To repeat, Shari says,

“I also think that there are more young singles, who would like that than you might think.”

Shari, you would be surprised how many young women have made the following “confession” to this old man:

“I know it’s the wrong thing to say, but I am JEALOUS of those ’50s women who stayed home and took care of their children.”

I kid you not. They CONFESS this to me as if I were a priest of Political Correctness who can ABSOLVE them of this desire to be what Women’s Libbers call “oppressed.”

You can imagine what my answer is.

Shari says,

“Early Christians were probably just as gullable as now, but I don’t think sterility was St. Pauls ideal. He wrote in I Cor. that husbands and wives were to give each other what was due and not to defraud one another. He also wrote in I Timothy about seducing doctrines, forbidding to marry, etc.and advised young widows to remarry. I think that Manichaeism was a heresy wasn’t it? I know that Marxism certainly is, and it makes me nauseous to listen to those who try to make it sound so Christian. A big burden for whites is contraception. We are the only ones who use it, so we can pay more and more for welfare and war. Getting married and having their own children is very hard for those who still want to do that, to put together. I also think that there are more young singles, who would like that thanyou might think.”

Comment by Shari

Shari, here is a quotation from 1Timothy. I am using

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1timothy-kjv.html

11) But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
[12] Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

But in 1 Timothy Paul also says that a bishop SHALL have ONE wife.

You might say, “Paul, make up your mind” if you didn’t know that, unile Peter, one thing Paul had no trouble doing was making up his mind.

Jesus told the rich young man, “If you would be PERFECT, sell all you have, give it to the poor and follow me.”

When the young man refused, Jesus didn’t curse him. If a man could be perfect, Jesus would not have been there.

As I have said before, Jesus kept referring to us as his sheep. Very few people nowadays have much experience with sheep. Jesus was surrounded by sheep all his life.

I have had enough experience with sheep to know that Jesus was not exactly bowled over by our intelligence. Sheep make a brain-damaged snake look like a genius.

Sheep will follow the Judas goat into the slaughter.

Perfect? No, I kind of doubt Jesus thought we were perfect.

I said that Paul’s IDEAL was sterility. But Paul like Jesus was aware that people are not perfect. Most of his guidance was how to behave if you are NOT perfect. So what he says sounds contradictory.

Maybe it’s a lifetime in politics, but I see no contradiction.

“A bishop shall have ONE wife.”

That fascinates me because one thing Rome and Orthodoxy agree on is that a bishop shall have NO wife. An Eastern Orthodox priest is allowed to be BE married, but not to marry. Once he is ordained, he cannot marry, so most unmarried Orthodox seminary students graduate and then put off their ordination until they have married.

But in the Orthodox Church only a priest who has NEVER married can become a bishop. That severely limits the number of priests from whom a bishop and be selected.

Roman priests are forbidden to marry at all. So the talent pool from which Catholic bishops are selected is much larger than the one from which Orthodox bishops are selected. My own observation is that I have never met a Catholic bishop who was not highly intelligent, and the intelligence of Orthodox bishops does not impress me.

But both branches of the ancient church agre that a bishop, in direct defiance of Paul’s words, must have NO wife.

All I said was that Paul’s IDEAL was sterility. It fits in with MY theory.

If Popes and Patriarchs have trouble understanding it all, you sure can’t take Ole Bob’s opinions as Gospel.

In response to my answer to “Shari” below, Elizabth writes:

The “early Christian stories” about a young man and a
young woman marrying and agreeing to celibacy were just
that — stories.

MY REPLY:

“But WHY were they stories? From my point of view the idea of beautiful young white woman and a man with good genes agreeing to remain sterile is not a dream, it is a nightmare. To do it inthe name of Jesus is, again to MY mind, blasphemy.”

“Yet here were people who considered this to be the perfect end to a perfect story.”

“This may be no problem for you, but from MY point of view it reflects the genetic suicide that is our ideal today, nd I need to know where it came from.”

An older couple might decide to live together without
sex — and I’m told that some do — but that didn’t
necessarily have anything to do with religion.

Before 1200, women under religious vows were basically
free to travel — as long as they got permission from
their abbess. (Vow of Obedience) Then, the major restriction
on traveling was being able to arrange to do so: a lot of
medieval Europeans, whatever their condition of life,
would keep an eye out for a group going in the general
direction they wanted to go, get some supplies together,
and go. You just had to do it with at least one companion,
for safety, if not for company.

