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 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.

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.