Posted by Bob on January 6, 2006 at 8:24 pm

Has there ever been a book with this title?

According to all the “moral” teachers, there is no such thing as genetic morality.

There is a lot of disagreement on how much human life is influenced by our genes. Right after World War II the dream world of social science was science. That is, all human life was entirely a product of environment.

Hitler was for heredity so the World War II generation went to colleges that taught that the future was entirely a product of education, sociology, political science, historical determinism, in other words the social sciences.

Thirty years ago I pointed this out in detail in my first book in my own name.

Environment IS social science. Leaving heredity and environment to social scientists is exactly like leaving the price of steel up to the Steel Trust. So the Weakest Generation, fresh from obedience training, was trained that heredity was nothing.

To every church that I am aware of, the term “genetic morality” is an oxymoron. If you are intelligent, you should spend your time on theology, not on having or raising children.

Chilren are a byproduct. You are not responsible for helping better people pass their GENES on, genes future generations will desperately need.

The first rule of post-World War II thinking is that there is no moral dimension whatsoever to genetics.

The discussion begins and ends with “some Hitlerites would say one should have BETTER children, WHATEVER “BETTER” Means.”

This is supposed to get rid of the whole argument and get us back to social programs and adopting the third world into the United States.

But when it comes to social science, there is never the slightest doubt as to what “better” means.

Look at the person who tells you, “Looks don’t matter.” How much do their clothes cost? Are they only wearing a minimum regardless of fashion or how the clothes look. I had a woman once tell me looks don’t matter but she had to end the conversation because she had an appointment at the beauty salon.

You see, the social scientists HAS to know what is “better” or he will not be able to make a living teaching students how they can achieve that “better” by putting money into social programs.

I am sure the lady who running the beauty salon will tell you that looks don’t matter. I am sure the high-end clothing store owners are putting money into programs based on the premise that there is no such thing as “better” looking children.

O’Reilly demands that test scores and not race should be the determinant of who gets into school. But, since his degree is in education, he will also tell you that no child is innately smarter than any other child.

He SAYS that!

It isn’t true.

I am not speaking of theory here. I am speaking of MORALITY.

My morality is still Odinist. That which is not true is evil.

So Bob has a genetic morality.

That is why I object so strongly to the word “aristocracy” as used today. Aristocracy means rule by the best. It has nothing to do with naciocracy, which is rule by birth.

Even social scientists now have to admit that heredity is important. Anything that is important to humanity has a MORAL dimension.

We are perfectly willing to restrict any human freedom to improve human beings by ENVIRONMENTAL means.

Except for libertarians. They just say they have no responsibility for anything.

I do not respect what passes for morality today because it has one blind eye. Everyone except extreme libertarians agree that businessmen do not have the right to do anything they want to to increase profits and they are perfectly willing to back the restrictions that are needed by force.

But anyone who is too irresponsible or unintelligent to keep down their number of children has a right to dump them on the rest of us. If countries can’t control their population, they have every right to dump them into vacant space left by white people.

But the critical point is NOT that this is not RIGHT. The point here is one no conservative and very few others have the guts to make.

The critical point is that this is IMMORAL.

No one dares to face down the screaming priest or preacher with this IMMORALITY.

If you do not have a genetic morality, you are an immoral person.

You can whip yourself in a Trappist Monastery or hold revivals or hold a professorship in Ethics at Harvard University. But you an immoral person if you do not have a clear-cut GENETIC morality.

On Judgment Day, I doubt seriously whether you will only be asked about your morality on one aspect of life and never questioned on the other.

The hungry will have to be fed in future generations. The naked will have to be clothed in the future. Only a genetically healthy society can do that. You can sacrifice and whip your skin off in this generation, but it won’t do the future any good.

All they will have is their genes.

There are only two excuses for ignoring a genetic morality:

1) The future won’t happen or

2) Genes really don’t matter.

Joe, I don’t think ANYBODY believes either of those things except those who expect Judgment Day in the near future.

But the environmentalists, whose whole program is based on the future, have no genetic morality at all.

This is not just wrong. It is immoral.

All the churches disagree. But they will not avoid being judged on the Golden Rule.

You can go to Hell straight through the church door.

All the philosophies and pretences at Ethics in the world and all the incantations of “HITLER!” cannot protect you from your moral obligation in this world or in the next.