MY REPLY:

“Your and my understanding of history is entirely diffferent from most people’s, as we have discussed before. So people have no difficulty imagining a royal baby accidentally switched at birth by someone who was alone with it.”

“To you and me this is unimaginable, because we both know that NO ONE was ever alone with a royal baby or any other infant of rank, including its mother. During childbirth the room was FULL of witnesses.”

“So when you reveal that women in orders were allowd to travel with only one companion, most people do not understand how extreme this was.”

Between 1200 and the early 1500s, there were a few remaining
abbesses who sat in assemblies of nobles, minted money, sat in judgment
over their nuns and servants as well as their secular flocks,
and sent armed men to fight for their kings and emperors.

MY REPLY:

“You point out that the status of women went downhill during the Rennaisance. The Rennaissance really got around with the use of hte printing press inthe early 1500s.”

“Yet the history I was raised with said that Europe was mired in stupidity and superstition until we began to read the ancient Greek and Roman manuscripts which had been preserved in the monasteries.”

“In fact, the official line was that Islam and the monasteries saved civilization by preserving those ancient documents until us grunting barbarians got hold of them during the Rennaisance.”

“Meanwhile, I would like for someone to tell me one redeeming factor of this explosion of ancient literature.”

“We never notice, for example, that the Norse on the high seas for months never got scuvy. They ate what they needed to eat. But the Galen Theory of Medicine we learned in the Rennaissance and that Professors of Medicine taught because they knew Latin allowed scurvy to become commonplace.”

“When we were taught about Columbus, we were shown a flat-earth map that was ridiculous and we were told that is whwat our grunting pre-Columbian ancestors believed in. That map was actually a Rennaissance map which reflected the Wisdom of Greece and Rome.”

“The INTELLECTUALS took that silly thing seriously, but Columbus certainly never had to argue about it seriously among Mariners who had sailed the Ocean Sea.”

“Our pagan ancestors had shield-maidens, women owned property, women probably VOTED in pre-Christian Iceland. So it is no accident that you point out that women had the power you talk about UNTIL the Rennaisance closed in.”

One nurturing thing about comments is that they include statements I take for granted and make me take a new look at them.

A Whitakerism is analyzing a reality that is so obvious we all take it for granted.

Notice the “we” here. I would be of no use to you if I, too, had not ignored the same fact by taking it for granted.

So Joe states one of those realities I always took for granted.

Joe says,

“It’s important to remember that an opinion is not a fact.”

On the point he is making, Joe is perfectly right.

But a person who has spent his life in politics has repeatedly asked a question about opinion polls:

“Are they FACTUAL?”

That was a major part of the way I made my living.

But what was the “fact” I was talking about?

The “facts” I made my living largely consisted of the accurate assessment of opinion.

For me, opinion WAS fact.

“It’s important to remember that an opinion is not a fact.”

But look at one of my major themes in all my writings. I keep urging you to remember that your “opinion” is a fact that you shold stand up for.

Political Correctness rests on telling us that our opinions are just prejudices while the priest of PC state the real, truly objective preferences we should have.

And, of course, the fundamental tenant of our established religion is that the opinion of an expert is fact.

But that comes right back to a proper understanding of what Joe said in the first place:

“It’s important to remember that an opinion is not a fact.”

This was a useful intellecutal exercise for me.

But, strictly speaking, Joe should have gone through this whole rigamarole right after he said, ‘It’s important to remember that an opinion is not a fact. ”

But we’ve been through that already. Joe was the one who said that I should go through the whole rigamarole when I make a flat statement like that.

But, MUCH more important, Joe was the one who said, after our discussion, that what he said originally was NOT the case.

Our mutual conclusion seems to be that I can expect Joe to go through all of this every time he makes a statement, or he can expect me to understand what he is saying in the first place.

I had not thought about it before, but saying what you think flatly and leaving all the quibbles and analysis to the other person does the other person a lot of good. If he is smart enough to be worth talking to, you do him no favor by doing all his thinking FOR him.

