Archive for May, 2006
I don’t want anyone here to say that I’m on “The Lunatic Fringe.”
On Blob’s Blog I am right in the CENTER of the lunatics.
“Might as well fess up, Bob. Those Stormfront guys knows it’s what you don’t say that makes you a neoconservative. Not what you say. What you don’t say. That’s how they caught you. Them Stormfront boys is got a lot on the cap. If’n they say it, it’s gospel. Can’t fool a Stormfront guy. Can’t fool Kevin. Couldn’t a fooled Bill P. Some things just show up and you can’t miss it. It ain’t just oil. It’s a whole lot of other things. That’s what they told me. I take it as gospel. I trust these boys. ”
Comment by joe rorke
You got me!
Since you state this in the academic language I was raised with, I can’t squirm out of it.
Anonowitz and I have come clean.
We are kikes.
As Brian put it in Monty Python’s Life of Brian after Brian was informed his father was a Roman, “I am a kike, a Hebe, a hook-nose, and I’m PROUD of it!”
Just don’t tell anybody.
Somebody asked me about the China Threat once again
This makes excellent sense, since when I talked about Britain and Russia having military teeth, I left out China.
But I have discussed it at length.
Here we go again:
I discussed China before at length, but I am not sure anybody understood what I was talking about because Stormfronters do not think racially.
You may want to look it up and you may understand it. All I ever get out of it is more revelations about the Middle East.
My basic point was that the Chinese have all of the constructive ability for organization and teamwork that ants do.
They also have the fatal weakness that ants have when you kill the Queen.
But let’s forget that and noticed something even easier:
China is enormously vulnerable militarily.
To START with, and there is MORE, China consists largely of two rivers, the Whang Ho and the Yang Tse. A serious nuclear attack on the mouths of these two rivers would put China into a desperate position, and it isn’t easy to find a subsitute feeding ground for half a billion people who depend directly on the paddies there.
China faces a United States that is NOT vulnerable inthat way. YOu can bomb the hell out of hte Middle West corn belt and we will still eat very well.
This is the kind of thing other people don’t think about, but that keeps Chinese planners awake at night.
An American president who KNOWS about this will keep China from being too much of a threat.
I went back to grad school for a semester in 1992, just to check things out.
I took the full load and went in as a PhD candidate.
One thing I noticed was that students would say, “Professor X is teaching a seminar course in …”
The last time I was in grad school over a quarter of a century before, nobody TAUGHT a seminar.
You LEAD a seminar. I didn’t even mention this because no one would in grad school with me would understand the difference.
A COURSE is a COURSE. You are taking students through a course of study.
A SEMINAR is NOT a COURSE.
The difference between TEACHING a seminar and LEADING a seminar is exactly the same as the difference between a Soviet Assembly and a real representative government.
In representative government the leadership uses every dirty trick in the book to get a majority for its policies, which does not smack of Fairy Tale Fairness.
In a Communist “Parliament” there are no dirty tricks. All votes are unanimous.
I may be the last professor who thinks of himself as LEADING a seminar.
The minute I start TEACHING a seminar somebody like Mark or Peter jumps down my throat.
Can you imagine trying to explain that difference to a modern, hoop-jumping person who has made it to grad school?
Someone wrote me:
“I really like your posts. Could you please use paragraph structure though? Thanks.”
Since the entry qualification for Bob’s Blog is that you have outgrown your college education, whether you had one or not, I am stuck with a lot EDUCATED people here.
So a lot of you may have noticed that my paragraph structure is pure anarchy.
So let me assure you there is a reason for this. I am open to disagreement.
Here was my reply to, “Could you please use paragraph structure though? Thanks.”
Richard Viguerie made a fortune on direct mail before everybody else ( See my 1982 book) copied him.
He did statistical tests, and found that long paragraph structure does not WORK.
Not from the critical point of view, but from the plebian point of view of getting people to READ it.
Correct paragraph structure is technically correct according to those who make the rules.
But back on Planet Earth people find it BORING.
Hemingway was also criticized for his unscientific paragraphs, but he never gave them up and his stuff sold pretty well.
I said that seminars were once a place where a professor could stop spoon-feeding unwilling students in lectures and kick back and talk with those who know the subject and can feed him thoughts he hadn’t come up with.
Nowadays that doesn’t happen. Nowadays the student regurgitates what he’s told and he knows the professor will grade him on how much he agrees with said prof.
But when I kicked back and got nasty and crappy with THIS crowd, I caught it HARD.
Even Sweet Shari gave me grief about my, literally, gutter humor.
Mark reamed me good.
I NEED that.
I also got a good laugh out of Mark’s saying he was not going to lie down and worship me.
