*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***
(reprinted to the Blog from 12/11/04)
Since we are getting close to Christmas, I want to point out another group that needs the message in Why Johnny Can’t Think: Home Schoolers. More and more people are pulling out of the public schools, which is easy to understand. Sending a child to these schools is tantamount to child abuse.
One thing I hear from people is that Why Johnny Can’t Think may offend the home school crowd because of my use of three or four bad words in the book. This was an oversight on my part, but it brings up an important point. This is a point that is crucial to understanding why so much of “conservatism” has been a dismal failure.
There is only one type of home schooler I can respect for this outlook: Those who refuse to send their kids to public schools because of their values, and who are consistent enough to understand that colleges and universities are just more of the same.
What I can’t stomach are the “respectable conservative” home schoolers, which my staff refers to as “prissies,” those who don’t want Johnny to read my book because of a few bad words, or to read it themselves because they might be “offended.” Yet these same people are willing to send little Johnny off to college to a moral cesspool completely unprepared.
To send a child to college from that environment without brutally honest preparation is about as smart as sending your teenage daughter on a road trip with an NBA basketball team. It is mind-boggling. It is “respectable.” It is damned foolish.
I can take criticism of Why Johnny Can’t Think because of bad writing, or typographical errors, or quibbles about details in some of my historical examples. What I cannot abide is moral cowardice. I don’t think Jesus let people off the hook on technicalities.
Why Johnny Can’t Think is not perfect, nor is it for everybody. But it IS, and we need it out there. PLEASE get a copy for someone you care about today!
We are making it easy for you to do. We’ll even gift wrap it, and put a little note in there from you, and send it directly to whomever you want us to — all for the same cost. (note: we can’t split discounted multiple book orders to different addresses, due to mailing costs).
We are now offering express shipping to make sure the books arrive in time for Christmas.
READBOB.COM
Bob
#1 by Bedford on 12/28/2004 - 8:58 pm
We need to discover Bob’s political philosophy since he said that he despises conservatives. It is clear that he is on the right side of the political spectrum, but White Nationalist is not a political philosophy. Would Bob have been happy in 1860 with the Confederate government? Too many respectable conservatives in it? Pat Buchanan is too soft on the race issue for Bob? I know that a person can keep enumerating political positions until the person becomes a political party of one. In other words, there is no 100% agreement in politics, but certainly we can have sustantial agreement.We don’t want to throw out all conservatives like me, do we? The more exclusive your political philosophy, the more lonely. Bush and McCain for instance cannot be more than very weak conservatives due to their weak efforts to cut the size of government.
#2 by Don on 12/29/2004 - 9:45 am
Bedford: What do you mean by Conservative?
As far as I am concerned, FDR, LBJ, and GWB are all cut from the same cloth.
I don’t think the Confederacy intended to preserve the status quo or tended to oppose change
And neither do I.
#3 by Bedford on 12/29/2004 - 8:52 pm
I think that I have mentioned in the blog before that all conservatism basically is 1) Strong national defense2)Rule of law 3)Minimal government 4) Allowance of the free enterprise system to create wealth. It goes without saying that those priciples are going to be associated with a white European culture. The media calls everyone to the right of Hillary Clinton and just about every Repub a conservative. FDR and LBJ were socialists. Socialists love government and never tire of trying to do good and create a utopia with government. Conservatives are trying to limit govrnment. The illegal alien problem may be a litmus test for separating conservatives from Repubs. I just stopped by the cofcc.org and dixienet.org sites – there are conservatives at these sites, but Georgie W. would not visit them. Things are more complicated in today’s world – George Washington warned oabout foreign entanglements, but we can only try to minimize foreign entanglements today.
#4 by Elizabeth on 12/30/2004 - 1:11 pm
I don’t think that the Confederacy would qualify as “conservative.” It instituted national taxes (at least in the form of agents confiscating livestock and carts) and a national draft.
I’m very socially conservative, have usually been a hawk, and resent
being told I don’t pay enough taxes.
I’m one of those planning to hold assorted political feet to the fire about getting social security reform enacted ASAP: it’s a seriously flawed system that has cost me several thousand dollars over the past 25 years that I could have put to much better use.