Posted by Bob on June 24, 2006 at 1:01 pm

We have all heard the term “a ship of the line” from the days when Britain was in absolute command of the seas. The man who invented the “line ahead” formation that was so instrumental in giving Britannia true control over the waves has one especially interesting attribute. Not only did he never leave Britain, but he was never on a ship in his entire life, even in port.

The famous British redcoats got their uniform from Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army. Cromwell was in his middle age when he developed the New Model Army, training his troops in the methods Gustavus Adolphus had been using in the Thirty Years’ War before he was killed at, I believe, Lützen. The New Model Army, from its first day in battle, swept every opponent from the field. Cromwell always beat everybody.

Cromwell’s New Model was the basis of all British ground combat for about two centuries.

As I said, Cromwell was a middle-aged man before he led his New Model Army to its first victory. Before that, he had never been in the army, he had never been in a battle, he had never even HEARD a hostile shot fired.

One thing you are NOT going to see emphasized in a military history is that, when the British Empire was at its height and Britannia rules the waves, it might not have ruled anything without the techniques developed by complete military amateurs.

So let’s ask a question. Please note that this is 1) a question with so obvious an answer one feels silly asking it, and 2) a question absolutely no one ever considers when they look at history or anything else that doesn’t have the word “Advertisement” written all over it. That question is, “Why wouldn’t a military academy textbook emphasize that the developer of the line ahead formation and the New Model Army were both amateurs?

The obvious answer, so obvious it seems silly to state it, is that those who buy books for military academies want to emphasize how PROFESSIONAL military men are the only ones who know how to run an army or a navy.

This is rather obvious, but no one seems to take it into account. For example, when I was young I always heard that absolutely everything was created in the Cradle of Civilization, the Middle East. Even as a teenager, when this belief was absolute, it struck me as unlikely. The Middle East was made up of absolute, top to-bottom, rigid tyrannies. All intellectual life was owned by the priests. How could such a rigid tyranny invent NEW things?

It took me a while to realize WHY this doctrine ruled. It was taught in schools where the ability to read and write and do arithmetic were also taught. So history said that the societies that read and wrote and followed rules were the places where everything began and the only means by which truth triumphed over a mankind that was not better than the apes.

This was not a conscious choice. But that was the history schools at the time would obviously want so that was the history they got.

Isaac Asimov wrote his whole Foundation Trilogy in the early 1950s based on the idea that only an Empire could produce original ideas. After the Fall of Egypt or the Fall of Rome, history said, everything became stagnant and brutal and filthy until a new Empire based on scribes and bureaucracy came again. That is the absolute basis of the Foundation Trilogy, and it is exactly what everybody took to be true history in 1950.

The idea was that only a totally centralized bureaucratic state could INVENT things. New ideas only came from a rigid, bureaucratized state. It was assumed that the only argument against Communism, with everybody reporting Soviet leaps and bounds in production with every Five-Year Plan, was that it took away too much freedom.

No one doubted Communism was as successful as it claimed to be. It was just too mean about it.

Of course, everybody was wrong on every single point.

But how could you PREDICT they were wrong, when every statistic and historical instance and Future Inevitability they all the professionals announced said they were right? The way to do it would be to analyze each and every piece of information, each Theory of History, each Future Inevitably by ONE criterion:

Does anybody have a reason to WANT this to be true?

Professional scholars wanted it to be true that only a society which had a huge army of bureaucrats and scribes could accomplish anything. Asimov took this to a laughable extreme, but only laughable TODAY. At the time it was a sober analysis.

Intellectual life is an infomercial.

Treat it accordingly.

Posted by Bob on June 19, 2006 at 11:22 am

1) At the Council of Conservative Citizens, one speaker did a truly brilliant piece on how today’s system is run by sociopaths.

A sociopath is a person who is incapable of true feelings of guilt. He has no loyalties.

Later this speaker told me he had read about that somewhere and it had gotten him to thinking on this point.

I remember that he was reading whitakeronline almost from the day I started it in 1998.

If you will look at Whitakeronline, I talked about this at enormous length starting about 1999, and every year I spoke about it at length in different contexts.

But the speech he made, the thinking he had done about this, taught me an enormous amount. He gave an example about an employer he knew whose business was going through a hard time. But that employee is NOT a sociopath. He says that he simply cannot fire his friends, workers who have made the business what it is over the years.

This employer, like so many before him, will eventually be destroyed by his conscience. A sociopath will out compete him by simply throwing out all his old employees and giving his company to Mexico or bringing the Mexicans here.

