Why can’t liberals get a single non-local successful talk radio show going?

The reason is simple and it is one they cannot admit, even to themselves:

Everyone who goes to school hears the liberal line day in and day out. It is so standard he doesn’t even know it’s there.

White man bad. Injun good. It’s been on TV since the Greatest Generation came home.

In other words, there is nothing a liberal has to say that bored children don’t have to listen to every day at public expense. Every student has heard of the horrors the white man has perpetrated, of the innocent natives and polar bear (I have yet to hear much of a distinction made).

So what exactly is a liberal talk show host supposed to talk about that his audience is not already bored cross-eyed from hearing?

Which is our big advantage.

You may emphasize that what we are saying is ILLEGAL in other countries. David Irving is facing twenty years for disagree ing about the NUMBERS from the Holocaust. But hit them with Bob’s Mantra first. Any time they look like they are making their own point, throw something in like asking whether what you say should be ILLEGAL.

Particularly when there’s an audience.

But the point is, you have a giant advantage others do not have.

Race is NOT boring.

Derek said,

“Thanks Bob. ”

“I used to read a lot of philosophy. The serious stuff like Nietzsche, Arelius, Evola, Fouccalut etc., etc. but lacked some serious, everyday common sense. I could quote these guys but not apply any of it to real life (outside of the easy maxims of Nietzsche).”

“Real people don’t have time to be psuedo-intellectuals. There is too much to enjoy in living life rather than speculating on it. Real life requires little rhetoric and much action.”

“I just started using the simplification method last night. My roomates and I started talking about women in combat. They were for it. I, being a former Navy man, vehemently disagreed. I was talking from experience and they were talking from speculation. ”

“I stated my case and then didn’t back down. I told them how all this PC crap hinders unit performance and cohesiveness. I saw it daily. Immigrants couldn’t communicate and women could hardly ever handle the stress.”

“I made my point and did it quick. I stuck to my guns and didn’t waste my time with nit-picking or lame speculation. They wasted 45 minutes talking each others ears off while I enjoyed my Manhattan.”

“I think that it worked.”

This put a picture in my mind.

For centuries the Roman Army had formula that worked. The only way to stop them would have been to say to the Romans, “OK, we all know you are experts and standing shield to shield and using the short sword to jab at your enemies.”

“But is that ALL you know how to do? Why don’t you prove you can do other things with cavalry and different formations?”

A Roman who thought he was Really Shrewd would have proved that he knew more than that one tactic.

If they had been Shrewd the Romans would have proved that they didn’t have to stay in a tight unit. They could fight it out inthe open field man-to-man.

While they ruled the know world the Romans never got Shrewd.

They just kept conquering stuff.

Over and over.

The trick was that the enemy had to break up the Roman Army. The Roman Army remained a unit and couldn’t be broken up.

Now let’s see if I can stretch this analogy.

People who argue with our enemies keep thinking that they have to convince THEM. It never occurs to them that the enemy must convince US.

So when they come at us on race, we use Bob’s Mantra:

” Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries.”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I want the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I say that, I’m a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

But the point is not that is THE position. That is YOUR position. They have to break it up.

You stay in formation.

They can try to talk about why THE white race should survive. You ask them if they would ask the black man above the same question.

They say blacks have a history of persecution. You ask if the black position is therefore inferior to their ideals.

You admit that you are not God. You are loyal to your own people justlike everybody else is.

They say they are loyal to ideals, not to a race. You talk about Wordism. You ask them if they have any loyalty to ANYTHING. Would they sell out America if they thought the other side had the principles?

You stay in formation.

No matter what they say they are answering YOU. YOU are in formation. YOU have your loyalties.

Where the hell ARE they? Can anybody TRUST them?

You are loyal. You have your ground.

Where are THEY?

Never break ranks.

Which means you must have trained yourself on exactly where you stand.

This is simple.

It is NOT easy.

Elizabeth wondered how to put something in italics here. I use the *** method.

***A*** Whitakerism exists.

But there is no Whitakerism, in the sense that you can lop off your frontal lobe and stick a book a book called “Whitakerism” in the empty space. That is Wordism, and I think I have made it clear that I have some mild objections to Wordism.

Yet for decades people who knew me said, “Now that’s a real Whitakerism!”

A Whitakerism is an observation that seems so obvious that it astounds people.