The only thing funnier than hearing GWB described as a conservative is hearing Bob Dull described as one.
#5 by Don on 12/30/2004 - 1:16 pm
The problem is that Race is the elephant in the living room. With that elephant there I don’t care about mousetraps.
Or another way, If you have a very sick person I don’t care if the drapes match the bed sheet.
I would pick a racially oriented socialist country over a multi-racial, multi-cultural, capitalistic, free enterprise genetic cesspool in a heartbeat.
Without the issue of race and genetics in the forefront I would not even be here. I would be doing mathematics and would prefer to ignore politics altogether.
And if Robert Whitaker were to become a racially oriented dictator here is how I would address him:
Hail Whitaker!
#6 by Bob Whitaker on 12/30/2004 - 5:08 pm
Bedford, you said:
So what you do is preserve the RACE, right? You don’t need to worry about that list, because if the world is colored it will be a sink of misery without your four virtues and if the world is white it will go steadily forward.
Do you know about Occam’s Razor? Do not make more assumptions than are necessary.
As Don put it:
“If you have a very sick person, I don’t care if the drapes match the bed sheet.”
If the deck chairs on the Titanic are neat, respectable conservatives don’t care about this silly race stuff. I don’t care about “conservatism.” I don’t care about “values.” Those are PRODUCTS of white people.
I don’t care if you are a race-mixing South American Catholic conservative or a leftist anti-white.
Look at Brazil. Does it matter if Brazil is liberal or conservative?
So who gives a flying horsehockey?
#7 by Bedford on 12/30/2004 - 8:15 pm
All men have clay feet and all men are replaceable. The DICTATOR will die one day and his replacement may not be what you want even if the DICTATOR was your choice. No, tell me what you want if you had a magic wand. I would take the Confederacy which in peacetime would be a conservative, not respectable conservative, government. Not much danger of any non white countries choosing conservatism. Yes, most of the negroes would have to leave the Confederacy and most of the Mex too. I don’t demand perfection, the exact borders of the Confederacy would not have to match the original. I can’t expect no minority races, but at least a 90% white Confederacy. My roots go back to Ireland which historically has not had a race problem, but it has had a religious and English problem.
#8 by Bob Whitaker on 12/31/2004 - 6:33 pm
Bedford, WOL STARTED as a Southern nationalist column in the new Southern League and later League of the South website.
I would prefer to live in an all-white Southern nation. But that’s me.
Since I realized how bad Jehovists are, I have lost a lot of my enthusiasm even for a Southern nation.
I don’t believe in dictatorships. A white world is a good world. I want to live among people I feel comfortable with. I think that choice is coming in the future white world.
If there is a white world left. That’s ALL that counts.
At this point I am lost. You seem to be demanding something, but I can’t understand what it might be.
#9 by Bedford on 01/01/2005 - 6:36 pm
Bob, I just reread N. B. Forrest’s interview with the Cincinatti reporter in 1868. It’s on the web. It just reminded me of Forrest’s approach to winning. He knew what could be done and what could not be done. Some wanted to continue a guerilla war after the War, but Forrest had seen the 20,000 man cavalry force that had been sent into Alabama near the end of the war. He knew that a smaller guerilla force would be chased until caught by that large cavalry force. He said get me 18,000 muskets and we can raise an army and take Mexico. There was not much support for that idea. I don’t know what Forrest would do today, but he would not dismiss conservatives (real or media described) as being of little value. There are not many conservatives in the naacp or ADL.
#10 by H.S. on 01/01/2005 - 9:55 pm
Bedford: “I just reread N. B. Forrest’s interview with the Cincinatti reporter in 1868. It’s on the web.”
What’s the URL?
#11 by Bedford on 01/07/2005 - 12:01 pm
Don’t ask – I ran across it by accident – try search n. b. forrest on yahoo and maybe it will be in top 25 hits.
#12 by H.S. on 01/07/2005 - 12:07 pm
OK. Did that for quite awhile. Never found it reprinted, except that one line about black soldiers, everywhere. Found some interesting tripe on the Swanee, TN college site and forwarded it to a few groups that deal with that.