My Name is Bob Whitaker

Posted by Bob on January 31, 2006 at 11:14 am  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 4 Comments »

This is an obvious statement, but I want you to look at it as a Whitakerism.

My IDEAS are invaluable, but too often people look at my concepts, which it took me a lifetime of hard experience and honest mental WORK to come up with, and then they start to expect great things out of a person named Bob Whitaker.

One of the reasons I lost my wonderful team was because they discovered I am not the paragon of virtue they had conjured up in their minds. The biggest reason was exhaustion. I have dealt with this sort of thing before, but I just wasn’t up to dealing with it again.

It was just as well. I desperately needed the rest, and my team could never really realize how exhausted I was.

A Whitakerism: Bob’s IDEAS are invaluable. Bob is just Bob.

Joe gives me some good personal criticism from time to time. After all, Bob’s ideas are going nowhere if Bob himself just lets himself go.

But Joe also gets the spirit of the thing. He found a Whitakerism he really likes, and singled THAT out:

“Our women are our destiny.” Now that’s a powerful statement. I hope everyone is paying very close attention to that statement. Does it sound like a truthful statement to you? It does to me. “Our women are our destiny.” It should be a motto. It should be carved in granite. What could possibly be more true than that statement?

Comment by joe rorke

Bob hands you weapons. You need to grab theones you can use and batter the enemy over the head with them.

Look at the weapons and don’t get too obsessed with Bob.

The Opinion Industry

Posted by Bob on January 30, 2006 at 7:03 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses, How Things Work | 2 Comments »

I told Joe I would do a program on his comment.

I did it. It is called “The Opinion Industry.”

I did it for Stormfront and had a hell of a time reaching Kelso so he would put it on.

I finally reached him, after two days and four tries.

Did you see what I wrote about our age of innocence? The time is rapidly passing when anything I put up gets instant attention.

Suits me.

So this is what I wrote in Stormfront:

I finally reached Kelso.

He told me he was very happy about my program which he will listen to immediately.

Fat chance!

And does that bring back memories!

CAL is dealing with so many people he would love to give awards to!

Not that he considers HIMSELF worthy of any awards.

CAL is just so PROUD of people who put themselves out for what he knows is right.

He doesn’t worry about the fact that HE deserves praise. He doesn’t give a damn about it.

Screw praise, our fight is EVERYTHING.

So Kelso was trying to do justice to me and at the same time he was dealing with another situation.

He dealt with the folks who needed dealing with. I was a bit flattered that he understood I didn’t NEED flattering.

Most people will never understand how dedicated people like Kelso are to that we are doing.

I do. And I am very, very proud to say that I am.

Because I did it, too.

And CAL KNOWS that.

Mark

Posted by Bob on January 30, 2006 at 6:15 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 2 Comments »

Damn! I’m so glad Mark is back!

Yes, Joe, I’m dependent as hell.

Mark says:

“I saw Omega Man a long time ago and was appalled at it as well. ”

“I’ve noticed it’s easier for hollywood to sell a movie with a white male/black female love interest rather than a white female/black male angle. While I’m personally against any black and white mixing, I sometimes think the white male/black female pitch is easier to sell because of the fact that more white males are against mixing white females with negroes than white females are of mixing with negroes. Also, it may have something to do with how back in the days of United States slavery, an occasional slave master would take a black female slave for amorous pleasure. Didn’t Jefferson Davis have a black female love interest at one time?”

Comment by Mark

MY REPLY:

Another Whitakerism, which means noticing what is so obvious we don’t look at it:

We are all aware that the same father who will get violent if his daughter is seduced by some young guy will be perfectly relaxed when his son “sows some wild oats.”

If this leaves you in a state of incomprehension you need read no further.

Our women are our destiny.

When a white man puts some genes into the black gene pool, it is regrettable. But it is NOT the moral equivalent of white woman bearing a mulatto child.

Everybody knows that. Everybody claims they do NOT know that.

Some PITY-fuls

Posted by Bob on January 30, 2006 at 4:11 pm  
Filed Under How Things Work | 3 Comments »

In a piece below, I mentioned an early movie made by the Sci-Fi Channel that has not seenthe light of day since. It had a blond hero madly in love with a black woman.

When I wrote how silly that was, back in those days when the computer world was tiny enough so I got answers, the spokesman for the scifi channel gave me two answers:

1) The black woman was the biggest star they could get and 2) I was the only person who said anything about race.

The bottom line is that 1) they lost a lot of money on that movie and 2) if you are going to launch a new network your first original movie makes a LOT of difference, and this was a BAD mistake.

Black and blond is UGLY. No one is going to tell you so.

Vincent Price made a chiling film in the 1950s called “The Last Man on Earth.” As with so many black-and-white cheap movies in the 1950s, they decided in the 1980s to remake it with a Big Star and in color.

So Charleton Heston starred in “The Omega Man.”

But Charleston Heston, like any other respectable conservative, wanted desperately to prove he was no racist. So the girl in the film was black. Even National Review, this was twenty years ago, referred to her as “his equal opportunity girlfriend.”

The movie disappeared without a trace. It could have been a hit.

