Archive for June, 2007

Whitaker Thinking

The example below, Hardric’s “transition from Petty politics to Racial Politics” represents EXACTLY what I am trying to produce here.

Someone made a joke about whitakerism since I object so much to a Wordist Whitakerism. But as I was on the trip to New York playing possum in the back of the van, someone said something and then said proudly, “Now THAT’S Whitaker thinking!”

I realized that what I am trying to get to here is Whitaker thinking. A Whitakerism would exclude OTHER thoughts, as Wordism always does. But Whitaker thinking can be used by an evolutionist or a creationist, by either of just about any two sides in a discussion.

Hardric gave a new phrase to Whitaker thinking. But if you USE Whitaker thinking, you will realize that the LAST thing I want to claim is that my thinking is NEW.

Gravity was OLD when Isaac Newton was born. Ask anyone doing the work building the pyramids and he would have said, “Yes, I did notice gravity from time to time.” The Law of Displacement was in action when the only things floating on earth were on hot lava, but Archimedes came up with that explanation for floating ships billions of years later.

Occam’s Razor, that one should look for the first and simplest cause first, was in operation when the first nerve cell appeared on earth. But when the brain got a certain size, they began seeking complicated solutions first. Occam’s Razor is the basis of Western science, but it is also a return, literally, to horse sense.

Whitaker thinking is no substitute for knowledge or experience. It is an ADDITION.

The gravitational system of Newton is SIMPLE, but it is not EASY. Europe’s greatest minds were still finding its implications and working out its mathematics for a century afterwards. You can state the Laws of Physics in a few sentences, but it takes a little longer to become a physicist.

Whitaker thinking is probably a subset of Occam’s Law in social areas. But its implications goon and on, and it is not based on faith. When a subject comes up, you can try it. If it doesn’t fit, screw it. Don’t try to cram the universe into it.

I am going to try to give some of the basic rules of Whitaker thinking. I am sure it took Occam a long time to figure his objections to Scholastic Philosophy down to one sentence, and I am not even sure HE is the one who did it.

SOME rules of Whitaker thinking are:

1) WHY did that person say ANYTHING? We know to ask that about commercials, but we seem to go blank about it in everyday life;

2) LISTEN to what a person says and SEE all the assumptions he is making. For two generations we have heard people demand immigration into ALL white countries and ONLY white countries all our countries. We have heard the question asked routinely asked, “Is Eastern Europe READY for immigration YET?” But only with Bob’s Mantra did the IMPLICATIONS of this thinking get targeted.

There are lots more. Some are below, and I will be going into more with more specificity. But by now I should NOT be doing this ALONE.

7 Comments

Petty Politics to Racial Politics!

Hardric has comeup with one of those lines that only appear HERE!

“… the transition from Petty Politics to Racial Politics…”

That is DYNAMITE!

No Comments

Hardric Versus the Swamp

mderpelding says:
There is one problem with this whole discussion.
The concepts of left and right and liberal and conservative and republican and democrat all have NO MEANING. If you are still discussing our political/existential situation in those terms you are STILL part of the problem.

All those above terms are meaningless and deadly in a multiracial polity. You have minorities practicing racial politics behind the facade of unity politics.

Ah, yes, the political terminology of yesteryear. We can, nevertheless, in this transition period from Petty Party Politics to Racial Politics, use these terms to suit our needs. Conservative? If you want to categorize verbose fools of the William Buckley School, include a racial adjective and an additional: “Respectable White Conservative Fools.” Bring race into the picture.

Are you a Respectable White Conservative Fool? Nice to meet you, anytime you want to get serious about the future we must have a chit chat.

ME:

Thanks, Hardric, for getting us out of the swamp.

I talked about the swamp before. What I have to say here is difficult to explain. So when someone starts critiquing the only language I have at my disposal, all it does is trip me up. I end up neck-deep in the swamp, off track.