Mark, old buddy, I think you made THAT point pretty clear. You did it with what I like to refer to as a Whitaker level of subtlety.
Which is why nobody needs to say “I may be wrong” or “I’m not an expert” here.
I cleared your comment. If you were making a fool of yourself or whatever you’re worried about I wouldn’t clear it.
More important, BOB makes an ass of himself aplenty here.
BOB needs the same kind of treatment. I am ridiculously crabby and sometimes coarse. CALL me on it.
Thanks, Mark. Thanks, Shari.
But I will sin again.
I got it again on Stormfront. My saying I might invade Saudi Arabia or some other OEC country is they keep OPEC going AGAINST THE US just shows I’m an oil-grabbing neo.
So I tried again:
I mentioned the Saudis,but I did not specify which OPEC country I would take.
THERE WOULDN”T BE ANY TAKING ANYWAY.
OPEC would just get the cartel of of AMERICA’S back.
I would love to see all those countriest we protected all those decades from the Communists paing through the nose for OPEC oil while we got straight cost plus ten.
AND ISRAEL paying all that OPEC wants to charge for oil.
Yea, right. The neocons would really love me!!!
Once we pull all subsidies out of Israel, all that Jewish money that goes to pushing their agenda would have to shift to preserving that crappy little country on their own.
No doubt about it, I’m a neocon.
Everybody is so obsessed with Israel and Saudi Arabia that nobody is doing the kind of thinking an AMERICAN president should do:
Nobody has seen the reality for OUR purposes about this “superpower” stuff.
America is not the only SUPERpower left on earth, it is the only POWER left on earth.
I would enforce law against all reexport of cheap OPEC oil. And when Bob says ENFORCE I think you have a good idea what I mean by that word:
And the DC jail.
No country but the US in all the world is able to enforce its own interests.
After half a century of military welfare, Europe has a completely toothless, aged, tiny military.
The only countries with teeth, Britain and Russia, HAVE plenty of oil.
The United States might seriously become the defenders of OPEC countries from others doing what we are doing.
We would allow breaks for other countries ONLY if they elected governments that protect white interests.
Meanwhile those countries that stick to Political Correctness pay a hundred dollars a barrel and the third world pours on in.
I am still having difficulty understanding why neos would like any of this.
There will a Pax Americana without a shot fired.
We have fought two really horrible ewars since we won our independence.
The first was over the blacks.
The second was for the Jews and to make the world safe for Stalin.
I think Messiah simply can’t get used to the idea of somebody who would flex our muscle for US.
There won’t be a war. There’s nobody to fight one with. Islam will love us And, more imporant, FEAR us.
So they’ll go bomb Europe until Europe gets some cajones.
Are you SURE I’m a neo?
I got crappy and Mark called me on it:
Regarding my bad-tempered remark below, Mark hit me TWICE:
I take offense at your statment. So you write an entry which is more proclamation than discussion and then you expect everyone (during a holiday weekend even)to throw themselves to the floor, genuflect like trained puppets, and squawk what a wun-der-full statment you have just made. Okay, fine. From now on when you’ve written one of your declarations of adoration entries I’m gonna’ write:
“Amen-hallelujah-aman! That Bubba Witt’ker fella is might-eee fine! Amen – hallelujah-amen!”
Comment by Mark — 5/30/2006 @ 3:29 pm | Edit This
Oh, and another thing. While you were penning that ever so enlightening and oh-so invigorating paragraph about sewers and what not, I was busy visiting the grave (w/my daughter) of a real pro-white hero — one Sam Hildebrand (Missouri Major of the army of the Confederacy, bushwhacker, peacelover until his family was murdered and his home burnt down by northerners, and all around 19th. century real-life bravehart).
But of course, forgive my divine father for I have sinned. Amen-hallelujah-amen! That Bubba Witt’ker fella is might-ee fine! Amen-hallelujah-amen to ad nausium…
Comment by Mark — 5/30/2006
Mark, I wish you would stop being so worshipful and shy and just tell me what you think.
I’m going to bed.
My friggin’ DREAMS are smarter than this!
Somebody mentioned that Eastwood is beneath contempt.
I was corresponding with somone in med school who spent his days being sick.
He had rotting corpse parts put in his hand on a regular basis.
I used to get sick thinking of formaldehyded frogs.
A medical professional can autopsy a three-day-old corpse, go to lunch and get back to work.
If a fellow worker said to him, “This thing really STINKS,” he would mark the commenter down for treatment.
If you are a sewer worker, knee deep in the slime, what would you do it someone cried out, “I can’t BELIEVE it! Right over there there is a piece of **** floating in the water!”
I probably don’t really appreciate the outrage of Conspiracy Theorists because I have been knee deep in this sewer so LONG.
