Archive for June 30th, 2007

Whitaker Thinking

The example below, Hardric’s “transition from Petty politics to Racial Politics” represents EXACTLY what I am trying to produce here.

Someone made a joke about whitakerism since I object so much to a Wordist Whitakerism. But as I was on the trip to New York playing possum in the back of the van, someone said something and then said proudly, “Now THAT’S Whitaker thinking!”

I realized that what I am trying to get to here is Whitaker thinking. A Whitakerism would exclude OTHER thoughts, as Wordism always does. But Whitaker thinking can be used by an evolutionist or a creationist, by either of just about any two sides in a discussion.

Hardric gave a new phrase to Whitaker thinking. But if you USE Whitaker thinking, you will realize that the LAST thing I want to claim is that my thinking is NEW.

Gravity was OLD when Isaac Newton was born. Ask anyone doing the work building the pyramids and he would have said, “Yes, I did notice gravity from time to time.” The Law of Displacement was in action when the only things floating on earth were on hot lava, but Archimedes came up with that explanation for floating ships billions of years later.

Occam’s Razor, that one should look for the first and simplest cause first, was in operation when the first nerve cell appeared on earth. But when the brain got a certain size, they began seeking complicated solutions first. Occam’s Razor is the basis of Western science, but it is also a return, literally, to horse sense.

Whitaker thinking is no substitute for knowledge or experience. It is an ADDITION.

The gravitational system of Newton is SIMPLE, but it is not EASY. Europe’s greatest minds were still finding its implications and working out its mathematics for a century afterwards. You can state the Laws of Physics in a few sentences, but it takes a little longer to become a physicist.

Whitaker thinking is probably a subset of Occam’s Law in social areas. But its implications goon and on, and it is not based on faith. When a subject comes up, you can try it. If it doesn’t fit, screw it. Don’t try to cram the universe into it.

I am going to try to give some of the basic rules of Whitaker thinking. I am sure it took Occam a long time to figure his objections to Scholastic Philosophy down to one sentence, and I am not even sure HE is the one who did it.

SOME rules of Whitaker thinking are:

1) WHY did that person say ANYTHING? We know to ask that about commercials, but we seem to go blank about it in everyday life;

2) LISTEN to what a person says and SEE all the assumptions he is making. For two generations we have heard people demand immigration into ALL white countries and ONLY white countries all our countries. We have heard the question asked routinely asked, “Is Eastern Europe READY for immigration YET?” But only with Bob’s Mantra did the IMPLICATIONS of this thinking get targeted.

There are lots more. Some are below, and I will be going into more with more specificity. But by now I should NOT be doing this ALONE.



Petty Politics to Racial Politics!

Hardric has comeup with one of those lines that only appear HERE!

“… the transition from Petty Politics to Racial Politics…”



No Comments

Hardric Versus the Swamp

mderpelding says:
There is one problem with this whole discussion.
The concepts of left and right and liberal and conservative and republican and democrat all have NO MEANING. If you are still discussing our political/existential situation in those terms you are STILL part of the problem.

All those above terms are meaningless and deadly in a multiracial polity. You have minorities practicing racial politics behind the facade of unity politics.

Ah, yes, the political terminology of yesteryear. We can, nevertheless, in this transition period from Petty Party Politics to Racial Politics, use these terms to suit our needs. Conservative? If you want to categorize verbose fools of the William Buckley School, include a racial adjective and an additional: “Respectable White Conservative Fools.” Bring race into the picture.

Are you a Respectable White Conservative Fool? Nice to meet you, anytime you want to get serious about the future we must have a chit chat.


Thanks, Hardric, for getting us out of the swamp.

I talked about the swamp before. What I have to say here is difficult to explain. So when someone starts critiquing the only language I have at my disposal, all it does is trip me up. I end up neck-deep in the swamp, off track.

It is like when I try to explain the nature of power as I understand it, which is my function in BUGS, and somebody informs me that the other side is very large and very powerful or gives me another lecture about how this is a RACIAL struggle or any of a hundred ways to sound profound and get the discussion off track.

Our problem with Stormfront is that it is at least 90% swamp.

WE cannot do anything about the white birth rate, so Al’s telling me we might as well close up shop if whites don’t have more children is pure swamp stuff. It’s certainly a concern. The question is whether it is a concern that we should deal with HERE, or is it just taking attention off of what we CAN do something about?