It is like when I try to explain the nature of power as I understand it, which is my function in BUGS, and somebody informs me that the other side is very large and very powerful or gives me another lecture about how this is a RACIAL struggle or any of a hundred ways to sound profound and get the discussion off track.

Our problem with Stormfront is that it is at least 90% swamp.

WE cannot do anything about the white birth rate, so Al’s telling me we might as well close up shop if whites don’t have more children is pure swamp stuff. It’s certainly a concern. The question is whether it is a concern that we should deal with HERE, or is it just taking attention off of what we CAN do something about?

4 Comments

As Opposed to What?

Just a couple of entries back, in “An Intellectual Exercise: Why Money Doesn’t Buy Power” I went over some of the basic ways of thought I am trying to inculcate here. Now that the seminar is carrying itself I am free to go back over the basics that have developed here.

Before the Masturbation Generation, slogans like Peace and Freedom and Anti-Racism met solid criticism. Only with the screaming Jews of the sixties were grownups able to use phrases like this freely in America. Screaming Peace and Freedom was the hallmark of the Love Generation that used to call families of troops in Nam and tell them falsely that their son had been killed in action and other Love-like actions.

I reached my twenties in the 60s so that period is fresh in my mind. It was everything hateful and stupid proclaimed as Idealism. And I SAW where it was going.

And the simple rule here is that the question is NEVER “What is wrong with Love and Brotherhood?” The question is “What is wrong with MY VERSION of Love and Brotherhood?”

FORTY YEARS LATER, Bloomburg, a former media insider, explained this attitude in his book “Bias.” Bloomburg said that the media moguls don’t gather together each morning and say, “What will we do for our leftist agenda today?”

They don’t know it’s an agenda. More specifically, and more correctly, they don’t know there is any OTHER agenda but their own. To them, there is either gun control or gun nuts. There is no QUESTION that there is a QUESTION.

Which is why we use the Mantra. The Mantra begins where people ARE. People in general are not aware that there IS a question when it comes to white survival. Most conservatives are exactly like the media when it comes to liberalism: There is either goodness or evil racism.

Since the total wimp-out of the Masturbation Generation our first job is to remind the world that there ARE questions. As Dave points out, Political Correctness is nothing but bullying, and the Masturbation Generation with it World War II obedience training allowed bullies to take over completely.

Point 1 is that we must now concentrate on standing on our feet and making it clear that there IS another side. But there is a second step.

From now on NO ONE can be allowed to use words like brotherhood and nonviolence and peace without being faced down. They MUST use the words, “what IN MY OPINION is love, brotherhood, nonviolence, anti-racism.” Those three words would make political debate SANE.

You cannot make a living as a respectable conservative if you ask, “What IS racism?” I have heard the question asked, but no one EVER presses for an answer. “Racism” is an in dispensable part of the Politically Correct bullying process. To question it is to DESTROY it.

Today only respectable conservatives stand between Political Correctness and its destruction. The day that the forces of Political Correctness are forced to use the three words IN MY OPINION is the day PC will become history.

7 Comments

BUGS: A Twenty-First Century Location

My cell phone store is less than a block from the church where my parents were buried, in 1958 and 1961 respectively. As I was looking at the graves and the house my father built in memory of my mother for the church, I thought abut the cell phone on my belt.

As I walked out of the store with the cell phone on my belt, I remembered very well when my parents and I saw a real technological advance in personal communication: WE went from an eight-party line to a private line.

I remember that we couldn’t use the phone if any of the other seven parties were on the line. I remember that, in order to call anyone ELSE on the party line, and everyone else was at least a mile away, you dialed 1191and hung up the phone. It rang for all seven others and you waited until the ringing stopped and got on the line and you might have four different people who had answered. You talked to the one you were calling and the others hung up.

So the private line was quite an advance.

In a huge house there would be ONE telephone, as you can see in all the old movies. A separate phone meant a separate line, and that was an extravagance even the rich didn’t consider worth having.