When Clint Eastwood took over on Wagon Train the first Heroie Negro was part of his ensemble.
His first major film, a semi-horror flop, featured his very black buddy with a blond girl who said, “I’ve got my MAN.”
Troy Donahue was always getting pictures taken dancing with his very black girlfriend.
Her Glorious Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II had pictures taken showing her dancing with the new president of Ghana, whoever the hell he was.
I spent my entire career in that sewer.
So you finally figured out that what is floating down the river Her Majesty lives in is is a piece of ****.
That’s a good start.
But don’t announce it to me like it’s a new release.
I was asked what my policies would be if I were president.
I mentioned several, one of which was that if the oil cartel didn’t stop cheating us, I’d sent in troops and take some oilfields.
Please note I did NOT say that if the oil cartel didn’t stop ganging up on France or Britain or anybody else I would threaten them. I would not even name any specific set of oilfields we’d take.
I would say, “I am the AMERICAN president. You are robbing AMERICANS. If you don’t get the price for US down to reasonable levels, I will see the cartel as an act of war, a combination against our national interests.”
“We (The People of the United States of America and OUR Posterity) need oil. We can buy it or take it. But if we have to take it you’ll pay the cost.”
The AMERICAN oil problem would end so fast it wou ld make your ears ring.
Naturally somebody pointed out that I was just one of neos out to pick onthe Arabs.
He reads the paper too much or listens to too many “sources” and doesn’t look at the Constitution and stuff like that.
But he also wrecks a discussion that is needed.
He wants me to defend myself, Bob Whitaaer, against being a NEO when what I have put on the table is something any real American has thought of from time to time.
He has fifty million news readers to shout “neo” at, but this is hte only place he will find somebody bring this idea out in the open.
And it is IDEA.
If his sources tell him that command of the US Armed Forces has been turned over to me, he needs to let ME know.
As a matter of fact, I think DISCUSSION of the POSSIBILITY of this action, if it got votes, would have OPEC in Washington clamoring for a deal if we won OR lost.
But before we could do this, we would have to deal with all the conspiracy freaks who are obsessed with labels and the latest poop (in BOTH senses of that word) about whatever is big on the Conspiracy Network right now.
West had it dead right: our challenge is not the antis, it’s debate with EACH OTHER.
Anything out of hte box gets aborted at birth.
And we are NOT going to win by reciting inside the box.
When I bitched about “Comments (0)” here were are the responses:
“We need Mark.”
“Thanks for the vote of confidence!”
“It’s just that sometimes I don’t have anything unique or insightful or all that intelligent to say on a subject so instead of sounding dumb (which I do enough of anyway) I wait for greater minds than mine to respond. ”
This is exactly how a real seminar, not the dished-out crap that passes for them today, worked.
A seminar is where an old professor who has spent decades trying to pound half a gallon of information into pint-seized minds.
If it’s economics, there won’t be two sudens in a large lecture room who are there voluntarily.
So when he got his seminar, he had something he lovewd, but which a modern professor-bureaucrat cannot deal with: a roomful of students who were familar with his subject and were there on purpose.
Many, many times he would say, “I’ve been working on this” and go up to board and scracth out a diagram or an equation or something to mkae common sense look academic.
You gotta do SOMETHING with your hands.
He would end up saying, “I want you to give this some thought.”
Can you imagine a modern professor-bureucrat asking his students to do some THINKING?
But many times the students would spend the period between seminar sessions partying.
Naturallly this did not include Robert the Virtuous. But I must admit that, while I sat in my bare cell lost in Transcendental Thoughts, my mind did wander away from the subject the Prof had talked about.
The pre-class talk would begin calmly and then get a little feverish.
“Did something come up with anything?”
“I didn’t, I had a big macro test and a hundred test papers to correct.”
“Me, neither. I had two basic economics classes to teach and tach-up work on my thesis and…”
Finally some honest man would respond, “You gotta be kidding! I just woke up inthe drunk tank two hours ago.”
He was in no shape to think up excuses.
So a Peter would pipe up and say, “Where’s Mark? He can always come up with SOMETHING.”
But the point here one I doubt any of you who have been in college or grad school can even imagine.
Ole Prof demanded that you THINK about something. Can you IMAGINE a modern professor getting grumpy if you didn’ try to THINK of somethine HE hadn’t spoon-fed you?
*** Since I called Peter a Pain and he took me on by changing his name here to Pain, it occurred to me that Peter Paine would make a great name for a character in a stoty.
Never saw the movie. Thanks for telling me what it was about. Eastwood sure is a tough guy. He sure can put on a tough looking face. I never met a cop like Dirty Harry. He fought with his own department and won all the time. What a guy! Must have taken a lot of guts to make a movie like “The Unforgiven.” Or could it have something to do with filthy lucre? Doesn’t sound like the kind of guy I like to ride the dusty plains with.
