Archive for December, 2005

Mark, This is a Rant: Be Right or Get Fired

One of my main themes is thatno one should get our money or our respect unless they EARN it.

That is the rule you face every day at work. Why in the HELL are so many people exempted from it?

I am sick and tired of people patiently reelecting the same people while everything goes to hell.

I am sick and tired of people recognizing a “professional journalist” when “professional journalism” is going down the tubes because nobody trusts them any more.

I have said to many people many times that when a crisis occurs, the people who are called in to deal with it are called in precisely because they CAUSED it. The response to this is the bovine look I am so used to.

When something collapses, it is the experts in that field who have failed. When the Soviet Union collapsed and not one professional froeign policy expert, least any of the professional Sovietologists, had predicted it, who did they call in to deal with the situation?

They called in foreign policy experts and ESPECIALLY professional Sovietologists, of course.

And leading the parade like the man with banner “Excelsior” was the Professional Journalists who held the banner that said,

“Let’s not try to assign blame. Let us pull together and deal with the problem before us. Let’s look to the future, not debate the past.”

Let me ask you a question. When you make a costly screwup in a real job, how often does your boss say:

“Let’s not try to assign blame. Let us pull together and deal with the problem before us. Let’s look to the future, not debate the past.”

I would not want to deal with a company that thought like that.

Yet our entire national policy is run on EXACTLY that basis.

On September 11, 2001, I wrote in Whitakeronline that not one single intelligence “expert” would suffer the slightest inconvenience for what happened that day.

In fact I predicted that all that would result from that disaster would be a PROMOTION for everyone who helped cause it.

Right again, Bob.

Our intelligence experts and terror experts are the same ones we had on September 10, 2001.

Except that they have been promoted and have bigger budgets now.

Which is what I predicted on September 11, 2001.

Gosh darnit, we can’t catch Osama Ben Laden, can we?

Well don’t worry about it. Our top experts are on the job.

The examples are endless.

And everybody wonders what’s wrong.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 Comments

Joe Has Me Right

In the piece “Joe” below, he gave me some hell and I gave him an answer.

One time Joe crawled all over me. He wrote the next day that he was just in a lousy mood that day.

But his remarks, in both cases, were useful.

Joe does not consider himself or me particularly delicate.

Let me reveal unto you another great secret: I do not only want your opinions when you are feeling respectful or in a good mood.

I have elephant skin and I earned every layer of it.

In response to my kidding him as a young ‘un, Derek wrote his usual common-sense reply. He simply said that young people NEED to get a thicker skin in this emasculated age.

Derek, Joe and I seem to be on the same page on a very important point: Bob has a towering ego which makes him not at all delicate.

I don’t mind making mistakes, even stupid ones. I still think my point of view is worth your time.

Mark just joined me and Joe and Derek with a comment on “Joe” below:

“Bob, how you can vent! Sometimes you remind of a woman who shows up at a family get together only to find she’s brought the exact same dish to the table as some otther woman.”

“I believe Bob is venting his ego when he says he is the only one who did this that or the other. But that’s the price you pay when you listen to an intellectual who actually knows a thing or two. You take the good and the bad and sift thru the self emulating ego gratification and end up with the overall idea said intellectual had in mind.”

Dead on target.

The fact is that you don’t GET to Bob’s Blog is you DON’T have a towering ego. We have all been through the best obedience training the world has to offer and we have told all the experts where they can stick it.

That’s why you’re in this seminar. Even those here who have not finished college have already outgrown their college education.

This is probably the only REAL graduate seminar you can attend.

I not only HAVE an ego the size of Mount Everest, I PREACH an ego the size of Mount Everest.

I even jumped on sweet Shari when she hinted that she shouldn’t say something to someone who had been in “big time” politics like me.

That offended me because, unfairly to Shari, it hit me in one of my few remaining sensitive spots.

I HATE bullies. It makes me almost physically ill when I see someone who can dish it out but who can’t TAKE it.

What Shari said sounded like it put me in the category of the average professor who conducts what he calls “seminars” in the average grad school.

He is a bully. He holds the power of grading you over your head and he USES it.

I repeat, this was not fair to Shari and it certainly did not reenforce my brag about having elephant skin.

But Shari forgave me and an important point was made because of what she said.

I wrote a piece below on the fact that I would not accept comments that include personal abuse to other commenters. I added another sentence I would like to repeat:

“Bob is fair game.”

This is exactly the opposite of what passes for a “graduate seminar” in today’s universities. There the professors is judge and jury.

Here I have to defend myself or admit that I have learned something.