But you see, as with the scifi channel, nobody would SAY that people really don’t want to watch a smooch session between a blond and a black.

Everybody says they would like nothing better.

The only problem is that they DON’T. The only problem is the truth.

If you keep threatening people with damnation if they tell you the truth, they won’t tell you the truth.

That’s a Whitakerism.

Allie McBealle was a runaway hit with the yuppies. Then Allie, the blond female lawyer, kept showing she would slurp up black males.

Well, she had to do that. So far, so good. Good, solid patronizing.

But THEN she got INVOLVED with a black lawyer. Her audience raised hell.

Everybody said, like John McCain, “I thought we were BEYOND that.”

Even with yuppies, ugly is still ugly.

So the gentleman black decided he couldn’t have sex with Allie.

I remember the comments on newsgroups: “Allie wouldn’t have a relationship with a black because of class…” and so forth.

Black and blond is UGLY. No one will say that.

Not saying what you see is a costly business.

Which is probably one reason I got paid for saying what no one else would.

PITY-ful!

Posted by Bob on January 30, 2006 at 3:41 pm  
Filed Under History | 2 Comments »

As Jeb Clampett, Buddy Ebsen would often say, “PITY.. ful,” Just PITY…ful!”

When I would say that, people owuld think I was repeating the line from “The Beverley Hillbillies.”

Actually, this was an old Southern expression. Buddy Ebsen knew it and used it.

That amazed me. What people seldom know about Buddy Ebsen is that long before he was a star practically his whole life. He was part of a famous dancing duo when Fred Astaire made his first appearance. I believe most people think they know Buddy Ebsen from his appearance in a movie with Shirley Temple.

But he was star long before THAT.

So how in the HELL did he know how Southerners talk?

I think he was Old California and he knew the Okies.

Notice how Lon Chaney, Junior talks in his Wolfman movies. He was the son of silent movie great Lon Chaney. His name was NOT Lon Chaney, Junior, but when the Depression hit, he was a plumber and his business collapsed, so he went into the movies and Lon Chaney, Junior was a draw.

Listen to him talk. He sounds Southern.

By the way, when an actress on The Beverley Hillbillies ran for office, Ebsen used his Jed Clampett voice to denounce her as a runaway liberal.

Harrison Ford is a journeyman carpenter. He was doing carpentry work when he started as an actor.

At the beginning of the Gulag Archipelago, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn desribes how he was arrested when he was an officer onthe Eastern Front:

“Either we had the Germans surrounded or they had us surrounded, depending on how you look at it.”

I remember reading about a New York Jew who went to Alabama with a major star on a Yuppie TV program who played an Ivy League New Yorker.

Suddenly the man transformed right before his eyes. He met his family and started saying, “How y’all doing. How is cousin Fred?” and so forth.

The New York Jew had honestly believed that Deep Southers, aliens, existed only in Hollywood scripts and nightmares. He wrote, “This man is REALLY one of THEM!”

My JOB, meaning what I got PAID for, was to put myself in the place of the other side.

You won’t believe it, but THEY feel surrounded, too.

By the way, Ebsen also once appeared on the cover of the Communist Daily Worker, when he was picketing.

Our Age of Innocence

Posted by Bob on January 30, 2006 at 2:57 pm  
Filed Under How Things Work | No Comments »

In the time of computers, it is amazing how fast each “age” passes.

I just got through deleting six repetitions of hte article I just wrote to Peter.

Not only does every reader understand exactly what happened, it has happened to him repeatedly:

While the computer grinded away publishing what I had written, I kept hitting the “publish” button. I am willling to bet the same thing has happened to you on e-mail or something else.

Whatever I am doing here is familiar to everybody reading this.

When I look back over some fifteen years that I have been at a computer, age after age has passed.

I remember when I was in a news group and read an entry Bill Gates put in, “a loyal liberal,” he said. The computer world was a good deal smaller then.

At the time the Science Fiction Channel on cable television began, every e-mail I sent them was immediately answered, even one objecting to a program, which has not shown up since, with a white and black mixed couple.

Can you IMAGINE that now?

It was a TINY world.

We are not talking about the last generation. This was ten years ago.

So I am enjoying this time when my readers see some goofup I make and understanding exactly what happened. I am going to miss this cozy world in the Next Generation, up to five years from now.

I Took It as a Compliment

Posted by Bob on January 30, 2006 at 2:36 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »

In reply to the piece below, “Peter is Understanidng Wordism” Peter says,

“Granted that we all will respect your wishes, I don’t buy it.”

“When I mentioned citing you chapter and verse, I put a little winky face next to it, so you knew it was a joke.”

“Summarizing some of your pithiest statements in one place would simply do what your archives do, but would be a lot easier to access. If that were wordist, then so would be everything you write.”

“If the real reason is that it would take a lot of work, I understand. Even if a volunteer here offered to comb through the archive for you, you would still want to go over what they did. And even if there be things that are tucked away in an article we skipped over, your blog is here.”

“If the real reason is modesty, I understand.”

“If the real reason is something you have not mentioned, I think we would respect your wishes.”

“In any case, you must realize that this is not an attempt to put anything upon you; it is a compliment. ”

Comment by Peter

I would be highly complimented if someone decided to do what you are talking about. I think my arguments are critical and it would be great if we did have a little book of htem the way you say.