Comment by joe rorke —
A cop like Dirty Harry would be in prison, as you know.
Respectable conservative worship and drool over uniforms.
You and I both know that in the 1930s a general or a cop could be like MacAthur or Patton.
Patton actually fought a real gun-battle with Mexican bandits.
But a general today is not just a bureaucrat, he must be a particularly pathetic, groveling bureaucrat.
If you are a cop who aspires to scrambled eggs on your cap, you have to be an Olympic-class groveler.
I don’t make the rules, I just stayed alive by seeing them.
Back to Eastwood.
No, it wasn’t filthy lucre that caused “The Unforgiven.” He had gotten lots of bad reviews for his money-making movies so he decided to make one the critics would rave about.
So what how would any reasonably intelligent person make the New York Jews rave?
This ain’t brain surgery, gang.
We are dealing with people who are as predictable as an atomic clock.
New York Jews HATE the whole Legend of the West. They KEEP trying to prove that everbody at the Alamo was an abject coward.
You know that gunfight Patton had as a young man? That’s why he wore those sixguns. The movie Patton had nothing about it.
Patton, all alone — in the REAl world — shot down the charging Mexicans one by one. When the Mexican leader dropped his gun, Patton waited for him to pick it back up, and THEN shot him down.
This does not happen in a Woodie Allen film.
So how do you make a movie the New York Jews and their Faithful Goy Companions will rave about?
You make every white gentile in the Old West a Woody Allen, but without Woodie Allen’s honestly about what a coward he was.
That’s what Eastwood was after. The critics went nuts over the film with all the unpredictability of an atomic clock telling the time.
Eastwood is rich beyond anything he could ever need. He does NOT give all that money to charity.
Eastwood is now the darling of Serious Cinematic Criticism.
Neither of these statements makes him a moral paragon.
He is not after the Title of Paragon.
Eastwood got exactly what he wanted.
Do I approve?
A more meaningful question is:
Does Eastwood give a rip whether I approve or not?
If and when he calls and says, “Bob, do you approve of me?” I will let you know.
Don’t forget, this is an industry which needs us to survive! Without us nasty racists, they are out of buisiness. No wonder they seem so keen to make any white person who speaks for his race a racist, and anyone else who doesn’t really support multi-racialism a ‘latent’ or ‘closet’ racist.
They need us to survive, just as the Jews need racists, so they can be Jews. They need their enemies.
And in a sense, I think some of us need them.
Comment by Dennis
That reminds me of Gandalf in LOTR.
What if I get my little army and topple the Dark Lord the way I want to?
We can do it.
While all the obvious forces are in full array marching against the Enemy, we can destroy the evil ones
Why? Because they will be looking at the chest-beaters. None of them could imagine anyone would be willing to forego all the glory and hit them in hte one place that would be their ruin.
The Dark Lord was destroyed in the very place and with the very Ring it never occurred to him anyone would be willing to have the moral courage to destroy.
H was confident that everyone would see that the Ring was beautiful and precious.
No one would destroy it simply because it was Evil.
Let eerybody else array themselvea against the Powers That B
We will destroy them because they are laughable.
Gandalf said that his mission ended when the Dark Lord was destroyed, when the Third Age ended.
Could I live with that?
Put it another way:
With that, I could LIVE.
How would Morris Dees be able to increase his multimillion-dollar bankroll if we didn’t exist?
How would he gutsy Norman Finkelstein’s “Holocaust Industry” survive if they actually made good on their statement “There is no place for racism in America.”
A more basic question:
Do you think that anybody in the anti-racism industry today really CARES about white racism?
I am amused by all the people who shout how practical they are because “It’s all about money!” but at the same time they insist the other side is motivated by pure Idealism.
News item gang: The people who really hated us are mostly DEAD.
We are dealing with an INDUSTRY a lot of people who are making a living INHERITED.
Think about that and then get back to me on it.
Clint Eastwood made a movie called “The Unforgiven.”
He had made all those spaghetti westerns and Dirty Harry movies, so Eastwood decided to make a movie that all the critics would think was GREAT.
You have to give Eastwood credit for knowing what he is doing. He wanted all the critics to say all those other movies were just entertainment, but “The Unforgiven” was The Real Thing.
Keep in mind that the last person who could possibly know what The Real Thing was in the real west would be a New York movie critic.
Have you ever seen a Woodie Allen movie?
Absolutely every single whie person in “The Unforgiven,” including the one Clint Eastwood played, was a Woodie Allen clone.
All of them were absolute cowards. Clint’s character was a coward until he got drunk.
