Archive for December 28th, 2005


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.


1 Comment

***A*** Whitakerism

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.



Press Scandals: The Tip of the Iceberg?

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?



Joe Makes Me Think AGAIN!

When people asked me about why I would say “everybody” in the past decades, they were

1) usually falling into a trap I set, or

2) could not understand my explanation.

So I found an answer that could get into their tiny skulls.

But the blog is different.

This is a genuine seminar. I have to explain myself.

Here is a group of people who have sat still and listened to EXACTLY what my whole approach is. I cannot sneak away from you the way I could everybody else.

More important, there is a POINT to me explaining things to you I would go around with those who, if I really tried to explain, wouldn’t get it anyway.

Believe me, I spent many useless hours trying to explain my approach to people outside Bob’s Blog, and the expression on the listener’s face only needed the word “Moo!” to make it complete.

So Joe’s asking me about why I use “everybody” so much has forced my mind out of the bushes. I sat and tried to think of some easy way to deal with Joe’s valid objections in my writings.

I either had to do that or actually think out WHY I use “everybody” so much.

So I considered using the accepted phrase, “the general concensus is…” But somehow that seemed to say exactly what I didn’t want to say.

Joe’s latest comment caused a breakthrough in my thinking:

Joe said,

“No, not everybody wonders what’s wrong. Somebody knows what’s wrong. Maybe (probably) several somebodies know what’s wrong. Surely, you know what’s wrong. Specifically, I mean. But not EVERYBODY is wondering what’s wrong. The people who know what’s wrong just won’t talk about it.”

Shari had a similar remark.

My response to Joe and Shari was, “If they don’t talk about it, why should I consider them SOMEBODY?

Which finally got me directly onto what I mean by “everybody.”

Fifty something years, and finally I got it in this seminar.

Why can’t I use the normal phrase, “The concensus is…?”

When you say “the concensus is…” you are describing a point of view which is a CONCENSUS on a matter. That is to say, everybody has had their say and there is a generally and voluntarily held position against which one is free to argue, and against which somebody DOES argue.

That is precisely wrong in the case of what I refer to as “everybody knows.”

For example I could say that “the concensus within Hitler’s National Socialist Party was that Jews were not nice.”

Well, that’s certainly ACCURATE. But you must admit that it really doesn’t express the spirit of the thing.

When you point out, as Joe and Shari did, that many people see what is wrong but you don’t dare say it, that is not a concensus.

In fact if you say it is a concensus you are WRONG.

Libanon, I need you in here. Does the word consensus have a common root with “consent?”

When I say “everybody knows” what is I mean is that there is no questioning of what I am saying.

It may be that nobody is ALLOWED to question it or that no one THINKS to question it. But in the real world, it can only be described as something “everybody knows.”

It just occurred to me that what I should say is, “Everybody CLAIMS to know that…”

But that’s not accurate either. If you never question it you don’t CLAIM it. In fact, when I say “everybody knows” I am usually trying to squeeze something which is not debated into public awareness.

In fact, concensus is the kind of word respectable conservatives use. It gives respectability to tyranny.

In USAGE, “everybody knows” is exactly what the average person who uses statements like “experts have proven that races don’t exist” are saying. He is saying that everybody knows that, and if you don’t you are just ignorant.

Everybody doesn’t know anything. Ask several thousand comatose patients at hospitals and you will find they do not know whatever it is. But if you could only discuss what comatose patients are aware of, you would not use up much space.

I pointed out that the most obvious kind of accepted truth, “The sky is blue on a cloudless sunny day” is not at all true. My father was among millions of people who never saw a blue sky in his life.

But going this way, you cannot have any discussion at all. A brick is a Stein to a German, but he would say that a Stein is a brick.

Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.

You have to keep your language within usage but, as Joe points out, you cannot make a fool of yourself doing it.

I argued with him, but I also listened.

I asked you to watch me and correct me, and Joe gave me the whole load. I asked you think with me, and you are making me hop.

It takes me a LONG time to come up with something like this. I now think “Everybody CLAIMS to know,” though it is inaccurate, may do a lot for my credibility.

What do you think, Joe?



Professional Journalism

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.