He made a number of excellent observations and deductions about sociopathy which I will be telling you about later.

2) But let me proceed to the points that will be of use to you in this sequence.

Another person there is having his first experience in being a staffer. That is, the ideas be had been talking about to his chief went straight into his chief’s speeches. When you are new to that, you have an experience which is so normal, and happened to me so long ago, that it was quite an experience to hear it about to fresh from a person who has just had it.

By nature, staffing is an invisible business and unromantic. You will hear endless talk from The Greatest Generation about their first combat experience or from people about their first love affair, but everybody I talk to who is staff has been a professional staffer for a long time, so I believe this is the first time I ever heard anyone who made me nostalgic about staff work.

He said that when his boss hit on HIS points, he was very happy,but he wanted to jump up and say, “That’s MY point!”

Now back to point 1), this truly brilliant speech on the fact that racial treason is part and partial of the whole disease of a sociopathic society. Was I upset that the speaker got started with my ideas, which I had repeated and analyzed so many times so long ago?

The fact is that if I worried about people “stealing” my ideas I would have been sitting and drooling in a rubber room before many of you were born.

3) one of our Blog commenters was talking about my discussion of the drawback our present system of selecting political “commentators.”

The search for professional political commenters makes sure none of them are interesting. We have a professional political discussion community which is made up of liberals talking to each other and only allowing in conservatives who are “respectable.”

In other words, one cannot get PUBLIC exposure unless his every word can be predicted beforehand. They have no ideas, none at all. That is how you become a liberal or a respectable conservative.

But they have to find SOMETHING to say. So they have to “exploit” ideas from those of us outside the circle.

Which, with people like me around, can be made to destroy the whole PURPOSE for which this tight little circle was created in the first place.

I realized point 3) before 1960. But whereas the usual reaction to this is to bemoan it, I was not analyzing reality in order to complain about it.

In my teens I already had plenty of foreknowledge of how bad things would be.

I needed no new moaning material.

So I looked at this reality and decided to USE it. So I became an expert at reducing ideas down to the level where even conservatives could use them. My ideas had to be “stolen” to be used and made mainstream.

In other words I was a political staffer before I ever saw a professional staffer.

What I found was not the road to fame. This is the road to POWER.

Almost by definition, a political commentator has no power at all. If he isn’t saying the predictable there is a line waiting around the block to say it. He is famous because he has no power.

By the same token, the president has lots of fame but almost no power. If that particular man does not get his political position right to win office, someone else will. But the position has long since been mapped out.

By people like me.

People are always using political positioning as Moaning Material.

But where does this “positioning” come from? There is one “position” and another “position,” both too extreme for him to take. So he navigates in the exact right place between these “positions” before somebody else does.

That is the key to election. But there is no POWER in it at all.

Obviously no famous politician or political writer ever MAKES the political positions he is navigating between.

The Professional Moaners act as if this “positioning” was done between “positions” that came from nowhere. Like everything else, these positions were created.

By people like me.

If I become traceable I become famous.

AND powerless.

Posted by Bob on August 17, 2006 at 3:29 pm

I bragged that, if I had been on staff, I, alone, would have stopped the “assault rifles” ban.

Remember I just said John hired me as a man who would have ideas and carry them out. I would have brought in the film I was talking about, written out the testimony about the REAL Swiss assault weapons, and handed it all to him.

I do not know of anohter staffer who was given as much absolute free reign as I was. I would have laid, at blog length, the purpose of all this and asked John to handle it from there on. John would find a way to get it in front of the committee and he would have enjoyed every minute of it. He would find other congressment o get in on it.

John had his own little coterie of trouble-makers, including Bob Dornan. They all loved raising hell.

They were NOT love by the go-along-get-along conservatives.

We would have crushed that crap before it ever got out of committee.

I did that for a long list of stinkers.

That is what John Ashbrook HIRED me to do.

So there was no Secret Plot by Staffers to rule the congressman.

Never tell anybody this in a barroom or in a stump speech. They’ll go to sleep on you.

Posted by Bob on August 17, 2006 at 3:22 pm

William Rusher recommended me to John Ashbrook as a have-an-idea-and-do-it man.

When John hired me, he said, “Bob, I spend a hundred hours a week dealing with my constituent’s troubles, working out deals, answering roll calls, sitting in committee, all the things you know about. I don’t have time to THINK enough.”