The only real hero in the movie was Eastwood’s Faithful Negro Companion. He never showed an ounce of fear. He was the martyr the evil sheriff totured to death and for whom Eastwood got drunk and killed the white gentiles for.
To say this movie was a critical success is a gross understatement. Whoever and Ebert pronounced it a truly realistic picture of the Old West, with which they were apparently intimately familiar.
Reality, realistic, true to life, all of New York praised the movie.
Eastwood made the movie precisely to get this bunch of retards to say that.
The slow season for news has traditionally been August. That’s probably still
true on a national basis.
There are a lot of small towns and small cities where most of the local clubs
don’t meet in June, July and at least the first half of August, but we’re in
an off-year election year and some states have very hot state and local races.
A press release isn’t _hard_ to write. However, there are some requirements,
such as prominently listing a point of contact and his or her _current_
contact information. Sending any picture files less than 300 dpi is a waste
as they won’t print well.
Comment by Elizabeth
I was talking with a lady in her seventies, and we share a certain wonder.
She said that I was breaking up on her cell phone, so she had to use her land line.
This will not strike you younger folks as anything strange, but it gave me a revelation.
When I called her on her land line, I pointed out that she and I knew what a “land line” IS.
I then said, “You know, when you and I were kids, it would never occurred to us that we would do more learning after age sixty than we did when we were six years old.”
Land line, attachment, DVD as opposed to VCR, Favorites, Page Up, download, upload, you don’t have the room on a floppy disk (which NEVER flops) so you have to use the E drive, remember that you need a CD-R disk for that, you hit “Quote” when any fool know you should have hit “New Thread.”
And on and on and on.
Every word of this would have been Greek to us a decade ago.
So we LOVE to complain about it.
What you young people may find hard to believe is that we enjoy the HELL out of all this.
We exercise the human prerogative of bitching, but we wouldn’t have it any other way.
When we were young, learning consisted of repetition.
You can recite the ABCs today. But you cannot remember what an agony it was to repeat them and repeat them and repeat them.
If you want to torture a child, you can put them on the rack or you can make them mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over.
Which one is crueler?
It’s a toss-up.
Remember the boredom you experienced when learning the multiplication tables?
Of course you don’t.
Memory blocks out agony like that.
Remember the pain of each baby tooth coming out?
Us old folks bitch and complain about how Kindergarten kids find computers natural, while we have to grunt and groan to learn them.
Us old folks love to groan about how much energy kids have and how slow we are.
But would we would have it any other way?
Try taking away a child’s natural energy and who would attack you violently?
Young people learn this modern stuff easily. It’s WORK for us.
We love to bitch about it.
But if you tried to even things out by making it harder on the kids, we’d kill you.
A Florida TV station has begun regular attacks on Stormfront.
Paul Weyrich wrote a piece in my “New Right Papers” in 1982 that every person who wants to know REAL politics should read. It is Bob’s favorite kind of stuff, common sense from a pro who has DONE what he is talking about.
Paul wrote about how he got through to the media.
First of all he talked about how, when he first got to Washington, conservatives were all of the “All Is Lost!” school. The media was all leftist and they had given up on trying to get their message out.
Paul certainly knew the media was against him, but he also noticed that “All Is Lost!” conservatives were doing an AWFUL job of dealing with them.
So Paul analyzed what the media might publicize.
You see, the media are in a rough, competitive business. So what you do is give them something to compete with.
For example, you get to know when the slow season for news is. You time your announcements for slow periods when they NEED anything they can get that won’t put readers or watchers to sleep.
That never occurred to regular conservatives. They were too busy convincing each other that “All Is Lost.”
He gave them press kits.
Normally a conservative would do a press conference and then try to fend off questions like, “Where is your money coming from?”
Paul would say, “That’s in your press kit, fellows. Why don’t you read it?”
A press kit also does their writing for them.
I keep pointing out that the one time my picture was on the front page of the New York Times was when I really didn’t FIT there. The story was about YOUNG Reagan appointees and I was 41. But htey used my picture anyway and didn’t mention my age.
Because the writer desperately NEEDED the lines I had given him. My stuff made his article INTERESTING.
The New York Times was not one of those publications that were desperate to put Bob Whitaker on the front page. But I had learned from Weyrich that if you say things that keep readers AWAKE, the most astonishing people will feature you.
I listen good. Paul’s advice got me in a lot of places, but a picture onthe front page of the New York Times is my prize trophy from Paul.
The media have a hell of a problem with white survivalism.
On the one hand, it is FASCINATING to readers, and in fact minorities are likely to be more fascinated by it than white readers.
Furious, but interested. And “interested” sells papers.
You know all those movies about Evil Nazis?
The usual explanation for this is that “ALL Is Lost!” (AIL). The AIL crowd has a point. They say that the reason the media concentrates on Nazis is because they don’t want to denounced leftists like Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung.
