Archive for December, 2005
I got the following comment, and puzzled over it a while before clearing it:
“I think that most people know that something is wrong, even if they are snowed about what, exactly. It seems that the truth must out soon, whether it is a disaster or not. Shari”
Comment by Anonymous
How did “Shari” get in a comment by Anonymous?
I think the new title Anonymous is using is Libanon, which is more informative.
As long as it doesn’t embarrass Shari, all I want is the comment. This one certainly
couldn’t embarrass her.
But I LIKE the fact that this confusion occurred. Maybe the machine gave me “Anonymous.”
Maybe Shari got mixed up.
All this relates to an entirely different point Joe and I are discussing.
Joe says that false statements hurt one’s credibility.
This is true.
But we also have very little space, and we have to make our points at the sacrifice of credibility. As I said, none of the most hostile reviews even mentioned some egrecious factual errors in Plague.
If those points had been central to my argument, you had better believe they would have shown up big time.
So you have to face the fact that everything you say is not EXACTLY true.
So somewhere along the line, a computer or Shari made an error.
I wanted Shari’s comment.
Strictly speaking the person I have always referred to as Anonymous either did not write this or made an error. So by blindly repeating what I have here my credibility is shot.
That’s not the way I judge things.
My question is, “Would this embarrass Shari?”
I want the comment in, it lets me make a point and it will not embarrass Shari.
As to my credibility, if anyone is that much of a nit-picker I can’t reach them.
As Joe says, credibility is critical, particularly if you are as far out as I am.
But I have a weapon. Anyone who critiques me dreads the title “nit-picker.” It destroys THEIR credibility. It makes THEM look desperate.
So I am on another knife-edge. I have always been the one who said the unsayable and just barely kept it within the limits. There is no rule-book for doing that.
I am on a knife-edge between saying things plainly and saying things WRONG.
The only rulebook I have for that is you.
And if you don’t correct me, Joe will skewer me.
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:
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!
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:
[*]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.
““Everybody” and “nobody” is misleading. Misleading is not acceptable when you are trying to convey a message. Your credibility will suffer. Somebody attempting to give you information is not necessarily an opponent. It could be someone who wants to stack some chips on YOUR side of the table. It is not always a good idea to take an adversarial view of things. Your “opponent” may not be performing for an audience. He may be speaking directly to you and only you. That was some excellent wriggling, Bob, but I’m afraid you can’t wriggle out of generalizations. They are still generalizations. Pointing out generalizations is not quibbling. It is pointing out generalizations. Maybe readers don’t want to see things that they consider “boring.” On the other hand, maybe they’re too lazy or timid to ask, not sufficiently interested to pursue the subject, or have no business reading you at all. I don’t find you boring. My criticism is free. No cost. I’m not just one great big bag of criticism. I just today listened to your talk on “Incurable Fools” and I highly recommend that all your readers have a go at that one. It’s a humdinger. ”
Joe, I keep begging people to correct me on facts, and you have not been particularly bashful about doing so.
But take a look at the article I just wrote, “Elizabeth.”
Each point I write there has at least a dozen books dedicated to it.
Good books from a careful credibility point of view.
Every one of those books goes into excruciating detail. They are written to have credibility.
But the simple fact is htat they have had little or no effect on hte real disasters that result from the situation all those books, if you had them all and read them all, describe piece by piece.
I do not share your idea that someone who will not read all those books is not worthy to be reached. In fact, a person who is knee deep in all those books is precisely the sort of person who is useless in the real battle.
So I sacrifice what you consider “credibility” in order to string the whole obvious situation out in a short statement.
I am not writing a book on a defect in our intelligence system. I am stating that the whiole thing is, if you just put together what we know, unworkable and irretrievable.
Let me ask you to do something. Write what I just wrote with your own total credibility angle. See if you can say what I said in an article some reader, you know who I’m talking about, would consider an acceptable length.
Do it first, preach it afterwards.
Let me add that I, with my series of declarations, am more ACCURATE than those tomes that get credibility and no results. They are describing a workable worldview into which a workable intelligence community fits.
That, Joe, is the kind of thinking that comes from Mars. If you throw it together the way I do, you end up witht he world the way it IS, a set of absurdities which make American intelligence an insoluble mess from the word go.