Let me give you an example. Someone says to me, “Looks are not important. It is what is on the Inside that matters.”

I ask them, “Have you ever heard of Greta James?”

So far, nobody has.

I then say, “There are thousands of really wonderful wives and mothers named Greta James. You’ve never heard of any of them, right?”

They haven’t.

Then I say, “Have you ever heard of Marilyn Monroe?”

By then they know what is coming.

If I am dealing with a woman, it is even easier. I say, “That’s a pretty dress. You have on some nice shoes. Pretty clothes and the right hairdo take a lot of taste and a certain amount of cash.”

“Sorry, I got off the subject. You said that looks don’t matter?”

Coke and beer is a Whitakerism.

People would say that a black guy and a blond girl have every right to be in love and have children.

Looks, you see, don’t matter. Only Beging in Love is important.

I would tell them I would glad to discuss that and I would buy the drinks. They would have to drink Coca-Cola, the most popular soft drink on earth, mixed with an equal amount of the very best beer.

All through the conversation, I would ask them, eye-to-eye, whether what they were drinking tasted good.

Nobody ever took me up on that.

I would point out that, while they theorized about how great Coke and beer were, the children they were talking about woud have to LIVE looking like that.

That is a Whitakerism.

You see, we lost control of our society when we started EXPLAINING the obvious. The hippies asked us “Why not peace?” and we got into a total bind over it.

We got on the defensive.

We let THEM be OUR judges.

And we have been justifying ourselves ever since. We are the subjective. They are the objective. They have preferences which they don’t have to justify. We have prejudices and we have to justify every one of them.

To them.

Another Whitakerism: “Who in the HELL do you think you are?”

A Whitakerism is putting them on the defensive and making them look like the self-righteous clowns they are, all at the same time.

A Whitakerism is truth with a license to kill.

Oliver Hardy came up with a Whitakerism before Bob’s father was born. He said, “Nobody is as dumb as a dumb man who thinks he’s smart.”

And nobody is as provincial as a liberal Southerner who thinks he’s sophisticated.

And nobody falls into a trap as easily as someone who thinks he’s Shrewd.

And nobody is as backward as somebody who is still quoting Karl Marx as a New Age Radical a century after the man died.

And what kind of idiot would think there are only “Both Sides,” meaning a grand total of two sides, to ANY issue?

And ALL traitors always claim they are just being objective and idealistic.

And why do we agree that a professional academic or a professional judge or a Professional Journalist is less a product of his environment we are.

Except that he has incurable self-righteousness thrown in?

And if you are white and you have no loyalty to your race, do you have ANY loyalties, and how do you justify them?

A Whitakerism is simple.

But a Whitakerism is never easy.

I said below that in today’s media, news and editorial opinion is ground out by an assembly line.

It is publish or perish. So you have to manufacture information that gets published.

It doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference whether you are producing articles for Penthouse or the New York Times or the BBC or Hunter’s Magazine.

The Professional Journalist thinks he is a special case because he produces his product for a specific group of people who are called Professional Journalists or Flagship Media. The assumption is that his particular product is judged by people who are Practically Perfect in Every Way like Mary Poppins.

As I pointed out in my last book, our theory of government is based on the idea that anybody who has money and power needs to watched and regulated.

With one exception.

That exception is the Third Estate.

We all accept the idea that the media has a DUTY to ask questions of anyone who has power and money that affect the rest of us that they would ask of the average person.

But no one has any right to pry into whatever Dan Rather chooses to call his “private opinions.”

Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite had a hell of a lot of money and a hell of a lot more power. The media in general have huge power and money, both of which dwarf other big businesses.

But that influence has NEVER been a SERIOUSLY scandal.

True, there have been one or two reporters who got into embarrassing position, like the Professional Journalist who got the Pulitzer Prize for a story she completely made up. But it was an embarrassment, not a scandal.

Every single respectable cosnervative agreed that it was entirely HER fault. She fooled her honest and dedicated superiors.

It was a mistake, not a SCANDAL.

A black man got caught after years of making up stories for the New York Times. But what made it OK was that many Professional Jounralists INSIDE the New York Times had been sending memos for YEARS about how this guy was lying.

I have frankly forgotten the embarrassment that Dan Rather got caught in. He misinterpreted some information about the Bush Administration that caused some rioting.