The reason I didn’t write this was because I got sidetracked on your making the critical distinction between ***A*** Whitakerism and Whitakerism.

It would not be worth your trouble because no one would PUBLISH this book, if you are thinking in those terms. My publishability is long gone.

But publication is no longer the way one gets ideas out today.

I am a tired old man. You and Joe shouldn’t fault me for writing what hits my mind and missing so much.

A British group asked me about using my programs on its i-bot(?) program. I said what I always say: “Use them freely and with my blessings.”

Spread the word! I’ll help.

My wishes are NOT that no one put my stuff down in usable order. Nothing would please me more, and I would help.

I just got sidetracked on your clear demarkation of Wordism and teaching. I have tried very hard to get that across, and when you get it, it’s important to me.

Joe is Misinterpreted

Posted by Bob on January 30, 2006 at 1:31 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 1 Comment »

Joe is experiencing our usual difficulty.

I keep misinterpreting what he is saying and he thinks I CAN’T be that dumb.

Joe, old buddy, you underestimate me. I spent many years in academia. I am capable of depths of stupidity that would leave you in awe.

Often something I see in your writings relates to a general point I want to address. Please, Joe, I can only spend so much space on disclaimers without boring the other readers.

I said up front that it would be both tiresome and untrue to accuse you of getting your ideas from Ayn Rand. Then I went on to talk about THEM.

Your replies are here, in full, in comments.

I quote you about my manipulating people below.

But I do NOT disagree. If one is trying to get others to followone’s way of thinking, it can be called teaching or manipulation.

In fact, I am the one who keeps bitching about the education establishment manipulating people and calling it education, so I can’t really claim exemption from the same rule.

To the enemy, my educationis his manipulation. To enemy genuinely belives that their Righteous Resentment is not simple hatred. I try not to fool myself.

I make the reservations when I discuss the things that what you say make me think of. Nobody thinks you are an Objectivist or any other kind of Wordist.

What you say is here TWICE, once in your original comment, which I quote IN FULL, and in any reply you wish to make. If, after all that, anybody, including me, still doesn’t understand your point, it’s not your concern.

The only reason this could worry you is if you are worried about how you look to people who simply can’t quite get what you’re saying. I doubt seriously whether that keeps you awake at night.

Joe, there are damned few people onthis planet who are worth talking with. You are one and I am another. So, as you say, we’re having fun, so stop worrying about Bob’s bumbling.

Peter is Understanding Wordism

Posted by Bob on January 30, 2006 at 12:13 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 1 Comment »

The last sentence of Peter’s comment is the critical one:

When you are going to list all the Whitakerisms out?

Just put them in a post like this, archive it, and put a link to it in the sidebar.

The first four would be the Drumbeat about multiculturalism is a code word for White genocide, et al., that you have on your front page.

Then you would list the others down in order from most important to least.

Somewhere in there would be this:

72) There are two things EVERY forensic pathologist has to do to keep his job:

A) Be able to tell the race of a murder victim from a few dessicated remains and
B) Declare publically that race does not exist.

When you come up with another, you place it in the list. From time to you can refer to it, like please see the Book of Bob, verse 72 b and we would all know what to do.

Or would that be wordist?

Comment by Peter

MY REPLY:

You GOT it!

A list of Whitakerisms amounts to a Book of Whitaker.

I don’t keep track of Whitakerisms because they are a WAY of thinking.

Joe said of one of my writings,

“I notice this piece indicates a great deal of dependency. Also, attempts to manipulate people. Come to think of it, isn’t that what politicians do? ”

He is dead right. I am trying to manipulate you, not JUST into quoting me, that is done by a lot of people who don’t know they’re doing it, but into thinking in terms of “Peterisms.”

As I said below, I want you to listen to someone saying race doesn’t exist and THINK about hwat they are saying.

Obviously, and that is the word, obviously, what they are saying reflects an attitude toward non-whites. If Simmons had thought out his observation carefully, he would realize that this “race does not exist” business represents an attitude toward non-whites that is so patronizing it would a SLAVEHOLDER blush.

If I manipulate you correctly, I am going to hear an endless stream of Peterisms and Joeisms and Shariisms and Simmmonsisms.

Whitakerisms fall out in the course of my writings. I don’t keep track of them individually. They are VERY useful arguments to USE. But behind them is a WAY of THINKING that WORKS.

I want to manipulate you into thinking that way.

There will be no Book of Whitaker.

Simmons: “Inside every colored man there’s a white man trying to get out”

Posted by Bob on January 30, 2006 at 11:59 am  
Filed Under Comment Responses | No Comments »

Referring to Wordists who insist that all the world will be fine if we multiracially follow their Book, Simmons says:

“Its because the white PCers think everyone is white, and it only need be brought out with properly applied Marxism.”

To paraphrase what is said of fat people, “Inside every colored man is a white man trying to get out.”

Once again, a Whitakerism:

Please note that the Australian program is trying to prove what colored people want proven: taht there is NO difference between a white man and a colored man.