I then went by the church to check on the graves and look at the building my father built in memory of my mother, which is now the Boy Scout meeting place. It looks better and will last longer than the ten-year old new church building and will be fifty years old next year. But the brick and the brick work is, needless to say, the best there is.

As for the graves, I had stood in the same spot for two funerals in a time I remember so well and that everyone else has forgotten. Practically nothing that people said in 1959 and 1961 is remembered today. But practically everything that we take for granted today is based on that FORGOTTEN thinking.

But for now let’s stick with the contrast between my cell phone and the modern 1950s miracle of private lines out in Pontiac, SC.

I was just watching a modern version of the old scifi show “The Outer Limits” on the Sci-Fi Channel This 1980s version still has, “We are in control of your television set. We control the horizontal. We control the vertical.”

I have a disk of “The Simpson’s Halloween Special” that has the same take-off with the same words in one episode, “Do not adjust your television….We control the vertical. We control the Horizontal.”

The obvious question to anyone born after 1960 would, “What the HELL is the horizontal and the vertical?” People know abut THAT, but they don’t remember any of the thinking of that same period.
Do you remember that the old “Police Squad” movies starring Leslie Nielsen had OJ Simpson as his sidekick Nordberg? When it was on television about 1980, “Police Squad” had, as a joke, the words, “Police Squad — IN COLOR!” A quarter century after my parents were buried this was still familiar enough to be joke, since by then all shows had long since been in color. But neither of my parents ever saw a color TV show.

When my parents were buried, you could not take your driver’s license exam in a car that had an automatic shift. You had to bring a car that had the “real” three forward gears on the steering wheel.

Eight years before my parents died, you could not drive anywhere without knowing exactly where Charlotte, North Carolina was. It had the only television station anyone could get from Columbia until after 1950 and you had to have a tower on top of your house to get it. On top of everything from mansions to shacks there was a metal tower aimed straight at Charlotte.

About the time our eight-party line became private all three networks set up stations in Columbia.

In 1953 I acquired my first amateur radio license. I had a hundred-foot wire antenna stretched and I could, using Morse Code, converse with other people, all by myself, in Tennessee and North Carolina with ease. But that took LOTS of work to get a special license and you built the station yourself. But at that time, I was one of the few people in my area who knew ham radio existed, much less having a license.

Today I am one of less than half a dozen people in South Carolina who has an Alcor bracelet on my am to be frozen at death. The idea of being “brought back” today from freezing is less absurd than a heart transplant when I buried my father, who died of a heart attack that would make him an outpatient today.

The idea of a WhitakerOnline where I cannot tell what CONTINENT a person is writing contrasts with my very advanced hundred-foot antenna.

So Whitaker Online is written in terms of a century when a modular man will be routine, a human being who will simply replace ANYTHING that wears out.

I remember that, into the middle 1950s, my father would sometimes say to me, “Bobby, go over to the Rosses and tell them …” and my mother would always remind him, “Whit, we have a PHONE for that.”

The Rosses lived exactly 1.1 miles away.

My parents are buried at that Methodist Church because that was their community. It was and had been for a thousand years the only place where adults CAME TOGETHER every week for anything but work.

I will not be buried. I come together with those who share my beliefs DAILY. And this is just the beginning.

If you think you can conduct politics or religion or anything else the same way now as you did then, maybe you need a long rest.

12 Comments

mderpelding

Real economics:

You can buy a Krupp.

You can’t buy a Hitler.

Put another way:

An expert postulates the existance of “A.”
This expert builds a machine to sense “A.”
The machine dutifully senses “A.”
The expert wins public accolade because he has proven the existance of “A.”

The above is the template for most modern science of any sort.
Political, social, biological, whatever.

A recap…

Lots of people know who Hitler is.
How many recognize Krupp?

1 Comment

Dave

Anyone with real skills in science and research is unlikely to succumb to any type of bullying.