And, as Mark said, I VENT here. As I keep pointing out, I vent about a lot of the things YOU would raise hell about if you weren’t in a position where your career was on the line, as it is in what passes for grad seminars.

We NEED opinions from your gut. I put my opinions from my gut out here for a reason: I want to know what I can get away with and which ones are my mood and which ones are legitimate complaints people would not otherwise express.

OK, I’ll end this one before Joe jumps all over me about how long it is.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

An Innocent’s Error

I don’t normally snore. Even in the 1970s I knew that if one does, it is a MEDICAL condition if you regularly snore in bed.

But once I was working in a government office and had been up two nights in a row writing and setting up press conferences (free) for populist groups. I went down to the shop where the machines were for lunch and passed dead out in a chair.

Lying out on a chair like that I apparently out some beautiful noises and everybody in the office kidded me about it for days. It was an office joke.

Then came the next office party.

My wife was with me and one of the girls in the office was talking to her about me and happened to mention what everybody had talked about.

She said, “Bob really SNORES, doesn’t he?”

The she realized what she had said and turned as red as a beet.

My wife thought it was hilarious.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

Joe

In Response to my very long piece below, “Isn’t Vesuvius Pretty Today?” Joe Ororke writes:

“Well, that was certainly a long piece. I have no use for national review. I subscribed to it for a year in 1992. I decided it was crap. A lot of pompous sounding words and talk about what they wanted to do and, in the end, they caved in to you know who. IMO, Rusher was and is one of the worst. national review is despicable. In my opinion. I really should read your book “A Plague On Both Your Houses.” I’m sure I would learn plenty. If Rusher wrote the forward to your book my only question is did it change his life? Was this the thing he was looking for all his life? When I do read your book I can only hope that it won’t be filled with “everybody” and “nobody” and “only me.” So many of your pieces here are filled with “everybody” and “nobody” and “only me.” That makes reading difficult for me. This generalization won’t work. It is extremely unlikely that only you noticed something. It may be that someone else failed to comment on what he or she noticed but that only one person on the planet noticed something is just too unlikely for me to accept as fact. And “everybody” won’t work either. Unless you know everybody. Just because someone doesn’t comment on something does not mean he or she does not notice it. Lots of people notice things and say nothing. Anyway, I’ll read the book. Maybe I’ll highlight every time I run into “everybody” and “nobody” and “only me.” Just for game purposes. ”

Comment by joe rorke — 12/25/2005 @ 4:37 pm

Yes, it was a long piece. I don’t normarlly do long stuff. If yu can get all that into a shorter piece, please do so.

Rusher I will do a separate piece on.

It is difficult to write a short piece if, instead of “everybody,” I say, “everybody except illiterates, those who don’t know anything about the subject” and the endless list of qualifications that you can find in any academic publication.

Poetic license is the only way to write a SHORT piece, not to mention that it is the only way to avoid boring your audience out of its gourd.

My father was colorblind. When I write about a flag being red, white and blue I could remeber that my father was color blind. On some days that flag would gray, yellow, and purple to him and maybe a million other people.

So every time I mention a color, I could discuss the fact that is not in fact red or white or blue. I could give a very substantial discussion to the variety of looks it has to many different people.

I could also talk about the blind.

I doubt many people would want to read all that.

I also devoted a piece some time ago as to why I use “everybody” and “nobody” so much, besides not boring you out of your mind.

Many times my opponent has made the mistake of concentrating so hard on correcting me that all he managed to get across to the audience was the fact that finding an exception was so hard.

Which is the point I wanted to make.

For example when I state Bob’s Mantra,

” Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries.”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I want the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I say that, I’m a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

the other person should try to get me off the point. But many of them make the mistake of attacking my use the words “ALL” and “ONLY.” They may even win their point. They may find one person who has criticized Japan for not opening its doors to immigration. But they have also made my point again. Such exceptions are extremely difficult to find and rare.

The exception often proves the rule. And if someone wants to prove my rule, he is welcome to win his quibble.

Likewise, “only I have thought of this.”

I have been very profitably corrected on this. Anonymous corrected me on being the only one who mentioned Jewish mob bosses in power in Hollywood by telling me about a book attacking Reagan — the latter point was brought up by others — which talked about how bad Reagan was for dealing with the mob whilst he was in Hollywood as president of the Screen Actors Guild.

I have yet to hear of a book devoted to attacking Jewish mob control itself. This seems to have only come to light in the context of an attack on Reagan.

This is a point worth making. And Anonymous made it FOR me. I didn’t know it.

As I say, I think the exchange was very useful.

I could say, “The media agrees that racism is awful.”

But people can and have argued that the internet is “media,” so my generalization needs a paragraph or two explaining exactly what I mean by “media.”

