the Vietnam War, worshipped Fulbright and took it for granted as all the media did (they are independent thinkers, each of them is independently just alike) that Fulbright was a Great Senator. So he asked Fulbright, “Senator, what does it take to be a Great Senator.”

Fulbright, who had been frustrated out of his lifelong ambition to be Secretary of State by the necessities of electoral politics, brought the reporter down to earth with bang.

He had been asked how one becomes a Great Senator. His reply was, “FIRST, you have to be SENATOR.”

To be a brave congressman, you have to be a congressman.

As noted in the last article, one commenter said that the congress was to blame for the present mess. He conveniently forgot that the congress is a product of the electorate.

Which leads straight into Tim’s statement (This is TWO comments, Tim!) that the congress is responsible for our present mess. Tim, in order for a congressman to show courage as a congressman he has to first be a CONGRESSMAN.

He has to get ELECTED.

If he shows courage he doesn’t stand a chance. The media will label him an extremist and the same electorate that keeps demanding COURAGE from congressmen will consider him an embarrassment and get rid of him.

They will then wonder why congressmen don’t show courage.

That is the table leg, Tim. You and Joe Sobran have not been through enough real campaigns. Joe gets paid to write outraged columns. He keeps going and going and going and going…

Joe gets PAID to keep pushing that table leg.

You don’t.

Now to another person who is not our hero but who said something vital.

Kissinger said something that took true Chutzpah. His family left Austria when Hitler took it over, so he is no fan of anti-Semitism. But he has the kind of dry humor I like.

We all know that the myth that the Nazis made soap out of Jews is a myth. So the EveryReady Men will not get the humor of my second favorite Kissinger remark. He will be so lost in denouncing the myth that he will miss Kissinger’s important point.

When Kissinger visited Austria, someone asked him if any of his relatives were still there.

He really didn’t want to discuss that. If someone is revisiting New Orleans right now, he will tell you about the survivors in his family and the deaths in his family. But pressing him on it is a nasty thing to do. The average peson doesn’t know how to smack teh reporter down.

But Kissinger was a pro, and he wouldn’t take that crap.

So when the reporter asked Kissinger about his relatives in Austria, Henry cut this intrusive question off with the remark, “They’re all soap.”

He did not get asked again.

My favorite Kissinger statement, of course, comes from the fact that he is a cold, professional diplomat. In other words, he gets paid to make things WORK. If what you are doing isn’t working, you can’t just whine about how the other side is unreasonable. In the real world of diplomacy, you have to assume it takes two to tango.

He doesn’t like whiners. Even Jewish whiners.

So when some Jewish leader was talking about the self-pity Judaism is based on, the idea that everybody is mean and the Jews are always sweeties, Kissinger replied, “Any people that has been persecuted for two thousand years is doing something WRONG.”

His feet may stink, and he sure as hell doen’t love Jesus, but he said something that desperately needed saying.

Next Page →

Switch to our mobile site