The press went after the few rotten eggs who caused this. They embarrassed Professional Journalists.

My own guess is that every one of those who caused this is still a Professional Journalist drawing a big time salary.

Congressmen go to prison for little slips like that. Presidents get impeached for embarrassments like that.

The prisons contain thousands of small businessmen who got embarrassed like that.

You see, when a president or a congressman or a businessman does something that is blamed on “a few rotten apples” among Professional Journalitsts, the first thing Professional Journalists ask is, “Is this the tip of the iceberg?”

In other words, is this just one incident that leaked?

When a congressman does something wrong the mdeia ask, “is this just one thing that came to light? After all, a congressman or the president have a lot of power. They are able to hide most of their misdeeds.”

All of which is perfectly true.

But anything that happens in the press is an “embarrassment.” There is no iceberg.

And nobody has more power to hide most of their misdeeds than the press does.

Has anybody heard any talk of an iceberg in the media?

I turned on my TV the first time in days and within two minutes I heard two items that were straight off the journalistic assembly line.

One was a study that showed that women who had strained marriages tended to be sicker. As an extension of that the report revealed that patients who have sexual relationships in hospital tend to be sicker for a longer period.

Nothing was mentioned about the fact that people who are sickly might tend to have worse marriages. Nothing was mentioned about the fact that you do not normallly develop a relationship in a hospital overnight.

You don’t feel good when you are sick. You may be crabbier and harder to live with if you are sick. So there could be a relationship between illness and had marital relations. So if you report that people who have bad relationships are ill and you do not mention that people who are ill may have bad marital relations you are distorting things completely.

The other right-off-the-assembly-line discussion was with the usual full-time paid activist who demands government action and raises money or gets grants for doing it. He wants the FDA to regulate anybody who adds calcium or iron or vitamins to food.

One person I know was living in Eastern Europe “on the economy.” This means he was not shopping in American stores or living in an Amerian hostel or hotel. He informred me that his gums had started bleeding.

I have spent a lot of time living on a lot of economies.

I told him he probably had something like scurvy. I told him to get some AMERICAN multivitamins/minerals.

He did.

That cleared whatever it was up.

The idea of getting anything like scurvy is alien to an American. Our foods are so enriched that even the most wretched of our inhabitants cannot avoid a range of vitamins and minerals that routinely avoid conditions that our ancestors considered common, like goiter and scurvy.

Back in the 1950s the entire medical profession declared that vitamin pills were useless. They declared that one could only get needed chemicals from a “balanced diet.” So it made me a bit nostalgic to hear this guy demanding that everything be regulated by the government if anyone decided to enrich foods.

He said all this evil, uncontrolled enriching keeps our minds off of … guess what? … a balanced diet.

People like this guy and the media should be our guardians, but they are as commercial as anybody they seek to regulate. This guy, like Science in the Public Interest and other groups, are a bunch of pencil-necks who make a living pushing old nostrums and new public regulations.

The “professional journalist” who reported on bad marriages causing ill health just had to throw in the point about the fact that patients who are in hospital who develope relationships with the staff stay sick longer. The idea was that THOSE relationships CAUSED their injuries to to take longer to heal.

But a person whose injury takes longer to heal is more likely to develop a relationship in the hospital.

OK. Pencil necks and Professional journalists have incentives to ignore reality.

But who has the incentive to make the comments I just made?

Let Joe tell me who does.

What I wrote above takes one minute of watching TV and my writing it down for half an hour.

But who is going to PUBLISH it?

How can it compete with THIS:

“A one-year study by the Harvard Institute on Health Through Counseling shows that people who have bad marriages tend to be more ill. Professor Bugenboogle said that this would seem to indicate that bad marriages CAUSE ill health.”

Here you have a one-year study at enormous public expense and PhDs at public expense.

This is news.

If it is a long, long study by a name outfit it is news. And if it’s sexy stuff it hits the media.

And, as outlined above and I could give examples all the day long, ONLY the sexy angle gets the media attention.

Bad marriages CAUSE ill health is a news hook. In fact, everybody can testify that they felt bad throughout a bad divorce.

This is a sexy story.

“Greedy corporations are destroying a balanced diet!” is NEWS. You can do a fund-raiser on that one.

You can’t do a fund-raiser on common sense. You cannot get attention to common sense.