As CS Lewis said, no one shouts equality if they think THEY are equal. So the “no difference” crowd is assuming, correctly, that non-whitesare willing to fight for hte proposition that any difference between white and non-white willl reflect badly on the non-whites.

The ideal is white, and they are arguing they are white.

Which leads to another Whitakerism:

Blacks are the most white supremacist people on earth.

Budarick

Posted by Bob on January 29, 2006 at 11:34 am  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 5 Comments »

Budarick says,

“Interestingly they are now running a TV series here in Australia which purports to prove there is no such thing as “race” and they try to show this by using latest DNA research.”

MY REPLY:

That is the standard line. Let me deal with it, as usual, with a Whitakerism:

There are thousands of professional forensic pathologists.

There are two things EVERY forensic pathologist has to do to keep his job:

1) Be able to tell the race of a murder victim from a few dessicated remains and

2) Declare publically that race does not exist.

Anti-Whitakerism Conspiracy

Posted by Bob on January 29, 2006 at 11:25 am  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 1 Comment »

Tongue firmly in cheeck, Joe wrote the following:

Could it be that there is a conspiracy to not look at a Whitakerism? If a Whitakerism is so overwhelmingly frightening to those who dare not look at it or those who would hide it from others, could there be an ongoing conspiracy to suppress all the Whitakerisms that could possibly come to light? Why would anyone want to bury any Whitakerism? More especially, if Whitakerisms are potentially helpful to mankind in a world-shattering sort of way, what sort of diabolical entity would organize to bury the entire bag of Whitakerisms? Whitakerisms are either good or not good. If they are good, only badness could oppose them. That’s the way it is. That’s the law of the West. There is no neutral ground. Whitakerisms are either good or not good. What do you think, world? Anybody got any questions? Make them to the point.

Comment by joe rorke

MY REPLY:

I am going to do a program on this point.

As usual, the answer to this question is a Whitakerism:

The reason no one looks at Whitakerisms is because those who control opinion make a LIVING at it. How long do you think the libeal or respectable conservative commendtator would last if he had to face a few Whitakerisms?

Look at O’Reilly’s constant revelations about left-wing academia. He keeps saying he can’t understand it. What if he simply faced the fact that social science IS leftism, that what we call “nurture” is exactly what social scientists SELL for a living?

O’Reilly seldom says anything a Whitakerism wouldn’t explain. It would be a little hard on him if he announced the Whitakerism and said, “Well, that kills my hour program this time.”

As I have said so often, how long would the average liberal-respectable conservative “both sides” dialogue last if conservatives laughed at liberal inanities?

What if, inthe midst of an earnest talk show, someone said to a Liberal Intellectual, “Look, the last fourteen proposals you made were disasters. Why should we listen to THIS one?

Remember, this “both sides” crap is a major INDUSTRY.

Skin Color

Posted by Bob on January 28, 2006 at 4:34 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 6 Comments »

Reply on Stormfront:

You said, “On the ethnics(you should say “coloreds”), they will follow our race wherever it goes.”

That is why I told rednecks8ofmind he didn’t get my point. My point here is VERY specific.

Coloreds follow WHITE SKINNED PEOPLE.

Let me repeat that:

Coloreds follow WHITE SKINNED PEOPLE.

Here “ethnics” means the non-Anglo-Saxon whites.

The Big Lie is that SKIN COLOR does not matter.

Everybody, even racists, want to emphasize that they are not obsessed with SKIN COLOR.

I want to emphasize that I AM obsessed with skin color. This isthe ultimate undermining of everything they intimidate everybody, inclduing scientific racists, with.

Meanwhile, back on earth, where do the non-whites go?

To white-SKINNED countries.

Not to IQ countries.

Not to Culturally Aware countries.

Not to religiously correct countries.

On the real planet earth, the wetbacks are ALWAYS swimming towards WHITE SKIN.

I do not start with an attempt to be sophisticated. I begin with REALITY.

The REALITY is not IQ test. The REALITY is not the proper interpretation of religious doctrine.

The REALITY is SKIN COLOR.

I do not have to explain WHY this is true. It is TRUE.

I don’t care if it sounds simplistic. The only thing that matters to me is that it is true.

I would not want to be born into a world that has brown skin. Nobody seems to want to REMAIN in a country with dark skin.

So let us state the Ultimate Heresy:

It is ALL a matter of skin color. The Golden Rule does not ask for a scientific explanation. The Golden Rule says t hat if people without a white skin produce societies people want to escape from, then it is a matter of SKIN COLOR.

A Whitakerism consists of examning facts that are so overwhelmingly obvious that we never really look at them.

This is a Whitakerism.

A Giant Distinction

Posted by Bob on January 28, 2006 at 3:33 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 2 Comments »

Joe said he is not a preacher or a teacher because he does not want to manipulate people, and he reminded me to be aware of that pitfall.

Then I talked about Objectivists calling me a “thug.”

But there is a giant, chasmic difference here, THE difference.

Joe was expressing HIS OPINION.

Joe’s says that IN HIS OPINION, what I am advocating is manipulative. In JOE’s OPINION, he can only avoid being manipulative by taking the position he takes.

