When I wrote a piece below about how I rejected Whitakerism but I AM trying to teach Whitaker thinking, Al Parker wrote that he may not agree with me because “We the people” might include non-whites. I took the easy way out by pointing out that every state that ratified the Constitution had and enforced anti-miscegenation laws. They assumed “the people” were white.
But that was the EASY way out for me, because it was not the POINT. The POINT is harder to make, because it involves more work on my part. So I avoided it.
The POINT on which Al was wrong was not in asking me that question. He simply hadn’t thought of the point I made, which is exactly what I’m here for. In fact, ASKING me that was an example of the kind of thinking I am trying to encourage here. He was DOING Whitaker thinking.
What Al was questioning was Whitakerism, the idea that my opinions are the Only True Faith.
A Whitakerism would be a True Faith. That is EXACTLY what I am against. Whitaker THINKING should be a PART, and only a PART, of your intellectual tool kit.
SysOp and I disagree on evolution. In some cases, that makes us disagree on some of our conclusions. On the other hand, I pointed out that it is not true that “Things are not as they appear” or that “Men and women are the same.” It doesn’t MATTER whether evolution or God produced us; the point is that either God or evolution had a REASON for giving is two eyes and two sexes.
On that one’s belief or non-belief in evolution does not affect the conclusion you come to if you use Whitaker thinking.
On the other hand, when what I say depends ENTIRELY on evolution, SysOp simply disagrees.
THIS is the CRITICAL difference: SysOps respects me, but she does NOT regard me as The Authority she must yield to. So disagreeing with me is not some kind of trauma for her. It is routine that two good minds will differ.
Al was NOT disagreeing with Whitaker thinking, he was DOING it.
Rule One of Wordism is NOT to question. Rule One of Whitaker thinking is HOW to question.
#1 by danerebor on 07/04/2007 - 7:51 pm
Unlike Bob, I don’t think we will have genetic engineering in the near future. I think the results of Peak Oil will probably end centralization, globalization, and all the changes they’ve made to the world. Commuting, finance, large scale agriculture, state & federal law enforcement, modern medical care, shopping, reliable power, the ACLU, and many jobs that exist today will probably whither and/or die in the next decade or so.
But that doesn’t really matter. Either way the future goes, we have to keep effectively reaching our people. Whether it’s a brave new world of designer babies where everyone wants theirs to be white OR it’s small white hold-out regions that farm and tell Paco and his 47 cousins it’s time to go away. Whitaker thinking will help us to get the job done.
Once a large enough percentage of whites want white nationalism to happen, it will happen. It’s as simple as that.
#2 by Prometheus on 07/04/2007 - 8:32 pm
There isn’t much that has been predicted that actually has happened. That which has, is more a self fulfilling prophesy, than any accurate prediction.
For instance, the ‘prediction’ that we will all become multiracial is actually being forced to become true. Most people still see it as a natural process.
As for genetic engineering, it is already happening. Tests can already be conducted on unborn fetus’ to determine of there is any genetic abnormality. The number of children born with certain complication has already altered.
I do however have doubt that a non-white will be able, even through engineering to have real WHITE children. Certaintly white people will be able to choose features, but non-whites may only be able to change pigmentation, and thats it.
The features which makes whites unique are far more complex. Even mentally speaking there are significant differences, and the genetic mechanisms which give rise to these attributes are still not fully understood.
Our current assumptions on genetic engineering is that it is easy to pick and choose attributes, but I suspect that the relationship between genetic code and attributes is far more chaotic and complex and granular.
#3 by Al Parker on 07/04/2007 - 10:42 pm
I still don’t see how you can hold that the non-whites should not be considered Our Posterity when we accept that some generation after the Founders is allowed to change the definition of “our posterity.” The way I see it, if the rules can be changed, then they can be changed. Maybe the generation that changed the laws on miscegenation and opened up immigration to all peoples had an epiphany on the meaning of posterity. How does the fact that something was a certain way at a certain time argue against this when we accept that meaning can be changed?
And another meaning of posterity is simply “all generations to come” as in the sentence, “After being turned down by numerous publishers, he had decided to write for posterity.”
With that meaning, “all our generations to come” would include the descendants of ANYONE living here today. Maybe it is not completely coincidental that that is the law.
The founders should have expounded on “our posterity.”
#4 by Anonymous on 07/05/2007 - 2:10 am
I suspect your time schedule is a bit tight but nevertheless there will be changes ahead which those who draw straight line projections are missing.
One of these is the petrochemical based Green Revolution and the 6.5+ billion featherless bipeds who now crowd the Earth. This is by no means a permanent and sustainable arrangement, and in the future the planet will be less crowded. Better for us, I would say.
#5 by Scimitar on 07/06/2007 - 1:16 am
I’m not aware of Vermont ever having an anti-miscegenation law.
#6 by Hardric on 07/06/2007 - 8:53 am
RE: Anonymous
First I step on Richard’s toes, then I forget who I am. Nevertheless, for the record this was my post.