But, using the Weyrich formula, I realized something ELSE about Evil Nazis.
Down here on earth, folks don’t like to look at UGLY people.
You never see an Evil Nazi who not absolutely beautiful.
The women are all wildly beautiful unapologetic, wonderfully built blond Nordics dressed to the nines. The men are all six feet something, blond, blue-eyed and their uniforms are starched and their hair is perfectly combed.
Where else can you show people like that except in a show about how evil Nazis? Nobody ever asked for racial balance in a show about Nazis.
Nobody wants to look at ugly Communists.
So the media are faced with the fact that everybody knows race and immigration are the elephants in the living room. If they talk about THAT, they can keep their audiences not only AWAKE, but fascinated.
We need to think about how they can do what they need to do.
Why is that Florida station hammering on SF? Obviously it INTERESTS people.
The AIL group will moan about, “This is all anti stuff.”
But you give an old pro like me a way to get publicity, and I’ll go after it like a wolf after raw meat.
They want what we have to offer so desperately it is hard to conceive of. We are NEWS.
Which is why I get so desperately frustrated when one of us spends his time joining the millions bitching ahout George Bush and Iraq.
Let me introduce you to something basic: at all times and in all societies, the establishment media does not LIKE real revolutionaries.
Can we all learn to live with that fact?
All the publicity we get will be “anti stuff.”
No revolution ever succeeded by depending on the good will of those in power.
We need publicity.
If we do it right, we have more potential publicity than we can imagine.
All of it negative.
Those who hate us will still hate us, but they will see we are a growing power.
But a lot of people will LIKE us. They hate the media, too.
As a pro, I see a wide-open road.
Is there any way on earth I can persuade SOMEBODY to help me go down it?
Ok, back to why George Bush is a meanie.
On George Washington, Shari says:
NOT SPAM Maybe the best spot to be in, is one that can RECOGNIZE smart and stupid, without being one way or the other too much themselves. Of course honesty would be nessesary in such a spot.
Comment by Shari
Shari, PLEASE put the NOT SPAM at the top as a separate sentence, the way Antonio does.
I would much rather not have attention deficit, but the next best thing to not having it is finding ways to DEAL with it.
Your mention of honesty goes right to the heart of the matter.
I have repeatedly mentioned that two of my professors in grad school won the Nobel Prize in economics.
One of them won it by pointing out that an honest society is an EFFICIENT society. The less time you spend on figuring out how to say what you are saying, how to deal with people who are trying to trick you, the more you can concentrate on DOING things.
He used a lot of calculus equations and stuff, but only in order to get a bunch of dumbass “intellectuals” to see this as an insight they never thought of.
Now let’s go away from the True Intellectuals and get down to the Bob level.
You remember when I accidentally insulted Peter by saying he was a Pain? It didn’t occur to me he might take it as an insult because I obviously respect the hell out of him.
But Ole Bob is just a little odd, and sometimes his statements don’t come out well in translation by normal human beings like Peter.
By the same token, a lot of people will go ballistic when I point out that George Washington was not all that bright.
George himself might have shot me for that, but my reasoning is, “If you’re George Washington, why would you care whether somebody says you would score high on an IQ test?”
Shari emphasized honesty.
When I said he was “not bright,” I was emphasizing moral courage.
If GW had appointed a bunch of intellectual demigods to his first cabinet, it could have just meant that he knew he was smarter than they were.
You cannot have the awe I do of the man unless you realize that he was not all that IQ smart and he knew it. Everybody who assumes that GW was an IQ genius ignores the fact that he really didn’t give a damn about it.
If you think that way, you are ignoring his MORAL COURAGE.
This was a man who was writing letters during the Revolution about what land might be good to buy after the war was over.
GW did NOT write, “This would be a good investment if I am not hanged or assassinated or killed in action or have to spend the restof my life as a propertyless guerilla.”
He was able to write those letters with all that hanging over his head.
I couldn’t have done it.
Shari mentioned honesty. My professor Robert Chesen got a Nobel Prize for discussing that little point.
Nobody ever notices that a second-rate man hires second-rate people. He is worried about making himself look good.
This never occurred to GW, exactly as it never occurred to him to write, “This would be a good investment if I am not hanged or assassinated or killed in action or have to spend the restof my life as a propertyless guerilla.”
We all take it for granted that Washington knew he needed the transcendental geniuses like Franklin, Hamilton and Jefferson to run his country.
Moral courage like that BUILT this country.
The total moral cowardice of the group that calls itself The Greatest Generation is what we are trying to save our country and our race FROM.
You know the role of modern physics has expanded to the point where it encompasses much of chemistry, cosmology, astronomy and even certain subspecialties of biology.