When Objectivists used the word “thug” or liberals and respectable cosnervatives use words like “racist” or “anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews,” they are trying to SCARE ME OFF by using a label.

Hell will be skating rink before Joe is scared off by a label. Hell will be equally frigid before Joe expects ME to be frightened by a label.

When Joe uses a label, he is expressing an opinion. When others use a label they are using a weapon.

In short, when someone uses a label in the ordinary way they are being manipulative.

Joe has a point. Others are trying to bully.

http://www.hsite.co.uk/edy/docs/asylum.swf

Posted by Bob on January 28, 2006 at 1:45 pm  
Filed Under General | 3 Comments »

There is a hilarious very short program at

http://www.hsite.co.uk/edy/docs/asylum.swf

I recommended it on Stormfront. Then I added this comment:

The funny program is true, but incomplete. It ends with the coloreds taking over Britain, the Britons getting on a boat going west, and Britain sinking.

So far, so good, and complete from a BRITISH point of view.

But what happens next? The island of Britain becomes third world, so what are the third worlers going to do next?

Immigrate, of course.

People are always talking about the American southwest is going to become Hispanic and go into the sewers with the lands they came from.

We need, as Paul Harvey says, to tell the REST of the story.

When wetcbacks have turned the land across the Rio Grande into a copy of what is south of the Rio Grande now, what will happen?

Obviously , the wetbacks will come across the Mississippi to get out of the world they created.

This is WHITE flight, not British flight or Southwest flight. Until the British learn to continue the story beyond Britain, until Americans learn to pursue the story beyond illegal immigration, the story will not be told.

Until we go on to the REST of the story we will be bitching about the American government’s immigration policy and the British government’s immigration policies.

The problem is not national, it is RACIAL. Until we talk about it that way we are not FACING it.

Joe and Ayn Rand

Posted by Bob on January 28, 2006 at 1:21 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 7 Comments »

In response to my remarks about how he should not just walk away rather than apologize, Joe responds in two comments I put together here in two pargraphs:,

The difficulty is in the elimination of falsehood. Man prefers falsehood. This is to say that man prefers blindness. It is extraordinarily simple and rewarding beyond belief to glimpse truth. But the veil of falsehood must be dropped. The resistance to the dropping of the veil of falsehood is ordinarily enormous. A man can live his entire life wrapped in the veil of falsehood. But truth exists. It goes nowhere. It bows to no one. It makes no compromise. Truth does not hurt as has been said by some. Jesus said it frees. That’s true. It does free. That freedom simply means we are no longer bound by the falsehood that previously bound us. That falsehood is practically unlimited. Joe knows this is true.

Many years ago Joe Rorke said that there were two things that he did not want to be. He said he did not want to be a teacher and he did not want to be a preacher. Joe Rorke is not a teacher and Joe Rorke is not a preacher. Joe Rorke is nothing more than a voice in the wilderness. Truth may pass through Joe Rorke but Joe Rorke is not truth. Joe Rorke does not possess truth. Nobody possesses truth. Truth is.

Comment by joe rorke

MY REPLY:

It would be both tiresome and false for me to say Joe’s approach is hte Objectivism of Ayn Rand.

But the arguments he presents here I became used to to oer forty years ago from that group.

The argument Joe presents here is that the world consists of Joe Rorke and truth.

So one’s outlook is based on 1) onesself and 2) objective fact.

As I told the Objectivists, these are wonderful points, but it all runs into one objecdtive fact:

It doesn’t work.

In the real world each Objectivists is willing to fight his own battle and leave the problems of others to them. He has no obligations.

Like all forms of Wordism this would work fine if everybody in the world went along with it.

But in the real world, if they didn’t have other people who have moral obligations to defend them, Objectivists would be slaves inside a week. As I told the Objectivists, what I see is their being chained down as galley slaves — after all, which one is going to be the one to take on the slave driver FIRST — and then finding ways to minimize their effort at pulling their particular oar.

They pronounced me Irrelevant to truth.

Robert Ardrey discusses a troup of baboons where some males, who had not earned the right to breed yet, went out and led the leopard away from the troop. Some died doing it, as they knew they would. Obligations to something besides purely abstract truth are seential to the survival of every social animal.

On the other end, we have the “power comes from the barrel of a gun!” crowd. They say military heroism is the only ethic. Obedience is the only ethic. So after the obedience crap of the group that calls itself the Greatest Generation, Objectivists were an intellectual relief of gigantic proportions.

I AM a preacher. IAM a teacher. I don’t think I have made a secret of that.

Joe says I manipulate. The Objectivists call me a “thug,” which means someone who would use force to make people defend society. Both are right.

If Bob’s Blog is a success, it will manipulate the hell out of you. You will be a force for what ***I*** want you to be a force for.

Lawyers tell me I would take the law into my own hands.

They are dead right. The only Constitution I recognize says that We the peole are taking power wihtout any Great Principles or any appeal to the Lord or hte King.

Innocent people get punished because we are human. Many say that it is better for one innocent person to go free if a hundred guilty ones have to be acquitted, too. The problem with that is that it doesn’t work. Every time one of that hundred commits a crime, it will punish another innocent person.

