Archive for June 11th, 2007


Mark says:
“I said in my 1976 book that tomorrow’s scientific establishment would be more powerful and more dangerous than the PC one we have now.”

Bob, how is this true? If science breaks with acadamia, as you predict, and if people demand geneticaly altered genes producing white babies instead of their brown or black (also as you predict) then how does this hurt the white race? Seems to me the best thing that could happen is science breaking the PC yoke that restricts research. I mean, if they could make us live longer, feel younger, and be whiter, what’s the harm in any of this? Or am I missing something here?


On the contrary, I’m all for it.

My point is that this train is coming around the corner and nobody notices it.

We have the very recent example of conservative success and its immediate takeover by the neos. Neos took over while conservatives bitched and babbled to each other. So if we spend ur time talking abut the latest balloon we will get blindsided, too.

All power for good has dangers. The greater the power, the greater the danger. But you can’t deal with the danger involved by just wishing it away. Some of my bloggers will join in the hopeless objectins to the whole biological revolution, so I treaded carefully about it.

But I am the most most RADICAL person you will ever meet. I have nothing invested in the world as it is and where it is now going, so I am all for radical human technology. I keep repeating that the one thing that is certain is that the trends of hte past have nothng to do with the future,but people keep saying “before it’s too late” and other standard stuff, which means they didn’t HEAR what I am saying.



Politics in the New Millennium

I am corresponding with my only liberal close kinsman. He mentioned he was getting more conservative on some things and attributed it to age. That is, after all, what we have experienced for ages, getting more conservative as we get older.

But I made my living observing people’s politics closely, and I think he is only partly right. He hasn’t changed as much as he thinks he has, and I have gotten more radical as time passes. My observation is that neither of us has really changed much.

Those we call liberals today are actually generically conservative. They like things as they are, Politically Correct. I PREFERRED things as they WERE.

But that is only part of it. The ISSUES have changed completely. In our youth conservatives stood for states’ right, a.k.a, segregation, and anti-Communism. Now all National Review talks abut is forcing “democracy” on other countries and crippling medical research.

On the latter point, liberals are generic conservatives. Liberals insist that everything is a result of environment, and none of THEIR funds AND PUBLIC ATTENTION should go into genetic manipulation. You see the hilarious combination of fundamentalist preachers and Harvard Professors of Ethics uniting to suppress human cloning and embryonic research.

I predicted this in the last page of my 1976 book. There is a civil war growing up in academia today which is more important than ANYBODY’S bubble, but as usual only I notice it.

The Battles of Lexington and Concord just happened in Britain. Laws against medical research were loosened, but scientists demanded they be loosened more and the social science/”religious” side was outraged they were loosened at all.

As was the case in 1775, it will be a while before scientists declare Independence from the academia now ruled by social scientists and Political Correctness. You see the same kind of declarations of loyalty coming from them now, feverish ones, that the Founding Fathers gave to the King between early 1775 and July, 1776.

I pointed out at length in my first book (in my own name) that the basic weakness of heredity was that there was no MONEY in it. You can control tens of billions of dollars and public attention when you promise to change thins by social programs, but heredity WAS a fixed quantity.


Every year people expect more from forbidden research. Every year hard scientists get tireder of sitting at the back of the academic bus.

I said in my 1976 book that tomorrow’s scientific establishment would be more powerful and more dangerous than the PC one we have now. The routine response to my mentioning it is “SSSH! Let’s ignore it and talk about Ron Paul!”

Needless to say, I won’t DO that, and many a person will float away in his bubble to avoid it.
So here I am in 2007 exactly where I was in 1957: Looking straight at a future I see perfectly and everybody else ignores.




Speaking of Ron Paul, and the civil politic — I was up on SF looking for some specific data (to see if it’s there) and came upon this new thread, top and center: [log-in member only access]
Re: Law School… here I come!!
LadyCeltic, you scored 178 out of a possible 180? You freakin’ rock, girl!


This is awesome as far as *I’m* concerned. But I’ll add the caveat that home schoolers are scoring perfect scores on ALL the SATs and their derivatives. The Oregon boy who scored 100% + (got the extras also) was one of many children living in a motor home with his parents working odd jobs in different places so they could stay ahead of the “law” and were setting up in large library parking lots. Their story was phenomenal, but most looked askance at this not-so-attractive group and would say they were weird and would have taken those children away in half a millisecond.

I don’t follow all the different National competitions for various things, but there are not a lot that are not won (all top finalists) by home schoolers.

These people are all regular white folks, it isn’t “rocket science” it’s GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THE SYSTEM and keeping minds and bodies and spirits intact.

The Ron Paul types are the only ones who GET IT. Without highly intelligent, high-charactered (squeaky-clean personal and business lives) men under a rock-solid constitution adhered to by a judiciary that takes EVERYTHING back to the prime principles of original intent-oriented case law and enforcement of same… the system WILL fail. Bob taught constitutional law and forgot more than I know. But at least I know the best of the basics.

This poor lady will learn NOTHING of law the way it was meant to operate, but maybe she can get by long enough to get her piece of paper and her education on what’s right on the side from the best. It’s all available through home schooling sources. Any degree, any field, any level. Do you know about MIT…?


MIT? I assume you don’t mean the Mass Institute.

A word about genes. A child who has a parent who is capable of and willing to give them an education at home has hellaciously good genes. It also means the family can afford the TIME of one parent to do it. More good genes!

Social scientists are always talking about “breaking the chain of domestic violence” by pointing out that children who were abused by their parents abuse THEIR children. But identical twin tests have shown that identical twins adopted separately AT BIRTH tend not only tend to commit the same NUMBER OF crimes, they commit the SAME crimes at the same AGE! They also have the same taste in toothpaste and so forth.

So there may be no breakable “chain of domestic violence.” People with the sort of genes that make them beat their children may just produce CHILDREN with the genes that lead to child abuse.

Social scientists justify their existence by confusing heredity and environment.



Tactical Problem

BUGS — No sooner said than done!

I submit a problem to the Seminar.

I would prefer the whole top line to read:


That would reduce it to the 29 spaces the present top line is limited to. If they’re HERE, they’ll know it’s

BUT let’s leave the Bob’s Blog everywhere else FOR NOW. One advantage I have over The Talent is that I know how confusing the smallest change can be for us civilians in the computer wars.

Damn it, gang! Give me some comments!

This sort of “simple” thing is CRITICAL.