In response to “My Humility Can Beat the Hell Out of YOUR HUmility,” Joe writes:

As I read this piece, Bob, the computer on the top of my neck instantly picked up on something you said. I immediately thought that you won’t like my comment. Then it occurred to me that you have said on occasion that you are a Christian. In your piece you mention something about Zoroastrianism (not my thing) and Christianity. Brace yourself. Here it comes. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” Please forgive the king’s language. You’ve probably heard it before. Most of it was in my head but, I admit, I deliberately looked it up so as to not deceive you as to the exact wording.

I deliberately put this comment in here because you mentioned in an earlier piece that people who quote Scripture “too much” cannot be trusted. There is some truth in this observation but it’s not entirely true. There are exceptions to this rule.

I understand that Scripture I just quoted to you. I have understood it for quite a long time. I am aware that being “on” Bob’s Blog is being in “the world.”

Comment by joe rorke

MY REPLY:

Joe, int his blog, I have quoted reepeatedly Christ’s words, “My kingdom is of of this earth.”

Jesus blesssed the marriage at Cana. According to your interpretation of the quote you cited, he should have CURSED it.

There is long, unhealthy trip from Jesus as here to teach us about the next world to a man turturing himself to death in the desert in the name of Chirst. There is along, and sick journey from these words from one who blessd a wedding to the sterility demanded by early Christianity.

This is a matter of deep concern to me because I want want to know where the white race got this obsession with racial suicide. It should of deep concern to every Christian or even anyone who wants to understand Christianity.

Old Testament Christians rest their entire faith on the literal truth of the Old Testament. They do so rather desperately. A preacher wrote a long e-mail to show that the Magi were actually steeped in the Old Testament.

Meanwhile, inthe real world, the Holy Jews did not invent the story of the Flood. I am sure the discovery of the legend Gigamesh caused some Old Testament Christians to lose their faith.

The idea that many of Christ’s ideas, and those of the Old Testament, derived from the biggest monotheistic faith of their day will shake many a faith which balanced on the narrow ledge of the Holy Jews.

The very thought that Jesus was incluenced by anything but the Old Testament is pure heresy to many.

But if you don’t understand Roman history you are going to have a very hard time finding out where the term “The Living God” came from in the Old Testament, though I am sure it can be done if you are desperate enough.

You say you are interested in Christianity but not Zoroastrianism. I cannot imgine how you can understand the former without the latter.

Early Zoroastriansim did not preach self-hate. What Jesus said, which, by the way, is a great contradiction of the Old Testament which concentrated on THIS world, was a statement of early Zoroastrianism.

Late Z like Modern Christianity, was a sick thing, a rotting corpse. And it was from that corpse that early Church got the poison we could die from.

Studying Christianity without any awareness of Z is like studying medicine without taking anatomy.

In response to another piece called “Joe” below, I gave Joe hell for constantly saying, “I could be wrong.”

I then addressed his point in the next piece. But I apologized for giving him hell for using “I could be wrong” so much.

Joe wondered what I was apologizing for.

But Joe is a tough old warrior. He forgets that Mark just blew his gasket about a humorous article about my big sister I wrote and dcelared he would never have anything to do with me again. Joe doesn’t do that, but I remind him that some people do.

His comment, like all good ones, made me think. Here is waht Joe had to say and my reply:

JOE SAYS:

Well, I’ve read all the pieces and you’ve so far failed to give me hell. You’ll have to work harder at it.

But much more importantly in this therapy session will be your ability to understand what is and what is not an apology. When a man says, “I could be wrong” or “I may be mistaken” with respect to a personal observation, please attempt to understand that this is not an apology. When a man says, “I could be wrong,” what he is doing is allowing the possibility for error to exist. This is the opposite of arrogance. An arrogant man makes a statement that excludes the possibility of his being mistaken. He has arrogated unto himself qualities that he does not possess.

Here’s a tip to know for sure that someone is apologizing to you. He or she says, “I’m sorry for…etc.,” or “please forgive me for…..etc.,” You have never heard anything like this from this writer.

Maybe it’s different where you come from. Where I come from you don’t have to read anything into anything that has been said. As I said to you in an email, Bob, you don’t owe me an apology for anything. I don’t owe you any apology either. I’m straightforward, you’re straightforward, what else is there? As you said in one of your earlier pieces, we tell others about ourselves as we communicate.