I doubt seriously readers want to see that. It’s boring.

One expects people to accept certain things as poetic license and if they feel it goes too far, to say so.

Without that assumption, much of what I write would be MUCH longer that the one you said at the outset was very long.

A seminar is not a lecture. When the prof is wrong, the other participants tell him so.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 Comments

Isn’t Vesuvius Pretty Today?

To celebrate its fiftieth birthday, National Review just put out a humongous double issue.

It praised Lincoln, it praised integration and cautiously endorsed affirmative action.

They praised censoring Prussian Blue. They praised the guy who inherited WalMart and crushed Maurice Bessinger for flying the Confederate flag under the Federal and state flags in front of his own restaurants.

NR is wildly happy with its success and devotes an article to how much better 2005 is than
1955 when the magazine was founded. In fact, NR has stated that everything the magazine
was founded to oppose is good.

They didn’t say that. It’s just that I REMEMBER what NR was about and this giant issue
declared the magazine’ founders were wrong about everything.

NR agrees that all the liberals NR attacked in 1955 were right and its founders should have been backing THEM. But nobody notices this but me.

Certainly the Citadels of Senility who founded NR have forgotten it ALL. They are successes
in the only sense that any respectable conservative is a success.

By “success” NR means that it is now accepted by liberals and neoconservatives occasionally pause
to pat it on the head.

NR is delirious. They have reason to be. They reached the pinnacle of respectability.

The last page shows a joint picture of the leftist anti-Iraq War British MP Galloway and David Duke.

Those men show. they say, show the opposition to everything NR stands for has become so
massive it is incoherent.

This means incoherent in the world-view of conservative respectability. There is a giant fury growing
against the “both sides” in which respectable conservatism has always been a junior partner.

I wrote a book in 1976 called A Plague on Both Your Houses. It discussed how liberals and conservatives are NOT “both sides.” In fact, I said, liberals and conservatives form a two-headed coalition that is the worst of both worlds.

From NR’s point of view the fact that everybody is beginning to hate the America “both sides” has produced is good news.

It shows how silly all those opponents are.

What I see is that what I wrote in 1976 has gone global.

I did not realize in 1976 that by 1996 the United States would not be the only “superpower” in the world, but it is now the only POWER in the world. There is not one other country on this planet that projects its military might outside its own borders.

So now the whole world is dealing with the insanity I described in A Plague on Both Your Houses.

In 1976 A Plague on Both Your Houses was a blueprint for the coalition that won the 1980 election. I said the two-headed establishment was insane and there was a groundswell against it and I described exactly how to ride that rebellion politically.

My theme was that what the establishment calls “both sides,” respectable conservatism and liberalism, ended up being a two-headed establishment that produced insane policies.

I did not know in 1976 that in two short decades America would not only be the only SUPERPOWER on earth, but the only POWER on earth.

Today no other country but the United States projects its military force outside its own borders.

And when I say that, I am very used to the fact that nobody understands the historical implications of what I am saying.

And nobody who can’t understand US policy outside the United States will read my book . It took a lifetime’s experience even for me, an American inside and intellectually outside the system to write that book.

The one thing everybody agreed on was that what I wrote was absolutely unique and only I coud have written it. It was recommended for purchase by the Library Journal and praised by Publisher’s Weekly, and both reviewers said they hated every word of it.

But somebody needed to say it. We have the same situation today. A lot of people beg to have American policy explained to them. But they ask Harvard professors, international relations experts.

This intra-US politics. It is PROVINCIAL American politics gone global.

So they ask internationalists about it.

Everybody asks plaintively, “How did America GET this crazy?’ But nobody will read my first book to see where American policy comes from.

So now the two-headed establishment I said was irrational in 1976 is ruling the world. National Review is glorying in the fact that it is playing its part in that two-headed establishment. NR is delighted that it is now recognized as one of the heads.

So National Review is very happy everybody else is so crazy. Only they and the New York media and the neocons are inside the Circle of Sanity.

From NR’s point of view this is great news. They have always been worshippers of those who regard anything between Hollywood and New York ity as “flyover country.” Their own publisher, William Rusher wrote in Rise of the Right that no one on the NR staff believed anything unless it was in the New York Times.

But Bill Rusher also wrote the Foreword to A Plague on Both Your Houses. He is the grandson of a coal miner. He realized there was an America outside of New York and Hollywood.

Rusher excepted himself from my criticism of William Buckley. He insisted Buckely was not the provincial I said he was. I insisted that Buckely WRITES as if he were joined at the hip with the most provincial kind of respectable conservatism.