This is all a balance. It is messy balance and a nasty one. Every Wordist contrasts this with the perfection he offers. All of the Wordist approaches which offer us some kjind of perfection are a human disaster. Joe wants no part of this balance. He wants to be Joe.

As long as there are patsies out there who willl make it possible for Joe to be Joe, this will work just fine. At this point Joe is more valuable to the balance than any of hte self-sacrificers, but our would be useless and helpless without them.

But they are wrose than uselss without the Joes.

Joe and the Objectivists are part of the very balance they claim to rise above.

Robert

Posted by Bob on January 27, 2006 at 2:09 pm  
Filed Under General | 1 Comment »

Robert says,

“You are right Coach. I know so many people that don’t have a clue what they think on an issue, because they have not been told what their opinion should be yet by “The Media MAFIA”.

I have more fun just taking a news paper and pointing out the insanity and contradictions right there in black and white every day.

I get people laughing that way. And this is a point you can not get around. People will only laugh if you present a true argument. If you present a false argument, they will just look at you like “That was dumb”. So the very fact that someone will laugh at what you are holding to ridicule, is proof that they must agree.

Perhaps you can’t make people think, but you can sow the seeds.

That’s what I am out there doing, day in and day out, sowing seeds.

The Old Man of the Mountain”

My REPLY:

Robert, have you ever noticed how every Tom, Dick and Harry is named BOB?

What do you say when somebody has got the poit and is USING it?

Laughter is not only the only right response to the Big Lie, it keeps your audience by entertaining them.

Shari, Thank Goodness!

Posted by Bob on January 27, 2006 at 2:05 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 2 Comments »

I was afraid I had lost Shari after my blunder. I am SO glad to have you back!

When I thought Mark had quit me, I was openly worried.

Not very macho, is it?

When I think something out, I keep running into the guy who died at half my age two thousand years ago. As I write this it occurs to me that HE talked abouthow the shepherd will leave the flock and go after one wandering sheep.

But the analogy ends there. The LAST thing I would want here or try to get back is a sheep. What I want back are the ones who give me hell.

Which leads me to another of Joe’s comments I can’t find right now. He said that if he did drop-kick somebody here he wouldn’t apologize, he would just leave.

Joe, that’s great for YOU. But where does it leave the rest of us?

I don’t believe you’ve even THOUGHT about THAT.

You make a mistake and punish US for it by leaving us without a word. Where is the moral courage in THAT?

You seem to insist it can never happen, that you could never make a mistake like that. If that is the case, fine. But what about those of us, me at the head of hte list, who DO make that mistake? Should I just stomp off and not say another word?

I am glad to have Shari back. I am prooud of Mark’s moral courage.

And, Joe, you said you and I needed to keep learning. What about your obligations to US?

Joe

Posted by Bob on January 27, 2006 at 1:44 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 4 Comments »

In our ongoing discussion of apologies, Joe says,

“This room is an interesting place to be quartered. I learn here. I love to learn. I am one of those truthseekers that you described in your talk on “truthseekers.” I belong to that group who seeks objective truth. I do not seek “my” truth. As a matter of fact, I know that “my” truth doesn’t exist. Truth exists. Falsehood exists. I’m beginning to get a lot better at detecting falsehood. The way to get to truth is to eliminate all falsehood. Once all falsehood has been eliminated, there it is staring you in the face: truth. That applies to everything. No exceptions. No question about it.

Comment by joe rorke —

Joe, this is a seminar. You learn here because you TEACH here.

The difference between this blog and all else I seem to see is that peole in general have settled for pre-Aryan thought. The concept of the Moot is completely lost. Our ancestors only considered a question seriously considred if it was decided in a Moot, a discussion.

Now the judges refer to a question as either answered, which means they have issued an Opinion on it, or “moot,” which means it is still subject to discussion by us peasants.

A Whitakerism consists of taking something out that we take so much for granted that we pass over it and looking at it closely. This use of the word”moot” refelcts the whole mentality of our society.

Another Whitakerism is about Odin and what he gave his eye for. He gave his eye for exactly what you are talking about: some truth, not The Truth, Final and Forever and pronounced by somebody in a black robe.

Christianity was originally brought to us in the form of the Gospel, which fit in perfectly with our concept of truth.

But as soon as they had sold Christianity to us, they dragged the whole Old Testament with them on a very big boat — you couldn’t carry all those scrolls on a small one, and started to impose the old Temple Priesthood on us. The Moot became something for the country people, which is what pagan means.

And that is the way the word “moot” is used today.

The lesson of the Gospel is that, at the age of twelve, Jesus was already learned enough to take his place among the Temple Scholars. If he wanted to become a Biblical scholar he could have stayed there. But he went out among the people, shaking the dust of the theologians from his feet.

The Gospels we accepted told us EXACTLY what the theologians suppress: that truth is truth, not something declared by Authority.

Jesus could have given straight dictates from the Old Testament. He chose to speak in parables, and a parable means you have to do your own thinking.

So my entire picture of Christ is entirely different from that of those who dig into the Old Testament to find the answer to everything.

Every time I read the words of Jesus, they seem to be saying to me exactly what you are saying:

“The way to get to truth is to eliminate all falsehood. Once all falsehood has been eliminated, there it is staring you in the face: truth. That applies to everything. No exceptions.”