I’m also not a diplomat. I know that. I don’t try to be diplomatic. It’s too much like beating around the bush. I don’t even apologize to my wife and she’s my whole world. OK, maybe two or three times in our long marriage. But, you’ll have to agree, that’s not much.

MY REPLY:

I read comments over and over, and here was one I really enjoyed, but it was interspersed
with what I see as apologies.

To put it even more basically, you are telling ME “I could be wrong.”

Teach your grandmother to suck eggs, Joe!

My basic doctrine is that our opinion is important, and we are responsible for it. Saying you are wrong is like saying you are not perfect.

And, getting off Joe a minute, that is something I am REALLY sick of!

Many, many times someone at a press conference will go off into the Zoom Zone. Instead of answering the question he has been asked, he will act like the rest of us don’t exist.

He asks himself questions and answers them. The most routine question he asks himself is:

“Is my proposal perfect? No.”

I don’t know about anybody else, but I got over “perfect” about the time I stopped believing in Santa Claus.

If a person took up my time asking himself, “Do I believe in Santa Claus? No.” I would think he had lost what little mind he had.

Nobody else is bothered by this. Nobody else objects to this.

But we are in BOB’S Blog. I am dedicated to making you see your own opinion as THE opinion.

Screw the social scientists. Screw the priests. There is nothing inocent about being like the WEakest Generation and seeing some opinions as requiring your blind obedience.

So when someone gives me their opinion and then says they are being too long-winded or they may be wrong, it is offensive to me.

I am here to get what you think, not your recitation of your possible errors.

In response to “My Humility Can Beat the Hell Out of Your Humility” Shari writes:

“Now days such people don’t outsuffer Christ, they just care more for all the poor people in the world. They are Commies for Christ. ”

Lord, a good comment DOES set my mind on fire!

Please note, Shari, that that “suffering” is seldom done in unpleasant places. They put on a tuxedo and tell an audience at a Hollywood fund-raiser about how awful they feel about third world suffering and how we all need to siffer for it.

A good comment makes my mind go into unexpected places. One of the big deals was called Liberation Theology. Its goal was to meld Christianity with the New World doctrine of Marxism.

All of a sudden, Marxism is the Old World theology.

I was listening to the commentary on an Italian DVD. The interviewer embarrassed the hell out of hte filmmaker. This commentary was bout 1990, and he asked the moviemaker, “How is your movie on Trotsky coming along?”

A litle background. As Sophia Loren once said in a movie, “I’m not supposed to make sense. I’m ITALIAN!”

Before the 1980s the entire European film industry, like European universities, was solidly Communist. But other European movie makers kept it subtle. Subtlety, as Sophia Loren was proud to point out, is not an Italian trait. So when the movie was made I was watching the commentary on, no one in Italian film considered anything important but the Communist Revolution.

So this particular film maker’s great ambition was to prove that the champion of the Only True Faith was not so much Lenin as it was Trotsky. He had planned and dreamed of an epic film about this that would have all the European film-makers gurgling with delight.

Suddenly with the collapse of the Soviet Empire Communism was exposed as not only something that was born senlie, but silly and evil.

Poor baby! Just a few years before this guy had been in the middle of whole culture of people who assumed that Communism was the Way of the Future. He did NOT appreciate being reminded of that.

So Liberation Theology has gone from synthesizing Modern Thought, i.e, Marxism, with Old Thought, i.e., Christianity to desperately trying to find another peg to hang its ideas on.

EXACTLY the same thing happened in the case of Zoroastrianism. Fot the first SEVEN CENTURIES of its existence, Christian theologians tried to synthesiz their faith with that of their world’ most powerful religion, one that had been the official religion of Persia since long before Xerxes invaded Greece.

The it just plain disappeared. Iran was conquered by Islam. Zoroastrian literature was burned.

All the Christian theologians instantly forgot the centuries they had tried to synthesize their faith with the other Great Faith. But the synthesis kept reappearing in the form of Manichaeism.

Manichaeism and Marxism are, when you cut the crap and get down to cases, amazingly similar. Both say they are all for Goodness over Badness, but their mutual idea of Goodness is self-hatred and genetic suicide.

Guilt and self-hatred are what both Manichaeism and Western Communism are all about. Early Christianity preached sterility. In fact, the more you had to offer, themore beautiful you were and the more intelligent you were, the more blessed it was for you to lock yourself up in lifelong chastity.