Common sense is not sexy.

One of the sexiest stories the Professional Journalists love to tell is how those who are NOT Professional Journalists are just selling papers with sensationalism. Professional Journalists, on the other hand, weigh the studies carefully and avoid such distortion.

Actually Professional Journalists distort every story they tell, and not just for commercial purposes. The news is a stream of completely illogical statements designed to get the point across that will get published. If you don’t learn to do that, you will not last as a Professional Journalist.

Since the end of local independent newspapers Professional Journalism is as mass-produced as anything else.

The Professional Journalist at Voice of America that I worked with was as much a part of an assembly-line machine as a worker on an auto assembly line. He was measured by his ability to come up with the same story as other jounralists, but preferably quicker.

And now to a really heretical thought:

Why should mass media and huge newspaper chains be allowed to run editorials? General Motors can’t run a political editorial without being subject to government restrictions. Even if they could do it, the big other big corporations couldn’t write off their their editorialists’ pay as business expenses as a normal part of business expenses.

Only one mass-production big business is allowed to write off its political expenses.

Common sense used to come from the press. That is why the Founding Fathers protected them. But there is no relationship between the press they lived with and the giant businesses that are the media today.

Why is the Big Business of Media allowd to have open political opinions, and write them off as business expences, but other giant corporations can’t?

Try getting THAT idea published.

Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species and then held it back from publication. He only published it in 1859 because he had to.

He had to because someone else was aboout to publish a book with same ideas.

It is often said that Origin of Species changed the world.

That is not true. If Origin of Species had not been published in 1859 another book saying the same thing would have been published in 1860.

We very often hear of inventors and writers fighting over which one had prior claim to their great contribution. And all of history keeps talking about whoever won the copyright or patent fight as being the one who changed history.

None of which is true.

So who REALLY had the power? Who REALLY changed the world?

There were some really embarrasing factual errors my A Plague on Both Your Houses, 1976. But not one reviewer, however hostile even mentioned a single one of them.

As Jeffrey Hart said in his review of Plague for National Review, subtlety entitled, “Read This One!”:

“The sheer intellectual pleasure of this book is Whitaker’s corruscating insights.”

It was one idea after another, a tying together of what everybody knew but nobody had THOUGHT about.

It was a point of view.

One thing everybody agreed on: If I had not written Plague absolutely nobody else would ever have written it.

In fact, there have been books written about almost every page in Plague.

None of them mention Plague and I doubt the writers knew where their ideas came from.

The month Plague came out Chris Matthews, chief aide to Speaker Tip O’Neale (?), made a bet with a chief Republicans aide which got into the Washington Post. Said Republican knew about my book. He told Matthews that the budget for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare was bigger thant he budget for the Department of Defense.

This bet occurred a month after my book was published. This bet was between two people who had been WRITING the Federal budget for years.

It turned out that Chris was wrong but he welched on the bet. That was the big news.

The big news was NOT that the world had been informed for the first time by my book that what I called “the education-welfare establishment” had, at long last, been discovered to be a bigger industry than defense.

In the comments on the 1976 convention, when the book had come out, cosnervatives for the first time started counting the education-welfare interest groups who were there. They talked about the MONEY the National Education Associated had tied up in liberalism.

No one had ever mentioned this before.

And remember, Hart talked about “corruscating” insights. This was just one of them.

There is a nice, convenient dead-end here into which some of Bob’s Blog readers have settled into:

Is Bob bragging?

I don’t mind bragging, but it is important that in this case I am not. If I tended to brag I would spent a lot of time reminding writers of where their ideas came from.

Get off my personality and concentrate on something IMPORTANT:

I am telling you about POWER.

I simply cannot tell you about what I do unless I explain to you that what I do WORKS.

“Bob is bragging” in this context is every bit as important as, “Bob doesn’t like liver.”

Get with the program, gang!

The only question is whether what I do WORKS and how you can USE it.

We are trying to change the WORLD, not evaluate Bob.

This is an exchange I had in Stormfront. We have the usual problem that what I am discussing is BELOW my reply.

My point is that, while UC USED Bob’s Mantra, he is not fully familiar with the LOGIC of it.

All my points interrelate. My Mantra and Wordism seem far apart.

If you are to explain why “educated people believe this” you have to go back to the basics of the environment that education came from.