I find that in the Old God Odin hanging on the world tree IN THIS WORLD to gain a little more knowledge.

I find that in THE NEXT WORLD in Jesus hanging on the cross and making it as clear as anybody could make it that salvation is not deep in books. He has given it to us, and not in some subtle hint of Gnostic interpretation.

To me, this is a Whitakerism: Jesus wasn’t subtle. He hung right there on the cross in agony to tell us where to look, and eyes turn away and look myopically into the texts.

If we cannot take this little hint of Jesus towering above history on the cross, just what would it TAKE for us to get our eyes and hearts out of a Book?

We Are Samizdat

Posted by Bob on January 26, 2006 at 5:16 pm  
Filed Under Coaching Session | 1 Comment »

I got two excellent comments, each of which I will devote a piece to.

But one sentence in Tim’s entry stands out on its own:

“Now I am typing this and thinking things over.”

Usually when somebody does some hard thinking and write me they apologize for it. They say “I could be wrong” or “this is too long” or something. They are letting their minds run free and they have been trained to feel guilty about that.

The motto of our society ius: Don’t THINK. We pay professors and experts and judges to do that for you.

In the Soviet Union, all private publication was illegal. All of those underground publications were called “samizdat,” self-publication. As with our universities, the state only allowed publishing it paid for and directly controlled. Hence your guilt about thinking out loud.

Tim didn’t apologize. That’s a good start.

I am publishing this blog myself.

We are samizdat.

Thinking is allowed here.

We Don’t Lie

Posted by Bob on January 26, 2006 at 1:44 am  
Filed Under How Things Work | 3 Comments »

These are the days of our innocence.

Young couples long for the time when they have money and security. Then, after they have raised their children and are financially secure, they become bored, and long for the days when life was exciting and they had to lean on eath other for their only security.

“Revolutions eat their children.” Right now we are telling the truth, and that is our only job.

But the establishment that we consider so great will vanish, like the Czardom or the Weimar Republic, and it will be a fight to establish the future.

Fighting Evil, facing the Big Lie, is a battle that has left me in a state beyond exhaustion. But I had few moral choices to make. Whe I crossed Commmunist deadlines, it was no challenge for me to see that this was pure evil.

It is no intellectual challenge for me to fight those who are simply anti-white. But soon the Faithful Colored Companions who are a wholly ownded subsidiary of the left get, as we used say, “uppity.”

There will be no place in that world for the leftists who speak for non-whites or conservatives who keep them in power by being the perfect Respectable Opposition.

There will only be room for those of us who speak for whites and the ever-diminishing number of whites who are deeply disappointed that their Faithful Colored Companions no longer listen to them.

Then will come a time of brutal decisions. No longer will the argument be over whether to betray our race.

That is an easy moral decision.

The fight will be over HOW to fight for the interests of our own people. It will be vicious fight. Brother will battle brother.

When that time comes, we will long for the days of our innocence.

Stormfront Reply

Posted by Bob on January 26, 2006 at 1:03 am  
Filed Under Coaching Session | 1 Comment »

This is an exchange I had with a Stormfront member:

I am beginning to realize that someone is about to make a really great comment by the fact that it includes a lot of apologies.

So here was the inevitable apology after the excellent insight:

“I think there is a moral in there somewhere. Feel free to use it if you can figure out what it is.”

What this person told me is exactly what I keep preaching: the great problem we face in dealing with the Big Lie is actually realizing, I mean realizing at the gut level, just how stupid what all these highly paid pretentious “authorities” REALLY ARE.

As if all their titles and money were not enough, they have a backup group of respectable conservatives to act like an opposition and to take them seriously.

That is the essence of the Big Lie. You cannot deal with it without ridiculing it.

But we have been taught at enormous expense that there is something TO what we see as simply ridiculous.

An adult has real difficulty saying, “But, all crap aside, the Emperor is stark naked!”

It sounds childish to let the truth out like that.

But of such, as someone better than me said, is the Kingdom of Heaven.

[QUOTE=x]What a pleasant surprise to get a private message from Bob Whitaker.

I got it as I was reading a thread about the educational level and IQ’s of people on stormfront. This thread reminded me of the time I learned how high my own IQ was. Looking back I thought it could have been a Bob Whitaker story.

I was going through a divorce and custody fight and part of that was physiological testing including an IQ test. When the psychologist told me that my IQ was rather high he asked what I thought of that.

I replied “It scares the hell out of me.”
He looked at me rather perplexed and asked “Why”
I said “All these years I have thought that I was just average and the people in charge were all smarter. Now you tell me that most of them are not as smart as me. We are all screwed. “

I think there is a moral in there somewhere. Feel free to use it if you can figure out what it is.

“You Can’t Arrest a Guy for What He’s THINKING”

Posted by Bob on January 25, 2006 at 11:59 pm  
Filed Under How Things Work | No Comments »

I put this in the Pic Thread on Stormfront:

— “You Can’t Arrest a Guy for What He’s THINKING!”

A lady looks beautiful and FEELS beautiful.

So she enjoys sharing that with us in a picture.