Many early Christian stories expressed this ideal. A beautiful, intelligent and, yes, blond woman would marry her ideal man, handsome, healthy, virtuous and smart.

The, on the wedding night, she would persuade her husband that they should live in mutual chastity. This was St. Paul’s ideal. This was the early Christian ideal when they were melding with the later Zoroastrian hatred of all things of This World.

So when Marxist self-hatred keeps surfacing in the name of Christ, we should not be surprised.

Which is why I write about genetic morality. In Marxism and in trditional Christianity there is no such thing. Their only genetic morality is self-hatred.

I just gave Joe hell for saying “I could be wrong.”

Then I wrote a piece, replying to Joe, about how it I feel things deeply.

Joe kept writing “I could be wrong” because he was making personal observations about me and he was being very careful to make it clear that he was not criticizing me personally, he could be wrong.

Joe is sensitive. So I attacked his sensitivity.

The same sensitiviy I just claimed a right to.

When I say I am wrong a lot, you have to admit I practice what I preach.

Once again, all this is simple but not easy. I deeply believe that you should STOP apologizing.

But on the other hand I just said that I understand sensitivity. This simple stuff gets complicated fast.

Joe, put it another way besides apology.

This is the problem with not being a Wordist. A Wordist can cut out his frontal lobe and stick a book in there. Sometimes I wish I had the Book of Whitaker to stick in there.

Everything in science starts simple. I remember being a Discussant at an economics convention and standing in front of a blackboard full of calculus equations and making corrections.

But all that calculus was based on the words, “supply and demand,” what goes by the not-so-simple-sounding name of Microeconomics.

The whole basis of Western Science, expresed in Occam’s Razor, is simple enough:

“Cut your assumptions to the bone.”

So you get simple basic like the Laws of Thermodynamics.

So you get engineering professors standing in front of blackboards full of equations more complicated than anyone before Occam’s Razor could have imagined.

The world gets very, very complicated when you see the simple truth.

In my piece below, I raised hell about how commenters keep apologizing and how I’m sick of it.

Let me repeat Jow’s comment on “Mark” below, and see if you don’t agree he has nothing to apologize about:

I think you are a person who requires patience and understanding and tolerance from the people you are dealing with. I could be wrong but I suspect that you have had many personal battles in your lifetime. One of the reasons for this would be that you take a stand on various issues. You stand up. You poke your head over the top of the trenchline. Of course, people are going to take a shot at it. People who stand up, especially on issues that the overwhelming majority of people in our country would not even whisper about, can expect a fist in the face now and then. I imagine yours has been pretty well battered. Of course, I could be wrong. It’s just a feeling I have. Look what they did to Christ! He told people the truth and they nailed him to a cross! Humanity. Don’t ya just love ‘em?

With regard to your most recent horsewhipping, perhaps there was a misunderstanding on the part of your cane-wielder. On the other hand, the person may have felt thoroughly justified in tapdancing on your chest. By now I would think you would be used to it. I suspect that you have seen the backs of many heads moving away from you. They don’t understand you, Bob. Furthermore, they don’t want to understand you. It’s too much like work.

I don’t think you’re thick-skinned, Bob. I think you’re very sensitive to criticism. You don’t like reproach.

What’s not good is people moving in the same direction and fighting with each other at the same time. I’ve seen a lot of this over the years. People claiming to want a certain goal and fistfighting with each other at the same time. Bodies lying all over like pieces of shrapnel and people wondering why the goal hasn’t been achieved.

That people can and will turn on you is something you can expect. I have a story for you about that but I won’t include it here. I can just tell you that when that happened to me I dealt with it immediately. I terminated the relationship. But he threw the first punch. I threw the last one.

Comment by joe rorke —

MY REPLY:

Yes, Joe, Mark’s explosion did hurt me.

No, I am NOT used to it. I deal with it.

Being a male, Old Bob hides the fact that he is hurt. And it is true I have grown an elephant skin over my personal sensitivity.

If I were half as tough as I pretend to be I wouldn’t need the elephant skin.

I venture to say that I am not the only male here who does this all the time. Our tendency to act as if we are untouched by unfair assaults is, as I said below, a result hundreds of millions of years of gene selection.

To repeat:

“The female does not choose the male who panics on the strutting ground.”

