May 31, 2004

Well, gang, it had to happen.

I'm too radical for David Duke.

At the Saturday banquet, Dave had stunningly beautiful blond sing.  Her voice was better than her looks, even.  She is spectacular.

But there is something called "The American Anthem."  When "Dixie" was banned from country music shows, they started singing this "American Anthem" thing.  It starts with "Dixie," which everybody is dying to hear, and then, to justify that, they then include "John Brown's Body," a.k.a, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," which is a hate song saying how God wants Southerners dead. 

We are those "Grapes of Wrath" the Yankees sang about.  We are to be stamped out.

A Jew is not expected to listen to the Horst Wessel Song.  I think there is something sick about a Southerner who will sit still for "John Brown's Body."  So when that lovely woman got to that, I was the only one who walked out of the banquet..

It wasn't diplomatic.  But you should be proud of Old Bob.  How many people do you know of who walked out of a David Duke rally because it was too Politically Correct? 

May 28, 2004

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a white minority.  I have been a white minority for much of my life, and we were much more racially conscious. 

We have always been in a minority, what is changing is WHERE we are in a minority.  Fanatical white anti-whites were always in Minnesota and Sweden and Canada, away from the objects of their affection.  A threatened white minority has a MUCH better chance of unity and survival than yesterday's Yankees and Europeans for whom the poor little colored brethren were just a theory.

Actually, the only thing that unites Yankees today is a common hatred of the South.  We serve the same function for them that blacks served for us in the slavery and segregation days.   Pathetic "American patriots" like today's National Review have nothing to be loyal to.  They play "John  Brown's Body, they worship Abraham Lincoln, but they have nothing of their own at all.

A threatened self-conscious white minority will have a much healthier mind-set.

It is true that the slavish minorities will give liberals a majority soon in election.   But there is a time limit on that, too.  The NAACP had been in existence for over sixty years before it had its first black president.  Then there was what was called a "black takeover."   Liberals were astonished to see blacks taking over the NAACP!

When minorities become majorities, they stop being slaves to liberals.  They take over with their own spokesmen.  The Lt. Governor of California is a member of a Hispanic supremacist group.  He refused to drop out when he ran for governor.

Whites will be the largest minority and they will have to bargain as whites.

I wouldn't worry too much about the "Future voters."  There won't be any.  All multicultural societies are tyrannies, and any multiracial society is tyranny squared.

Somebody like Saddam takes over.  He took over Iraq for the 40% Sunni minority.  Tito did the same thing for the Yugoslavian Serbs.

As a third world society gets richer, it experiences a population bust.  People want to spend the money they would have spent on children on their own toys.   The third world doesn't have children if they have to pay for them.  In the classic third world, children are an asset or a source of pride, and if you don't want them you just let them starve.  With a little income, the government begins to demand that you pay for your kids.

Anyway, the whole question of children will be 100% choice before long.  Swedes hate white people, but a lot of Indians would love to have pure Aryan children.  The Aryans were the top caste of India.  Buddha was a Nordic.  India loves blondness.

They can choose.  And there are a billion Indians, while China's population is dropping already.

With all those variables and my own experience, I know damn well that the future is totally unpredictable.  The only people I know whoa re so wrong they are silly are the ones who talk about an "inevitable future."  They are drooling idiots, whether they sit around and whine in their beer about the hopeless state of the world or talk about being "progressive" who are with the future.

May 26, 2004

I mentioned that conservatives are loudly celebrating the 1954 Brown vs. Board decision by which the Supreme Court took power to force integration on Southern states. 

Conservatives also loudly celebrate the 1968 Supreme Court decision that declared every state anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional without even a pretense that those who wrote the Constitution wanted that.

At the same moment, conservatives are demanding to know how the courts got the power to make states legalize gay marriage.

Bob Jones was on of the leaders in taking down the Confederate flag.  He said it offended some people, so it had to go.

Now the ACLU is fighting to remove the cross from every city and county seal in California.  I am sure Bob Jones is terribly upset.  How DARE they remove the cross?

Well, Reverend, it offends some people.

You are right that some bigots use the Confederate flag.   But the symbol of the Ku Klux Klan is a flaming CROSS!  That makes the cross racist, right?  So it's got to go.

You said that, I didn't.

May 25, 2005

I mentioned below that writers like Pat Buchanan who were helping suppress racist alarmists like me twenty-five years ago are now writing books saying what I said then. 

Right now Buchanan and his kind are saying that the solution is "the traditional American melting pot."  They say all we need is one language and so forth.

Actually, all multicultural societies are one-party states ruled by tyrants.  That is true of all multicultural societies.  It is even more true of multiracial societies.  Buchanan is now talking about the glories of assimilation and the glorious melting pot.  But his "melting pot" could never be anything but a tyranny.

Ten years from how Buchanan will be writing one of a group of best-selling  books  that use a hundred thousand words to say what I just said:

"all multicultural societies are one-party states ruled by tyrants.

WhitakerOnline readers will be urging me to read Buchanan newest Great Revelation.