There’s hardly a problem today that can’t be reduced to the spin of a proton.
Wouldn’t it be funny if one day in the future genetic engineering and nanotech made the roles of philosopher, lawyer and judge redundant because the physician could cure evil by programming it away?
Comment by Antonio Fini
I leave in the NOT SPAM because I NEED it.
Antonio knows very well that what he predicts in the second paragraph is EXACTLY what is going to happen.
On his first paragraph, Antonio knows that protons don’t spin.*
But the second paragraph really gets to the point of the piece Antonio is talking about.
Grown men running around in black robes and academic gowns and dictating reality is silly.
You only need robes when you have to act like you have something special to say and you don’t.
The only reason an adult runs around in a robe is because the questions they are dealing with have not been subjected to serious, definitive questioning yet. A serious physicist can walk around buck naked wihtout it making any difference to whether he is right or wrong.
* Yes, in some of the hundreds of versions of string theory, you could argue they do spin. But you would be astonished to know how few people worry about that.
Budarick points out:
I don’t aggree with you when you say the race problem is primary to the Jewish problem.
I know the Jews are scared of any racially conscious society, but that is not my point.
So long as the Jews control how most of us feel and think, the Jewish problem is the only one we have and MUST RESOLVE. And also in many different domains such as economics, philosphy, the arts and how they propose to wage premptive nuclear war, which no sane Aryan would ever contempleate without a prefound awareness of the possible consequences.
If we did not have the Jewish problem then in my view our natural racial discriminatory instincts would lead us to healthy normal responses, and furthermore in my opinion, those healthy normal responses would certainly NOT lead us to commit genocide on blacks or other races [as the Jews are doing to us and to the Palestinians].
That leads me to the other point i wish to make, being that discrimination does NOT lead to the abuse of those descriminated, but rather could be seen proactively, in that it empowers the descriminator to effectively help those of other races [because we see clearly in what ways they are different and how their needs are different to ours].
How could we help another race or culture without discrimination?
And isn’t that what White Aryans have always done?
But the Jews seek to prevent that Christian approach we have always had in the past, because they want maximum conflict between races. And if we sudy it, it is quite clever what they are doing.
If it was not for the Jews [who i claim now rule the world - am i wrong or deluded?] we would not have the race problem!
We would still have many problems, as is the nature of life, but it would be as America and Australia was before the Jews took us over.
But we can’t return to the past.
Jewish world dominion is now the base reality of 2006.
We need to be able to discuss it sensibly.
Comment by PeterGene Budarick
You made me realize how I may be misunderstood when I keep criticizing too much emphasis on the Jewish Problem, by which I mean THE PROBLEM JEWISH LEADERSHIP HAVE MADE OF THEMSELVES.
Every point you make is the kind of comment that makes the Blog worth while.
But the question, what can WE do about it?
By WE I do not mean white gentiles in general,
By WE I do not mean all white preservationists.
By WE I mean the tiny and precious group of Bob’s Bloggers and the tiny shred of Stormfront that doesnot just say, “Bob, you’re right” or Bob, you’re wrong” but those who take what I write the way I do, as advice from a professional wholey dedicated tot he preservation of our race and finding arguments and means to accomplish it.
By WE I mean the few who don’t just read what I say and worry about whether I was nice enough to somebody, but those who THINK about what I SAID as a tool for fighting their fight.
That is why I am so upset when a potential member of WE gets sidetracked on W’s stinky feet or on Iraq or on Jews in general.
On Bush or Iraq, they just get lost in the choruse of millions. On the Jewish Question, we already have giants like David Duke and Kevin MacDonald. We have the whole Islamic world.
For this WE to spend its resources on the Jewish Question is exactly like a German soldier on the Western Front lying awake all night worrying about the invasion of Russia.
You would not find a single German general in either World War who would say, “Forget Russia, it doesn’t matter.”
But EVERY German general would have said, “If you lay awake worrying about Russia, you’ll be groggy and get your head blown off in the battle you need to concentrate on.”
At this moment, our resources ar dedicated almost entirely to the front you are talking about. We desperately need more people repeating Bob’s Mantra.
It will be a long cold day in You Know Where before the number of people who join me in the the work I am doing actually cuts into the hordes who are fighting on the Jewish Front.
When that day comes, I will change my tune.
First you have to read the piece I wrote below.
The reason other disciplines were so upset about economists who branched out into Public Choice was because they were no longer just economists. They stopped just talking about supply and demand and started acting like experts on the whole subject of life as a balance.
Let us first acknowledge that the critics’ fears were perfectly justified. Public Choice now pervades every social science.
