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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.