You cannot have intelligence with Wordism in a free society.
Before this gets too long for you, Joe, I will devote another article to that contradiction.
By the way, Joe has just forced me to demonstrate my whole way of argument. He couldn’t have done that if he had been too awed or respectful to call me out.
Joe THINKS about it and just plain disagrees.
That is VERY stimulating on this end.
:I used to wonder why the CIA has such a terrible track record
at analyzing intelligence. Then I found out that almost all
CIA analysts are recruited from the Ivy League colleges.
Later, I found out that you can’t be hired by the CIA to
analyze intelligence if you’re over 37. ”
“Okay, so that’s two good reasons for their lousy track
“Supposedly, they’re working on the Ivy League fixation.
(I don’t know how to italicize “Supposedly” here.)”
“Another intelligence agency supposedly doesn’t have an
age ceiling for civilian analysts. ”
Let me concentrate onthe Ivy League fixation first.
If you cut all the crap, we know htat the Ivy League is dedicated to putting out Marxists and other who believe that the “intellectuals” – meaning htose who hop through all the hoops in the educational establishment– should rule the rule.
We know that all debate allowed inthe Ivy League is between the left and the far left.
Then we take the resulting people on to run the intelligence estalishment.
If one resides on the planet earth, it is clear that the Ivy-League-dominated CIA cannot tell whether someone is an actual traitor or not.
To quote one editorain, “I am not loyal to a particular people or a particular cnountry — that is nationalism. I am loyal only to ideals of hte United States.”
Traitors ALWAYS — pace Joe — claim to have been loyal to a set of Ideals that are higher than patriotism, which is considered nationalism by Political Correctness, our estabished faith. A Marxist genuinely believes he is loyal to Ideals, and that is the opposite of treason.
So how does one CIA Ivy Leaguer tell whether another is committing whatever is currently in favor at the Harvard faculty as “lotalty.” The Supreme Court regularly changes whatever the meaning of America is.
Which brings us full circle. A Wordist society has no fixed loyalty of any kind. That is in a state of flux, depending on what the “living Constitution” means right now. Like all forms of Wordism, loyalty depends on what set of priests is in power at the moment.
This makes the whole idea of intelligence incomprehensible. You need some rednecks and Irish Micks, who not even a PhD can get off a fixation with Us Versus Them, to do the Real Work while the budget goes to the Ivy Leaguers.
The Torricelli amendment destroyed intelligence on the ground. It said that no informer could be hired unless he were cleared with the head men at the CIA. The head men at the CIA are a bunch of Ivy Leaguers. NOT ONE SINGLE head of station even sent one of their reliable informers names in for clearance.
“Head of station” is a British term but it is simpler and more familiar to everybody because of the Bond novels. In the various American intelligence outfits, it’s a little hard to tell exactly who the head of station is, so I use the term for simplicity.
That last sentence was for Joe. I’ve used the term before and nobody had any difficulty understanding what I meant.
Why wouldn’t people on the ground submit the names of their informers to what Brits once called home station or HQ?
Obviously they trust the Ivy League machine to keep any secrets. The names could easily go to Senator Kennedy’s staff and anyone else who might find them profitable.
As one diplaomatic official of the USSR said after the Cold War ended, “Contacts, contacts. That was always the real job of EVERYBODY (pace Joe) sent to the West, the UN, embassies, or anywhere else.”
Those contacts, Americans recruited to get infomration, knew how to get the names out of Kennedy staff or their fellow Idealists in the CIA. If you give the names of your informants to CIA headquarters, it would be a lot kinder just to shoot them first.
And I repeat, the reaction to the Torricelli Amendment demonstrated that everybody KNEW that.
In fact, even the media agreed that the Torricelli Amendment destroyed on-the-ground intelligence. Nobody discussed why, because it was assumed everybody knew why.
In fact, thought the Torricelli Amendment was talked about a lot for a few months after 9/11, I haven’t seen a word about it since.
Everybody knows about the informers, but if you can concentrate on other things and forget this incident, they can continue to hide in plain sight.
“When opinons rule it is only right to assert your own. That is how we can in this. Just repeat the mantra, use common sense, and stick to your guns.”
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.