Budarick says,

“Interestingly they are now running a TV series here in Australia which purports to prove there is no such thing as “race” and they try to show this by using latest DNA research.”

MY REPLY:

That is the standard line. Let me deal with it, as usual, with a Whitakerism:

There are thousands of professional forensic pathologists.

There are two things EVERY forensic pathologist has to do to keep his job:

1) Be able to tell the race of a murder victim from a few dessicated remains and

2) Declare publically that race does not exist.

Tongue firmly in cheeck, Joe wrote the following:

Could it be that there is a conspiracy to not look at a Whitakerism? If a Whitakerism is so overwhelmingly frightening to those who dare not look at it or those who would hide it from others, could there be an ongoing conspiracy to suppress all the Whitakerisms that could possibly come to light? Why would anyone want to bury any Whitakerism? More especially, if Whitakerisms are potentially helpful to mankind in a world-shattering sort of way, what sort of diabolical entity would organize to bury the entire bag of Whitakerisms? Whitakerisms are either good or not good. If they are good, only badness could oppose them. That’s the way it is. That’s the law of the West. There is no neutral ground. Whitakerisms are either good or not good. What do you think, world? Anybody got any questions? Make them to the point.

Comment by joe rorke

MY REPLY:

I am going to do a program on this point.

As usual, the answer to this question is a Whitakerism:

The reason no one looks at Whitakerisms is because those who control opinion make a LIVING at it. How long do you think the libeal or respectable conservative commendtator would last if he had to face a few Whitakerisms?

Look at O’Reilly’s constant revelations about left-wing academia. He keeps saying he can’t understand it. What if he simply faced the fact that social science IS leftism, that what we call “nurture” is exactly what social scientists SELL for a living?

O’Reilly seldom says anything a Whitakerism wouldn’t explain. It would be a little hard on him if he announced the Whitakerism and said, “Well, that kills my hour program this time.”

As I have said so often, how long would the average liberal-respectable conservative “both sides” dialogue last if conservatives laughed at liberal inanities?

What if, inthe midst of an earnest talk show, someone said to a Liberal Intellectual, “Look, the last fourteen proposals you made were disasters. Why should we listen to THIS one?

Remember, this “both sides” crap is a major INDUSTRY.

Reply on Stormfront:

You said, “On the ethnics(you should say “coloreds”), they will follow our race wherever it goes.”

That is why I told rednecks8ofmind he didn’t get my point. My point here is VERY specific.

Coloreds follow WHITE SKINNED PEOPLE.

Let me repeat that:

Coloreds follow WHITE SKINNED PEOPLE.

Here “ethnics” means the non-Anglo-Saxon whites.

The Big Lie is that SKIN COLOR does not matter.

Everybody, even racists, want to emphasize that they are not obsessed with SKIN COLOR.

I want to emphasize that I AM obsessed with skin color. This isthe ultimate undermining of everything they intimidate everybody, inclduing scientific racists, with.

Meanwhile, back on earth, where do the non-whites go?

To white-SKINNED countries.

Not to IQ countries.

Not to Culturally Aware countries.

Not to religiously correct countries.

On the real planet earth, the wetbacks are ALWAYS swimming towards WHITE SKIN.

I do not start with an attempt to be sophisticated. I begin with REALITY.

The REALITY is not IQ test. The REALITY is not the proper interpretation of religious doctrine.

The REALITY is SKIN COLOR.

I do not have to explain WHY this is true. It is TRUE.

I don’t care if it sounds simplistic. The only thing that matters to me is that it is true.

I would not want to be born into a world that has brown skin. Nobody seems to want to REMAIN in a country with dark skin.

So let us state the Ultimate Heresy:

It is ALL a matter of skin color. The Golden Rule does not ask for a scientific explanation. The Golden Rule says t hat if people without a white skin produce societies people want to escape from, then it is a matter of SKIN COLOR.

A Whitakerism consists of examning facts that are so overwhelmingly obvious that we never really look at them.

This is a Whitakerism.

Joe said he is not a preacher or a teacher because he does not want to manipulate people, and he reminded me to be aware of that pitfall.

Then I talked about Objectivists calling me a “thug.”

But there is a giant, chasmic difference here, THE difference.

Joe was expressing HIS OPINION.

Joe’s says that IN HIS OPINION, what I am advocating is manipulative. In JOE’s OPINION, he can only avoid being manipulative by taking the position he takes.

When Objectivists used the word “thug” or liberals and respectable cosnervatives use words like “racist” or “anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews,” they are trying to SCARE ME OFF by using a label.

Hell will be skating rink before Joe is scared off by a label. Hell will be equally frigid before Joe expects ME to be frightened by a label.

When Joe uses a label, he is expressing an opinion. When others use a label they are using a weapon.

In short, when someone uses a label in the ordinary way they are being manipulative.

Joe has a point. Others are trying to bully.