“What I want you to do is get out there and think and give me the information and go for it.”

Now at this point the “POWER COMES FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN!” types are going to stop listening and say, “You SEE, I TOLD you congressmen were just puppets of their staff!”

I get so TIRED of crap like that. It’s great for a barroom, but not if you’re dealing in real POWER. What it is impossible to explain to people, the same electorate that MADE the mess in Washington, is that we are talking about the big leagues.

There is a substantial difference between the big leagues and a barroom. The mess in Washington is a result of people listening to the barroom because it’s more fun.

I chose to work for John Ashbrook, and on Capitol Hill there is no substitute for loyalty. You would be ASTONISHED how many staff members simply will not go along with something and resign rather than do it.
I know, I know, only the screaming old drunk in the barroom has any real principles, and all the drunks and voters agree with that.

Meanwhile, back on earth, a man who has been elected and reelected to congress can SMELL disloyalty. I did what I did by reading over what John had written to the point where I did his writing for him. But never once did I EVER try to manipulate him.

Once, when the bill to outlaw in vitro, which LATER resulted in over 20,000 healthy births to families who desperately wanted children, I told John face-to-face that if he, a committed prolifer, required me to work in favor of abolishing in vitro, I would have to resign. He told he was not ABOUT to.

John pointed out to me that, as usual, we thought just alike: we were PRO-LIFE, not just anti-abortion.

So maybe now you can understand why I never believe a WORD that the anti-abortion movement says about embryonic stem cells. You may not agree but you can see why I assume that they lie and that they are NOT pro-life. I assume that they are just theocratic nutcases.

All of this would bore a barroom crowd or a bunch of voters to death. But the big leagues operate on loyalty and, as I have said before, on KEEPING PROMISES.

No, I don’t mean keeping promises to VOTERS. You can do anything you want and a year later, unless the media really hate you, it will all be forgotten by the voters or drunks.

Let me repeat, this is the big leagues. You don’t keep promises to some clown who will forget everything he is shouting about tonight a week from now.

But even a repeatedly reelected congressman can be frozen out and lose everything if he is repeatedly dishonest with the other PROS. They REMEMBER. Their staff REMEMBERS.

You can lie to the kiddies, you SHOULD lie to the kiddies.

But NEVER lie to the grown-ups.

Power comes from HONESTY with those who expect it and will back it up.

Posted by Bob on August 13, 2006 at 9:43 pm

I knew Senator Helms. I cannot say Senator Helms was a friend if mine because, as I have explained below, I do not say that anybody is a friend of mine. I was a friend of HIS.

Back in my day, there was a practice in congress called “Giving money BACK.”

National Review worshiped Senator Proxmire, a hard-core leftist, for “giving money BACK.”

Senator Helms also bragged about “giving money back.”

Let me explain this to you.

“Giving money back” meant that a congressman or senator would not spend the funds provided for him by the Senate or the House of Representatives. He would cut his own staff, the people who served his constituency, and spend less than his budget.

The first word is “HOO.”

The second word is “RAY.”

What did “BACK mean?

Each year, Proxmire and Helms and all the others would announce to the retards that they were “giving money back to the taxpayers.”

Their constituents, being retards, cheered wildly.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the money they were “giving back” went back into the congressional budget. That meant that others got to spend it. Senator Kennedy had a complete Office of Technology on Capitol Hill that was financed entirely from the money conservatives announced they “gave back to the taxpayers.”

My boss, John Ashbrook, always said, “There is no way I’m giving money back. Every dime I get is going into fighting for our side. ”

But John was an outsider and apparently his constituents were not retards.

I remember once I brought a giant march to Washington. Thousands of supporters, mountains of publicity. But Helms’s staff simply was too overworked to deal with us. There were no extra staffer because he was “giving money back.”

Kennedy was using the money.

Helms knew that this giving money back was insane. Would even his retard constituents have sung his praises if he had said, “I am not going to use half my Senate VOTES. I am going to GIVE THEM BACK.”

If he had said that, he would have been put on disability.

But the voters thought that “giving money back” was really Shrewd.

And it WAS the epitome of being Dumb.

National Review thought it was great.

Posted by Bob on August 13, 2006 at 8:33 pm

I am going to hear Joe’s, “God you’re BORING me!” Nobody comments on my inside-the-beltway discussion and it is probably too far from the latest news from Syria to interest anybody, but if you choose to listen to a senile old man, ramble, you have to expect this.