No comment I make is justified if it only applies to me. If what I just said doesn’t strike a chord with you, I miss my guess.

There are plenty of blogs, and a blog by an insenstitive person is not worth your time to read. So in order to justify your chossing this one, I have to 1) be able to dish it out and take, but 2) take your criticisms seriously.

A real Macho Man would not be able to do step 2)

So what you say gets us back to a point I keep making, the sort of point you read Bob’s Blog to hear:

What I do is simple, dish it out and take but never to be invulnerable to criticism.

Simple enough.

But, God knows, it is not EASY.

Simple but not easy.

Feel it but take the heat.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Simple truths are never easy.

In reply to my comment response called “Mark” below, Joe writes:

I think you are a person who requires patience and understanding and tolerance from the people you are dealing with. I could be wrong but I suspect that you have had many personal battles in your lifetime. One of the reasons for this would be that you take a stand on various issues. You stand up. You poke your head over the top of the trenchline. Of course, people are going to take a shot at it. People who stand up, especially on issues that the overwhelming majority of people in our country would not even whisper about, can expect a fist in the face now and then. I imagine yours has been pretty well battered. Of course, I could be wrong. It’s just a feeling I have. Look what they did to Christ! He told people the truth and they nailed him to a cross! Humanity. Don’t ya just love ‘em?

With regard to your most recent horsewhipping, perhaps there was a misunderstanding on the part of your cane-wielder. On the other hand, the person may have felt thoroughly justified in tapdancing on your chest. By now I would think you would be used to it. I suspect that you have seen the backs of many heads moving away from you. They don’t understand you, Bob. Furthermore, they don’t want to understand you. It’s too much like work.

I don’t think you’re thick-skinned, Bob. I think you’re very sensitive to criticism. You don’t like reproach.

What’s not good is people moving in the same direction and fighting with each other at the same time. I’ve seen a lot of this over the years. People claiming to want a certain goal and fistfighting with each other at the same time. Bodies lying all over like pieces of shrapnel and people wondering why the goal hasn’t been achieved.

That people can and will turn on you is something you can expect. I have a story for you about that but I won’t include it here. I can just tell you that when that happened to me I dealt with it immediately. I terminated the relationship. But he threw the first punch. I threw the last one.

Comment by joe rorke —

MY REPLY:

Joe, I once worked for a German who dectated letters routinely in French, English and Italian.

At a convention, he did what is hardest, he trasnlated between two foreign languages, French and English. I cannot do that in the languages I am acquianted with.

Frenchmen would sometimes correct his French, which is normally a pain in the keester. But they would tell HIM:

“Your French is so perfect that when you make an error, it stands out.”

This was NOT diplomacy. One of hte many reasons people love the French so much is how nasty they are when you make a mistake in their little language.

So this was the highest compliment they could give.

I have a similar problem with your comment. It is all good, solid, sympathetic man-to-man advice, the sort of thing I expect from you.

But you keep throwing in “I could be mistaken…” and that hits me the way my German friend’s grammatical errors hit the Frenchman.

I am SO sick of apologies for sincere and well-thought-out opinions!

All this time reading Bob’s Blog and you have to keep saying, repeatedly, “I could be wrong….”

No joke!

I just wrote a piece about how the disease of our world is people who think THEIR provincialism is not provincialism, THEIR cowardice is not cowardice, and so forth.

In plain English, most of the world’s horrors can be traced to people who cannot believe they can be just plain WRONG.

When you keep saying “I could be wrong” there is the slightest hint in there that I could be inflicted with the same disease.

Dammit, readers, STOP APOLOGIZING!

This is a very important matter to me.

Joe, don’t you DARE apologize for doing this!

ALL my commenters do it sometimes and you gave me the chance to raise hell about it that I needed.

I will deal with your excellent analysis in a separate piece above.

In my piece below on why a white male might not like women, I committed the ultimate blasphemy of our established religion, political correctness.

Women, even though they are the majority, are an officially designated and protected Minority Group in PC doctrine. Just as a Jew or a black can denounce whites when he is feeling frustrated with them, a woman is encouraged to say, “I hate men” when she is feeling frustrated.

A man who says he sometimes hates women or blacks or Jews or Australian Bushman is instantly and eternally condemned to the flames of Hitlerism.