All we have to do for this privilege is to obey the rule: eyes on, hands off.

That is sometimes harder on us than a lot of the ladies understand. But it’s a small price to pay.

They don’t even mind if we are thinking lewd thoughts. They would be disappointed in us if we weren’t.

Back in my youth, a hit song was, “Standing On the Corner, Watching All the Girls Go By.” One line of the song was, “You Can’t Arrest a Guy for What He’s THINKIN’”

Now you CAN arrest a guy for what he’s thinkin’.

But my old brain hasn’t adjusted to that rule yet.

Mark and Joe

Posted by Bob on January 25, 2006 at 11:27 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 1 Comment »

Mark very generously apologized for what he said to me.

This shows the moral courage I keep preaching.

Joe said,

“Way to go, Mark. You’re obviously a better man than I am. If I delivered a flying dropkick to a man there is no way in the world I could ever salute him. Congratulations to you.”

Joe, you were right to call it courage, and we both have a lot to learn.

You said you would like to help me mature a bit. I could use it.

I was just talking with Jim Kelso on the phone. He said I was helping Stormfront a lot by telling people I am 65 this year and yet it is obvious to everybody that I am still learning and dealing with the latest computer technology.

Kelso says it encourages younger people that people at our age, which seems unimaginable to them, as you know, are still learning and know we have to learn.

So it comes as a bit of a surprise to some readers when you tell me you can help me learn some. People like us are supposed to be frozen into place, Seats of Wisdom you know.

It’s a cliche, but it is very true statement: when you have all of our experience and background and knowledge it opens vistas to you of what you DON’T know and what you HAVEN’T experienced.

The Old Man on the Mountain sits up where he can see a long, long way. If he wanted to think he knew everything he would sit in a hole.

Here is a lesson you have just introduced yourself to:

You and I fight hard. We either have to do it perfectly or we have to LEARN to apologize for a flying dropkick to a person.

If you are going to give everything you have to a battle, you simply cannot afford hard and fast rules about how YOU look.

Mark decided he had not done the propser thing. He had a reason for what he did, so then he had to decide whether to quibble or simply to apologize and go on.

I made it very clear that Mark had hurt me, a very unmacho thing to do.

So Mark had a choice between hurting a comrade or just saying he was wrong to someone he could trust to accept his apology with gratitude. He chose the latter, and if you are not able to choose the latter, you know you should LEARN to.

If you can admit Mark’s courage, I think you would be able to follow his example.

Making Apologies

Posted by Bob on January 24, 2006 at 3:12 pm  
Filed Under Comment Responses | 7 Comments »

I just had to apologize to two reades for making a bad mistake here. I will not refer to it because it is better for them if it is ignored.

I said, “What can you say when you do something inexcusable?” Then I corrected the error and apologized, which is all I could do.

But this brings up a situation that I have lerarned to deal with: The Old Southern attitude toward an apology is entirely different from that of people I come in contact with.

When I express sincere regrets, the reaction today comes in two forms. One is the person who takes apologies seriously. But that is the person who NEVER apologies. For him, an apology is like crwling on the floor. They will tell you they take apologies seriously and they can show it by the fact that they have only had to apologize two or three times in their entire lives.

The other group simply does not take its eriously. If you sincerely say, “I’m sorry” they treat it as if you had said “Bless you” to somebody who sneezed.

But if you live your life as I have, as Joe says, with your head sticking up over the side of hte trench, you make a LOT of BAD mistakes. A lot of what you know and are able to speak out about comes from saying other things that got your head knocked off, and learning by painful experience which is which.

This also means, if you care about other people’s feelings, that I you have to say “I’m sorry” both SERIOUSLY and A LOT.

My father used to say that a major difference between a big man and a little man is that a big man makes big mistakes. When you make a huge mistake, you can walk around with that pie on your face and pretend nobody notices, or you wash it off and say why it was there in the first place.

The childish reaction to an apology is to use it to lecture the other person, “Well, it’s OK if you learned your lesson.” That should end by the time you are six.

Someone on Stormfront was worried he had offended me. My reply was, “I wasn’t offended, but a gentleman’s apology is ALWAYS accepted.” I come from a culture in which, if you did not accept graciously, you would be facing a large-bore pistol at dawn.

“A gentleman’s apology is ALWAYS accepted” was a matter of life and death.

The problem with dueling in the South was that, unlike duellers elsewhere, who lived as “gentlement” and had relatively little experience with firearms, duels down South were conducted between men who had been born and bred with a gun in their hand.

In other places a duel would be reported where there was a slight injury on one side or the other. In the South the death rate was appalling.

And less than a percent of the soreheads killed died in duels. The same rule pervaded our whole society: if you did something wrong, say so. If someone says he did something wrong, accept it graciously.

Down here mothers very, very carefully taught their sons how to deal with apologies and when they were honor-bound to make them. To paraphrase the country and western hit, “Mothers, don’t let your sons grow up to be soreheads.”

It was a matter of survival.

Some of our Southern manners may be genetic. Soreheads didn’t live to reproduce.

Outside the South an apology is looked upon as something nice out of a book on manners.

I was raised to give them seriously and to take them seriously.

Next Page →

Switch to our mobile site