Political Correctness is a brand of bullying, that’s all it is.

There are two types of bullies. The first type is narcissistic. These are essentially juveniles (regardless of age) who are easy to defeat. This is because they don’t even know where power begins and are never realistic about what is actually going on.

The second type of bully is a realist. They are several orders harder to deal with. They are absolutely cynical and hard headed in everything they do. These are the true promoters of Political Correctness and any form of “correctness” will do for them.

The “Greatest Generation” had no street smarts, was favored by an affluence that was not of their doing, and accordingly was easy prey for the second type of bully. If life were harsher for them, they would have been more prone to stand up to the second type of bully.

I think one of the greatest mistakes that revolutionaries continually make is failure to accurately identify the second type of bully for attacks.

A policy of attacking only the truly guilty is critical and tragically almost always ignored.

2 Comments

An Intellectual Exercise: Why Money Doesn’t Buy Power

As an experienced old man, I have a set of basic rules about human behavior which are useful for anyone to take into account. That is what I want you to absorb.

Let’s take “money buys power” and run it through my way of thinking:

1) A person who has little or no money will tell you all about how rich people get rich;

2) A person without power will be glad to explain to you about where all the power is, who has it, and how they got it.

3) A person who has neither power nor money will tell you that money = power.

4) NOW TO A REALLY BASIC RULE OF LIFE:

Any opinion which is explicable is probably WRONG.

We take this for granted every time we watch a commercial or an infomercial: This person is trying to sell me something, so he is not being completely truthful with me.
But since our Obedience Training in World War II, this rules ends right there. We have things called “professional objectivity” and “peer review,” both of which should make a rational person laugh out loud.

A lawyer or a doctor may not be trying to SELL you a specific product, but they have a very definite idea about WHO should end up with a huge share of the money and power. Social science professors are the same way.

In fact, my main view of the future is a battle I talked about in my first book over thirty years ago, but which no one is aware is developing. It is the war between social science and hard science.

This latter combines my rule on EXPLICABLE opinions versus simple truth. We all know that hard science is pretty reliable (Pace SysOps) until it begins to conflict with social science. Then the “scientist” who wants to keep his job bends over backwards and lies with absolute shamelessness. That is because the only excuse social scientists have for demanding power and money is their doctrine of Political Correctness, and since professors rule campuses, it has been easy for hard science to stay out of PC’s way.

Until now. But the power to bring endless life and happiness, once the province of the theologians and now the province of Political Correctness and Marxism or Libertarianism is becoming REAL. And hard science will have it.

It is as simple as that.

Just as science could not continue under the rigid rule of theologians, it cannot go ahead under the rules of PC. The conflict is just in a few areas now, and is hardly noticed. But what makes the future is NEVER noticed in the present.

Which leads us back to anther basic thought: Opinions which are EXPLICABLE are not true. Which is why the field of Futurology is a bad joke. What does Futurology EXPLAIN? Does it have anything to do with explaining the FUTURE?

Of course not! Futurology depends on funding and publication TODAY. A professional Futurologist must predict a future which will hit the mass media and appeal to the “peer review” committees that give out money TODAY. All Futurist predictions are explicable in those terms. I gave you a good example of this by telling you why demography is known among sane economists as “panic science.” Population predictions that make it to the media and produce movies like Soylent Green get fame and funding,

And this leads me back to the original subject. Why does money NOT buy power? For the exact same reason that Futurology money produces nothing but misinformation about the real future. Funding produces experts who tell rich people how to influence “the people,” but those “people” are as alien to real people as any E.T. They are “the people” Marxists talk abut, “the people” professors talk about, and therefore “the people” that the rich believe in. Just how many members of “the working class” she has talked about all her life has Jane Fonda ever LISTENED to?

This rule was stated LONG before Bob discovered it: “No one ever tells the truth to a rich man or a beautiful woman.”

.

8 Comments