By the middle of this century, Europe will have a Moslem majority. Whole books over a hundred thousand words long are being published that say exactly what I just said in one sentence.  I keep getting frantic e-mails from WhitakerOnline readers who say I have GOT to read every one of them.

By the middle of this century, America will have a white minority.  Whole books over a hundred thousand words long are being published that say exactly what I just said in one sentence.  I keep getting frantic e-mails from WhitakerOnline readers who say I have GOT to read every one of them.

Pat Buchanan recently wrote the best-selling book of his career.  All it said was that 1) by the middle of this century, Europe will have Moslem majority and .2) By the middle of this century, America will have a white minority..  I have known the man for many years, and I have an autographed copy of that book on my shelf.

So you can stop sending me frantic e-mails about how I should read Buchanan's book.

I was saying what Buchanan is now saying twenty-five years ago.  That was when I heard Pat Buchanan state flatly on national television that the reason Americans died at Normandy was to make Europe multiracial.

Can you see why e-mails telling me to read Buchanan's book make me tired all over? 

May 20, 2004

May 19, 2004

The Nazis would cheerfully have accepted exactly the same solution to the Jewish Problem that everybody today agrees is the solution to the White Problem: mix them into huge third world populations and forbid them to segregate themselves.

I read a piece recently by a Catholic priest who referred to "God's dream of a united world."

It has been said that a wildly advanced intelligence could deduce all the laws of the universe from a single teaspoonful of sugar.  I think you could deduce everything that is twisted, sick and weird about modern religion from that one phrase used by that one priest.

I spent a lot of time in AA and Narcotics Anonymous.  No one can explain why their programs work.

I think that is precisely the reason that AA and NA DO work.

There was a movie biography of the founder of AA, Bill Wilson. It was called "My Name is Bill W."  One incident that movie left out was when Bill Wilson traveled all the way to Switzerland to meet Carol Jung who, along with Sigmund Freud, was one of "the founders of modern psychiatry.".

Jung told Bill W flatly that there was nothing he could do for him.  He said he had had many alcoholic patients, and all of them died or were mindless in an institution.

So Bill W went back to America and finally found his salvation by working with other alcoholics and founding AA.

Bill  W was lucky he went to the honest Jung.  If he had gone to Freud, Freud would have been treating him for some kind of imagined Mother Fixation  until he died drunk.   Freud had his theory, and he didn't care whether it worked or not.

It didn't.

 Fortunately Bill W went to Jung, and Jung told him what few professionals ever tell those who come to them:  "I simply don't KNOW."

So AA was not founded on a theory.  It was 100% trial and error.

If what you try in AA doesn't work, people go out, get drunk, and die.  And those people are not "Patient Number AA62301X."  The guy who dies is someone you know, someone you have talked to, another drunk.

That is how the AA program developed.  If what you did worked, people stayed sober.   If it didn't, you saw the results up close and personal.

AA still has no theory.  It just has a lot of results.

May 18, 2004:

Yesterday was the fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court's Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka decision.

Today is the fiftieth anniversary of a twin decision to Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka.  I doubt anyone will want to go into it, because it very embarrassing in every aspect.

Anything that embarrasses them is meat to me, so I will tell you about the May 18, 1954 Supreme Court decision called Bolling versus Sharpe.  The schools in Washington, DC were segregated in May of 1954, and Bolling versus Sharpe imposed integration on the District.

Here's why nobody wants to mention Bolling versus Sharpe:

1) The day before the Supreme Court had decided that those who wrote he fourteenth amendment intended to outlaw segregated schools.  The first thing they had to mention in Bolling versus Sharpe was that THE SAME CONGRESS THAT PROPOSED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SET UP THE SEGREGATED SCHOOL SYSTEM IN WASHINGTON, DC! 

2) The fourteenth amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia, only to the states.  So the Court had to decided that, in 1789., those who wrote the Bill of Rights demanded that no state, including at least eight slave states out of total of thirteen( New York abolished slavery in 1826), allow any racial discrimination.

3) Integration in DC was an unqualified disaster. President Eisenhower integrated every District school in September of 1954.  Almost overnight the white majority got out, the school system essentially collapsed, and is still collapsed.

Funny.  I haven't seen anybody marching to remind people of Bolling versus Sharpe in DC, have you?

My niece told me that if I didn't start dating these, she would shoot my kneecaps off.  But the first entry is still at the bottom.

May 17, 2004 (below):

In the Reeves entry below I refer, once again, to interracial sex.  I talk about race all the time precisely because others don't. 

Conservatives are wildly celebrating the May 17, 1954 Supreme Court decision on race.  At the same time, they are wringing their hands and demanding where the courts got all this power to make or break state laws if they feel like.    But any straight answer to that would be straight racial heresy, because the single greatest step in the direction of giving courts total power over the steps without any hint of original intent was the Most Holy Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka.

In 1968, the Supreme Court struck down every state anti-miscegenation.   This is was openly in defiance of the intent of those who wrote the Constitution.  Every single state that ratified the Constitution had and enforced anti-miscegenation, and even the most wild-eyed Radical Republican who helped pass the fourteenth amendment ever even suggested that a state had no right to pass such a law.