The reason Hippocrates’s Do No Harm is so popular is because it limits doctors to making choices about how to keep a person’s heart beating for a maximum period of time.
At present, the only function Medical Ethics has is to keep a person functioning physically for as long as possible.
Here is crucial difference:
A physician’s only ethical obligation is to keep a body functioning physically, something which is measurable for the maximum period of time, something else that is measurable.
A theoretical human being would find that satisfactory. A theoretical Economic Man only wants to make as much money as he can. A theoretical Do No Harm human is only interested in keeping his physical functions measurable for as long a period as possiblw.
But there are a lot of us who are not Economic Men or Do No Harm beings.
What about US?
The argument for the Do No Harm approach is that doctors can just remain physicians. They don’t have to make any calls except those that relate to keeping you physically functioning.
Pro-lifers and other tell us that if doctors broke out of the Do No Harm bit the way economists broke out of the Economic Man bit, they would have to make some IMPORTANT decisions.
It wouldn’t just be life and death any more.
Is this life WORTH living?
Such a question was once in the hands of theologians — you know, the folks who brought us the Inquisition.
The Spaniards have a saying, “If life were worth living, we would not need so many philosophers.”
So if life is horrible, you can’t end it because you will go to Hell.
The fact is that Collective Decisions/Public Choice was an inevitable developement.
Economists had to break out of suply and demand.
They wil make a mess of it, of course, butit is hard to imagine how they can make more of a mess of it than the Marxists did with the Economic Man.
Doctors in the twenty-first century will have to break out of this Do No Harm nonsense.
They will make a mess of it.
But it is hard to imagine theycould make more of a mess of it than the theologians did.
When I took my first economics course, the first proposition was The Economic Man.
The Economic Man was theoretical being whose only interest was maximizing his income. The course then went on to explain how, in a world of supply and demand, this Economic Man would maximize his income.
The Economic Man was very useful. Once you posited a human being whose only interest was in making money, you could then go on to showing, in terms of supply and demand, HOW this theoretical person would maximize his income in a world of pure supply and demand.
All this was fine until people started taking The Economic Man SERIOUSLY.
Ayn Rand built a whole world of Economic Men and Women who maximized their incomes and had no children. As every parent will testify if you want to end up with the maximum amount of personal assets, the LAST thing you will do is have children.
Socialists took the Economic Man seriously, too. They said that total output would be maximized if “intellectuals” told everybody what to produce and how.
Then came Public Choice, originally called Collective Decisions. It began with the obvious statement that there is no such thing as an Economic Man.
This gets so childishly basic it is hard now to explain what a revolution it was at the time.
It began with the idea that a person earns money to BUY things.
One of the things a person will buy is liesure time.
The Economic Man never bought liesure time. He only wanted money.
Economists were very worried ahout this whole concept of a non-Economic Man.
Here I run into the problem I always have when trying to explain what Mommy Professor believed fifty years ago. You think I am joking.
But the idea was that if you did not posit The Economic Man, economics would turn into something beside the nice safe area of supply and demand. Once you start talking about a human being as someone who wants more than money, a real human being who balances priorities, you are n o longer just an economist.
Psychologists and sociologists began to reaise hell about this new field of Public Choice.
The first person to ask me to be a discussant on academic papers was a sociologist at the University of Chicago.
Public Choice uses suply and demand to go into how a person leads a balanced life. It becomes sociology, psychology, philosophy.
All the other social sciences who worried that economists would get out of their safely bordered world of supply and demandwere right. But we’re out of htat stage now and Nobel Prizes are awarded in Public Choice, and nothing shows something is accepted by the least imaginative minds than a Nobel Prize.
So we grew out of The Economic Man crap a generation ago.
Today we still have a medical ethic based on Do No Harm.
Do No Harm to WHAT?
Do No Harm goes back to Hippocrates. The idea is that the first rule a doctor must follow is not to HARM his patient.
For couple of millennnia doctors treated patients by taking our an unsterilized knife they had recently used on somebody with smallpox and using it to cut their veins and take out a quarrt or so of blood.
In emergency cases they would take out two quarts.
I do not possess an MD degree, but I strongly suspect they were Doing Some Harm.
But it never occured to any of them to check and see if they were doing any harm.
Today, Do No Harm means that you do not cause a patient to be in danger of his life.
There is an exact parallel between Do No Harm and The Economic Man.
The Economic Man was based on the idea of a person who had no object in life except to maximize his income.
Do No Harm is based onthe concept of a human being whose only motivation is to maximize the number of years his heart keeps beating.
One assumes that an Economic Man would not have the slightest happiness in his life. For most people, working day and night would be miserable.
One assumes that a person whose only goal is to keep his heart beating for the maximum period would be miserable.
The economist has his supply and demand and the doctor has his Ethics.