But he did understand that what I meant by “provincial” was exactly what New York calls “sophisticated.”

For fifty years conservatives have desperately, pathetically begged to be considered sophisticated.

Especially SOUTHERN conservatives.

If you think liberals are provincial you haven’t met enough respectable conservatives.

Conservatives honestly believe that they and liberals are “both sides.” When a liberal says anything good about the pro-life movement, they go all giggly and girlish.

So the fact that George Galloway and David Duke, both of whom are violently disapproved of by neoconservatives and most liberals, are saying the same things means that National Review has reached the Promised Land of respectability.

New York and Hollywood donot AGREE with them that all these Islamists and anti-Israel types have no right to speak out. Conservatives are at the Captain’s Table, talking face-to-face, right there in First Class, with their former masters.

Now that they have gotten into First Class on board the ship of our National Dialogue, respectable conservatives are more furious at any peasants who have gripes than are the Old Rich. New York and Hollywood have always been in first class. It is the conservatives who resent any interlopers most.

That is the most outstanding characteristic of the nouveau riche, you know.

Hence the triumphant last page article in NR’s Fiftieth Anniversary double issue.

The article starts with this sentence:

“My enemy’s enemy is my friend. But America’s has so many enemies that they must occassionally feel they’ve got too many friends.”

It took me three reads to get what they were trying to say.

What they are saying is that “both sides” in America have a long and growing list of enemies. This is good, they feel, because anybody liberals, neoconservatives and conservatives all disapprove are bad and illogical and don’t belong in First Class.

So the fact that a volcano, an explosion of resistance is growing against them is good.

All the Voices of Reason, liberal and neo, are united to them by the growing circle of rebellion outside.

Remember, conservatives never claimed to lead anybody. They have always existed as critics of liberals. In the respectable conservative only liberals and neos and they really belong in the political dialogue.

So they glory in the fact that the extreme right and the exreme left in the persons of Galloway and Duke have united against “both sides” in the Only True Discussion. Respectable conservatives are now what they have always dreamed of being. As liberals and neoconservatives unite in a policy which is meeting growing resistance from absolutely everybody, the conservatives are now RECOGNIZED by liberals as the only true Other Side.

Finally conservatives have been accepted, fully and unqualifiedly accepted, by liberals.

Some liberals have even joined them.

Conservatives have dreamed of this for fifty years. Moses took forty years to reach the Promised Land. Conservatives have reached it.

Unlike Moses, they have been allowed to set foot on it.

It would never occur to them that the Promised Land might be sinking.

For fifty years National Review has looked to the left as their leaders, and they have said that, though they share every goal the left does, the left is just doing it wrong.

So National Review sees it this way: The enormous and growing list of enemies they cite have nothing in common except a growing fury of what liberals, neoconservatives and their pet conservatives are doing. That shows they must be right.

“Both sides” is not that stable in America, much less worldwide. That’s why my books and advice were POLITICAL successes here.

I am retired on the proceeds of my political work. So I was definitely a professional at understanding where American policy comes from. But nobody else understands that and they wouldn’t pay me any more if they did.

So mostly I get laughs out of this. Conservatives glorying in the rebellion against themselves and their neos and their liberals is irony undreamed of.

Now if I saw my own “flyover” country came near to tanking the whole “both sides” thing with Ross Perot in 1992, it would worry me

A lot.

Now the whole world is in growing rebellion.

But NR is sitting there in New York City, gleefully that it is FINALLY basking in the approval of Jewish supporters of Israel in New York. EVERYBODY who is “respectable” has finally, at long last, accepted them.

As they sit there in Pompeii they see that beautiful fireworks display from Vesuvius as a tourist attraction.

Finally, at long last, liberals and even New York City Jewish opinion has let them leave their third-class compartments and come right into second class. Many of them are even allowed into first class.

They are hypnotized by this. They are glorying in this.

In fact, they had an entire article on the last page dedicated to the fact that the ship is going down. Every word in the article points that way. But nobody at National Review even noticed it.

NR glories inthe fact that the enemies of the two-headed establishment are so numerous and so varied that they do not constitute the nice, clean coalition that America’s left and right do.

They are a ragtag collection of growing rebellion. They just don’t BELONG in first class.

Vesuvius is exploding. The ship is in extreme danger. But that is not within the world view of respectable conservatives.

Their job is to keep New York Jewish opinion happy. Their job is to find an accommodation with liberals. Their job is to attract neoconservatives so they will have more power in the “both sides” game.

Conservatives only concern is where they sit on the ship. The ship itself is the captain’s problem.

They are in first class. And they are very, very happy.
__________________

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Comments