Instead of giving me all the reservations she is supposed to be obsessed with, Elizabeth just said she agreed. A healthy-minded white man sometimes just doesn’t LIKE women. A healthy-minded white woman sometimes just doesn’t LIKE women.

But I like to think that only a Bob’s Blogger would say that without reservation.

My entry below, “Peter Appeals to a Higher Court” was a humorous piece which included some bragging about my older sister, who is a thoroughly, Steel Magnolia type of sweet Southern lady.

Mark took it seriously and vowed to abandon me forever. He says:

‘This entry has made me quite ill and I’m not kidding in the least.
Bob, but I thought you wanted a real exchange of ideas, not the slobberings of a yes man who licks your boots and tells you you are god. This is my last entry in your blog which I’m sure will not bother you in the least but it will make my day. I’ll seek out those with balls enough to actuallly do something more than pontificate for the white race instead of sit out honey for class pet lap dogs. ”

Comment by Mark —

I STILL can’t understand what he is talking about, and I hope he, like Bob, can just admit he did something silly and go on.

Man is the only animal who laughs. He is also the only animal that knows he will die.

This is not a coincidence. Humor is survival. So real humor always hits at touchy areas, like the King’s Fool.

Humor hits very close to the bone, and I am not sure what nerve I touched in Mark. It was certainly not one htat was in my mind.

If Makr is the man I think he is, he will simply say he flew off the handle.

But if Mark has abandoned me forever, it is better thus.

I have warned you, from costly experience, that you should NEVER deal with anybody who uses the words “Lie” and “Liar” freely.

Let me warn you also never to deal with anyone who goes instantly from friend to foe because of one misstep.

That is why I get wary when someone quotes the Bible too much. he is likely one day to find some phrase in that million-word-long scripture which you have violated and declare you a False Prophet. It is only a matter of time.

I deal with loudly proclaiming Old Testament Christians in exactly the same way that I deal with Jews or other minority groups. At arm’s length.

I can work with Jews or blacks, but I always keep in mind that they can turn on me in an instant. They can be allies, but never comrades. The same is true of people who think they own The Book.

Any Book. The Bible is just one of them.

Hence Wordism.

Once I said somethig wrong and a female friend, not a girlfriend, said, “I used to like you but now I realize how bad you are.”

My reply was, “If your friendship is so easily lost, I would rather not be burdened with it.”

You should treat a person who can turn on you in one statement in exactly the same way you should deal with a grenade with the pin pulled. You have to dispose of it while keeping your thumb firmly down on the fuse.

Like a live grenade, the best place for a so-called “Friend” who will turn on you in one statement is in the camp of your enemies. He will blow up there and take some of THEM with him.

I have a Big Sister.

She is a little over half my size and is well into her seventies.

My Big Sister is the sweetest person you will ever meet and is willing to do anything for you.

But she is one of those Southern Females. Which means that she scares the hell out of us Tough Southern Males.

In Japan, Gone With the Wind is STILL the most popular show.

Why? Because Japanese women consider it the ultimate explanation of themselves. On the surface, a woman is to be altogether feminine, smiling and accommodating.

Scarlette O’Hara had not a trace of the masculine in her.

But a shrinking violet Scarlette was not.

Which is why a very popular movie about Southern women was called, “Steel Magnolias.”

My sister is a very sweet, completely feminine piece of tungsten steel. She doesn’t scare me exactly, but I know how to stay out of the way.

I talked to my Big Sister today. She reads this blog and she wondered where Peter was.

She thinks Peter is great.

By an odd coincidence, I decided today that Peter is great, too. That doesn’t mean I’m skeert of my Big Sister.

All it means is that discretion is the better part of valor.

I ain’t skeert.

I just have one hell of a lot of discretion.

In response to my “Genetics Can be Abused” Peter simply writes:

“So far, our power over heredity is being abused. It’s called White genocide. ”

That is a true Whitakerism.

I hadn’t even thought of it that way.

And I am STILL thinking about it.

It is one HELL of a point!

On taking things for granted, Derek says,

“I think that ego makes you take things for granted. One of my friends is very intelligent and people tell him that all the time. I think that it goes to his head so much that no one else can offer any other valid viewpoint unless it compliments his own. ”

“Perhaps this was your problem Bob. You are too smart. Or at least someone tells you are.”