If you take my points together, you form a trap which will not let your opponent get out of the simple truth.

UC did an excellent job. I gave him some advice.

But the time will come when, like my 1976 book A Plague on Both Your Houses, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

My goal is not to be given credit. My goal is a time when everything I say is so well understood that nobody understands why I had to say it.

That is POWER.

Here is the exchange:

MY REPLY:

UC is doing EXACTLY what should be done. He is engaging the enemy.

I keep pointing out that while all us macho males associate heroism with being in battle, the simple fact is that not one single war hero in all of history has ever made the slightest difference in the tide of history.

This is critical.

The tide of history is determined by those who have the moral courage to get out there and fight it out in the battle of ideas. By the time it gets to a battlefield, everything has already been decided in the REAL battle.

But in the war of ideas, you only learn by DOING.

My comments have teh effect of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Hindsight is 20/20.

Canuck developed his own points. He saw whether they were effective in the actual battle he was actually in.

After long practice, once the person said he attached no particular importance to white people, I would have asked him if he has ANY feeling of special loyalty to ANY people.

The really important point is that Unconditioned Canuck used Bob’s Mantra:

” Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries.”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I want the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I say that, I’m a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

He found that this Mantra puts the other guy on the defensive. He is no longer objectively defending Humanity or doing anything he has been taught to do.

UC’s opponent came up with an answer:

“One thing the antagonistic individual brought up in the debate was that he didn’t associate any extra meaning to White people (in comparison to others) – thus, from his perspective, there would be no reason to preserve us.”

“In addition he mentioned that, if there was something about us of special value, from an evolutionary point of view, those genetic permutations would probably be captured during the mixing with other races.”

Having been through so many of these battles, I have my own approach to this. I stick to the Mantra. The magic word is ***I***

As I said in my two minutes at the last EURO Conference, “It is not a question of THE white race. It is a question of ***MY*** race.”

This person was able to switch the conversation to THE white race: “If there was something about us of special value…”

I go right back to the mantra: “So you are saying you are only loyal to something that has special value. Do you have any loyalty to your country? Do you have any loyalty to your family?

What would you think of the black man I mentioned who would simply accept a program of genocide against blacks?

Could he take an oath of allegiance to Canada to enter government service?

Now here is a very important point: everything I say connects.

Often the person will say that he is only loyal to principles. I then have a chance to go into the whole concept of Wordism, on which I did a program.

He is saying he is only loyal to principles, which is exactly what the Inquisition said.

But my way of thinking is mine alone. I cannot even GET anybody to argue with me now.

I am NOT a Wordist. I did a Stormfront radio program on Wordism.

Are they loyal to ANYTHING?

If they are loyal to some words, do they have any idea what monstrosities have been justified in a loyalty to words?

What I push is a way of thinking. I don’t want anybody to worship me after I am dead. I want them to advance so that what I say is basic arithmetic and they are reaching the stars with calculus.

There is no Whitakerism that is rigidly written down in a book.

There never will be.

Fight it out, Canuck!

[QUOTE=Unconditioned Canuck]:)

Hi Mr Whitaker,

I’m working from my family’s cottage which appears to have internet connection

When debating someone earlier today I used some of your mantra. One thing the antagonistic individual brought up in the debate was that he didn’t associate any extra meaning to White people (in comparison to others) – thus, from his perspective, there would be no reason to preserve us.

In addition he mentioned that, if there was something about us of special value, from an evolutionary point of view, those genetic permutations would probably be captured during the mixing with other races.

_________________

So, I had two [B]points [/B]to address and win:

[B]1) [/B]Is there anything valuable about the White race?
[B]2) [/B]Will White race family lines benefit (evolve) by allowing themselves to disappear through mixing?

[B]Point 1)[/B] Is easily won (IMO) by comparing humans to other animal species

Bears: polar bears, brown bears, black bears – are fertile, would we ever want a day in which there were no more herds of polar bears in the Northern Hemisphere to examine and appreciate?

