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.

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.