B. U. G. S.

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.