Breeds of dogs: almost all common breeds of dog are fertile and there are clear differences in intelligence, mannerism, beauty, etc

[B][URL="http://www.petrix.com/dogint/intelligence.html"]Ranking of Dogs for Obedience/Working Intelligence by Breed[/URL][/B] – this study concludes that border collies are the most intelligent, afghan hounds are the least

[B]Point 2) [/B]Is easily won (IMO) by pointing out that from the perspective of Whites, our mixing with other races would be considered a [B]devolution [/B]not an evolution because:
[LIST]
[*]one – despite having slightly lower IQs on average in comparison to Orientals, based on a comparison of creativity (music, art, science and technology, etc) and knowing that, especially with respect to Japan, both our societies have generally been on par in terms of industrial potential, WE have a far greater propensity for creativity, on average, within our race; in addition, our intellect IQ is sufficiently high so as to make the need for mixing, based on an IQ acquisition benefit, [B]meaningless[/B] (in the aggregate)
[*]two – our race is exceptionally better looking in comparison to others, not only do most of us think so, but most of them think so (polls conducted on Black or Oriental questioneers strictly show this); not only is this quality (prettiness) worthy of preservation for its attractive value, but perhaps the beauty of the White race is partly responsible for inspiration towards vital productive endeavours ie art, science, technology, etc[/LIST]From the perspective of other races, their mixing with us, without a doubt, could be considered an evolution rather than a devolution, no differently than a border collie mixing with an afghan would be considered an evolution from the perspective of the afghan but a devolution from the perspective of the border collie.

My conclusionary point: selling our organizations: Stormfront, etc.

_________________
Note: one difference between the races I failed to mention was voice sound – important for singing
Last note: Mr Whitaker’s analogy of non-Blacks pouring into Black nations to solve a Black problem would be better stated with respect to Orientals because Blacks have a genetically dominant overall phenotype when mixing with non-Blacks (ie Black + non-Black hybrids look Black – they don’t lose numbers through miscegenation, polls conducted have shown Blacks to be the least opposed to miscegenation / they’re overwhelmingly in favour of it).
Final edit: describing the widespread anti-White sentiment predominant in Western opinion in terms of [B][I]Biological Marxism[/I][/B] also assisted me in winning the debate.[/QUOTE]

Don’t ever underestimate the importance of preaching to the choir.

Christianity, whatever you believe about it, was the most successful movement in history. Even an athiest who does not study the history of Christianity is a fool.

Those who spread Christianity did not say, “OK, you’re baptised, now I’ll go somewhere else and leave you to yourself.”

Christianity insisted that everybody, including the choir, show up at least once a week for a sermon. Every service began with a recitation of the Creed.

The entire congregation had to gather at least once a week and reassert its loyalty and be preached to.

Including the choir.

One of my main themes is thatno one should get our money or our respect unless they EARN it.

That is the rule you face every day at work. Why in the HELL are so many people exempted from it?

I am sick and tired of people patiently reelecting the same people while everything goes to hell.

I am sick and tired of people recognizing a “professional journalist” when “professional journalism” is going down the tubes because nobody trusts them any more.

I have said to many people many times that when a crisis occurs, the people who are called in to deal with it are called in precisely because they CAUSED it. The response to this is the bovine look I am so used to.

When something collapses, it is the experts in that field who have failed. When the Soviet Union collapsed and not one professional froeign policy expert, least any of the professional Sovietologists, had predicted it, who did they call in to deal with the situation?

They called in foreign policy experts and ESPECIALLY professional Sovietologists, of course.

And leading the parade like the man with banner “Excelsior” was the Professional Journalists who held the banner that said,

“Let’s not try to assign blame. Let us pull together and deal with the problem before us. Let’s look to the future, not debate the past.”

Let me ask you a question. When you make a costly screwup in a real job, how often does your boss say:

“Let’s not try to assign blame. Let us pull together and deal with the problem before us. Let’s look to the future, not debate the past.”

I would not want to deal with a company that thought like that.

Yet our entire national policy is run on EXACTLY that basis.

On September 11, 2001, I wrote in Whitakeronline that not one single intelligence “expert” would suffer the slightest inconvenience for what happened that day.

In fact I predicted that all that would result from that disaster would be a PROMOTION for everyone who helped cause it.

Right again, Bob.

Our intelligence experts and terror experts are the same ones we had on September 10, 2001.

Except that they have been promoted and have bigger budgets now.

Which is what I predicted on September 11, 2001.

Gosh darnit, we can’t catch Osama Ben Laden, can we?

Well don’t worry about it. Our top experts are on the job.

The examples are endless.

And everybody wonders what’s wrong.