Comment by Derek —

Two of the most popular books ever written started out by emphasizing the word “I.”

Montesquie started out his Essays by saying that they were all about him because he was the only person he really knew.

Ben Frnaklin began his Autobiographyby saying it was largely a matter of ego.

But these two eighteenth-century books still sell like hotcakes while endless numbers of volumes dedicated to “objectivity” are inteh garbage bin where they belong.

If those writings were only about Franklin and Montesquie they would have died with their authors.

But both those books began on a very healthy note. Both men reminded you that what was being written was being put down by a fallible human being whom you, as anohter fallible human being, would have to judge on your own.

In fact, this sort of writing was almost an invention of the eighteenth century. It was a historical breakthrough. Writings prior to that time had always tried to set down pure objectivity. No one said, “This is my belief, but that is just me talking.”

One of the most fascinating and unnoticed phenomena in history was the way egery relgious group imposed its script on everybody in that religious group. We see this in the way that Yiddish, which is old German, was originally written entirely in Hebrew script.

Christian literature was in Greek and roman script only. That is why heiroglyphics disappeared with the advent of Christianity in Egypt. When Islam conquered the Middle East, all the Moslem areas had Arabic script, in which the Koran had been written, imposed on them, including what had been the Byzantine Empire.

The ancient Persian script was burned and Iran began to use only Arabic script.

The point here is that writing was supposed to represent something wholly different from mere talk. Anything addressed to the public ceased to be a personal opinion.

As with Political Correctness today, each religion and each philosophy and each history did not use phrases like, “I have concluded that …” or “the concensus is…”

Te very idea that one had a right to have a particular point of view was simply not part of pre-eighteenth century thinking.

I have said that I take things for granted that others who have not been along for as long as I have find surpising. One of htese things is that the novel use of “my opinion” in the eighteenth century represented the pppoiste of ego.

On the contrary, it marked the time when the writer took it for granted that his was NOT the only opinion.

It was a giant historical step AWAY from the worship of writing for its own sake when authors began to use phrases like, “I tend to come down onthe side of …”

I would be fascinated if you could find me a single example of that sort of phrase in any writing before 1700.

This does degenerate into ego. I don’t always practice what I preach.

But my invitation is the one that Peter has made use of. I tell you I have a bellyache or a prejudice, and I expect you to do the same thing.

I state my own opinions as objective truth because, for me, they are the truth as I see it. But the last three words are the difference between thought and Wordism.

As Elizabeth ssays, she has been reading my stuff since before WOL was founded in 1998, and she hasnoticed that there isone person I have disagreed with more than I have with anybody else.

That person’s name is Bob Whitaker.

I have said many times that in order to be a writer you have to have an ego that makes Mount Everest look like a bump. I take my opinions very seriously, and when I am wrong, I say so.

On the other hand, a writer who admits that what he says is just his opinion must depend on a massive ego.

Someone commenting on the Bible or the Koran has no doubt that his every word is precious. He is telling the truth, and it is God’s Truth, not his own.

But once you write down your OWN pint of view, you must have a tall ego to say that a person should take time out to read what YOU say.

In real terms, the Wordist honestly believes he is the soul of modesty. He is merely telling you the Revealed Truth.

I PRESUME to tell you MY opinions, My conclusions, My observations.

So who is really the more self-righteous, the person who presumes that his own ideas are worth reading, or the person who is convinced that his every word is Objective Truth?

Shari mentions in her comment, very reticently, that our power over heredity can be abused.

But this point needs to be mentioned, and Shari brought it up despite the fact taht she knew exactly what my reply would be.

Thanks, Shari.

Yes, the main argument against “genetic manipulation” is that it can be misused.

As Shari knows, my reply to this astounding revelation is:

“No joke?”

This did not keep Shari from bringing it up. It was a needed point, and Shari had the moral courage to mention it.

So on with the reply Shari’s comment allows me to make:

Communism is only one of the doctrines which is based entirely on nurture versus nature. Not only can nurture be misused, but Communism alone is respeonsible for over one hundred millions deaths in the last century.

Please forgive me for descending into fanaticism, but I suggest that the power over nurture has in this case been, let’s say, “misused.”

The argument is that we can ignore the moral dimension of genetics because Hitler misused his power.

That argument does not strike me as being sane, much less reasonable.