I have never understand why somebody who can read without moving his lips denounces a thousand words of boredom. It takes a reasonably literate person about thirty seconds to skim over a thousand words and decide it is drivel. The time required to READ it all and THEN write that it is boring runs into an actual waste of attention.

And when Joe says I am boring he never suggests what he WANTS to read from me. That is just plain bad manners.

If we are actually planning on taking POWER it might be useful to hear from somebody what power is LIKE. If Reagan had listened to me he might have actually had more of a revolution.

Let me repeat, the Reagan Revolution wsno revolution, as people keep pointing out. But Reagan did things that were so fundamentally important that they are forgotten as a part of history.

As the media keep explaining, the Soviet Union HAPPENED to collapse during the eight years of the Reagan presidency. This blog and my book discussed how the BBC, PBS and the entire Politically Correct establishment keeps trying to explain that every large species in America, from the mammoth to the Giant Sloth, just HAPPENED to drop dead at the same time Nature-Loving Native Americans came across the land bridge from Asia.

You see, Native American lived WITH Nature, not AGAINST Nature as we Evil Whites do. So it is a bit embarrassing that, after a million years and several Ice Ages, all those large animals suddenly died out just as the Native Americans got here. Hence the endless rationalizations about how they just just dropped dead in that particular Ice Age.

Lord, it is tiresome explaining this over and over!

OK. Back to the tiresome explanation AGAIN. All the media and fanatics in our movement keep explaining that Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Then there are those who whisper to us that Reagan did get rid of the Soviet Empire, but that was all a ruse Reagan and Soviets were in on.

Arranged by the Jews or the Bilderbergers.

Come on, gang! I am willing to repeat the obvious over and over and over and over, ad nauseum, but there are some scenarios where I just have to say this sounds to me like the guy who says, “I am tired of people whispering behind my back that I’m PARANOID!”

Give me a friggin’ BREAK!

When Reagan went into office, there was a saying, “20-20.” It meant that the interest rate was approaching 20% and the UNEMPLOYMENT rate was approaching 20%.

Reagan ads in 1980 showed shrieking sirens in California when Reagan took office. They said Reagan had dealt with an unprecedented disaster in California when he became governor and he could deal with the Crisis of 1980.

By 1982, all the media, and therefore everybody else, had forgotten that there WAS a Crisis of 1982.

And our fanatics are, as always, firm allies of the media. They forget that we dealt with any crisis in 1980.

For some reason, I find that offensive. Maybe it is because, in 1981, I was nearing my first nervous breakdown by working a hundred hours a week to solve that nonexistent crisis.

Sorry to bore you, Joe.

Posted by Bob on August 13, 2006 at 8:07 pm

In case you think what I said below is something new that Reagan couldn’t know about, I refer you to the BBC programs, “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister.” The latter is MUCH better thant he former, and I would start with that. It is also hilarious.

It has always been known that the Civil Service rules Britain by a very simple tactic. When a new Government is elected, the Prime Minister is only allowed to appoint the HEADS of departments. So the titular head of a department is single person, a member of parliament, who fills the office at the very top of hte departmental pyramid. Even his personal aide is a member of the permanent civil service, whom the Civil Service appoints.

Unless you have tendency to stare vacantly and drool, you know what the result is. Within a month, the so-called head of the department is an absolute robot in the hands of Britain’s real government, the Civil Service.

That happens to be the exact reason that America’s Civil Service system had to keep compromising with congressmen who had been there a long time and allow the president to appoint, not only cabinet members as department heads, but a thousand others. That was why I and others like me were up thereinthe office next to the head of hte civil service. In Britain it would have been a Permanent Civil Servant.

When a department head in Britain decides to do something silly, his aides decide whether they want to encourage him or not. There are no Wet Blankets like Ole Bob sitting right there in the next office.

If the permanent civil service can’t have one of their own sitting there, the next best thing is to have a group of total amateurs around the boss. Reagan gave them that.

As I say, the proof of the pudding is that this rank amateur managed to be almost unique in trying something so dumb that he failed Senate confirmation for exactly the same job in the second Reagan Administration.

Where was I? I had taken a career job as writer for the Voice of America. His only professional had left.

In fact, he had said earlier that if he had known my background as a government pro, he would never have taken me on in the first place. He would have made Reagan withdraw the nomination because I was one of the Evil Alligators.

He lost his Alligator and he lost his job.

Shrewd, man, Shrewd!