Every single respectable conservative whoops and hollers his praise of that 1868 anti-miscegenation decision.

he then wonder out loud where the courts got the right to dictate marriage law to states entirely on their own, without any reference to the ideas of the real people who wrote the paper document called the Constitution.

Where did that get that power?   You gave it to them.

To be a respectable conservative, you have to repeat seven words endlessly and mindlessly.  Those seven words are: "This has nothing to do with race."

It is hard to come up with any defense against homosexual marriage since marriage became separated from having children.  If couples want to marry and not have children, why can't two homosexuals do the same thing?

You may say God said so, but nobody believes you are God.  No couple in the Bible decided to be childless until early Christian couples did decide to be chaste, a nun and monk living together, but at the same time most monks and most nuns set up all-male and all-female communities.  

And, once again, we are back to race.  Anti-intermarriage laws were struck down precisely because they were specifically aimed at perpetuating what the Founders meant when they said "our race."  If a state has no right to do that, it has no right to ban homosexual marriage because it is naturally childless.

The same people who want to have interracial couples kissing on television, no matter how much it offends me still do not allow homosexual coupling on television because it offends them.  Once you start down that road, you simply do not stop.

I hope Jesus wasn't a perfect man.

One thing you have to give Islam credit for.   Confucius and the Buddha said over and over that they were just men, albeit very wise men.   The moment they died, followers started declaring they were divine.  Only Islam has held rigidly to what Mohammed told them, that he was a prophet, a man, and nothing more.

Jesus did not just deny that He was man, he even said that, as a man, he wasn't even good:

"Why do you call me good?  Only the Father is good."

But as soon as the Apostles were on their own, they grudgingly admitted that Christ was a man, but they insisted He was perfect man. 

But to me a perfect man is not a man.  They talk about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  I like to think of His saying, “That’s OK, Bob, I’ve been there myself.”  With someone who was fully a man I can have a personal relationship.   But a perfect man is as far from me as God is.

Oh, by the way, you will notice that I am much more upset about a white girl with a black guy than by a white guy with a black girl.  I am regularly told that this is not being objective.

Bingo!  I am not objective.  I am a white male.  I am much more upset seeing a beautiful white girl wasted on a black guy than I am on a white guy being wasted.  If there are any healthy women left, they would be more upset at seeing the white guy wasted.

That's not objective.  That's the way I react to the world.

And I say so.

 

Agatha Christie, the woman who wrote the books about Hercule Poirot, also had a character named Miss Marple.   Miss Marple was an old maid who had lived her entire life in one tiny English town, St. Mary Mead.  She was as good a detective as Hercule Poirot.  The lead character in "Murder, She Wrote" is almost an exact copy of her.

 

Miss Marple's ability as a detective came largely from the fact that she knew all about people.  She would know who the murderer was because he reminded her of that grocer boy who tried to alter her check once in St. Mary Mead.  Everybody reminded her of someone in St. Mary Meade, because human beings are pretty predictable and the cast of characters and characteristics among humans, to a sharp mind, is very limited.

In other words, Miss Marple was a truly sophisticated person.  She could soon fit in anywhere.

Like Miss Marple, I am a very provincial person, but I was able to make a good living assessing people all over the world.

 

Very early on, I noticed that the most naive people in the world were the very people who had been everywhere.  I decided that was because they were what we now call multicultural.  They knew all about the different surface characteristics of different peoples, but they never got to know a single group of people the way Miss Marple did.

 

My deduction came out in this sentence: "Before you get to know people, you have to know ***A*** people."

 

This is like "Physician, heal thyself," or, as one young  radical put it many years ago, before you point out the mote in another person's eye, look for the beam in your own.

 

Or another saying, "Know thyself."

 

Most of us bigots have the idea that a child should learn to speak and understand a whole language.  We even demand that schools teach children to read.  But there is a much more sophisticated alternative.

 

Instead of learning one or two languages by the age of three, a child could learn a little of a hundred languages.  Instead of having a vocabulary of three thousand words in one language by the age of three, he could have a vocabulary of thirty words in a hundred languages.

 

Naturally some people will object to the idea of an intelligent child of three having a practical vocabulary of only thirty words.  But on the other hand, the child would have the overwhelming advantage of being multicultural.

In other words, he could not hold a conversation in any one language, but he would have an overview of a hundred different tongues.

 

Everybody agrees that being multicultural is the greatest thing in the world for a child, and nobody ever explains why.  So there is no reason to explain why a kid who has a practical vocabulary of thirty words is quote "disadvantaged" unquote when he also has all the advantages of being multicultural.

When you are a highly intelligent Southerner in Washington you don't get upset about Yankees having an insulting image of Southerners, you USE it.  I used it so many times it became automatic.

At my first Federal job as aviation negotiator, I was freshly back from a year in Africa where my resume said I worked for a sewing machine company.  My resume was full of empty spaces.  But I got the clearance I needed with no questions.  Once I was safely in the job, I was at lunch with the man who was really in charge of such our security about what he had thought when he saw those empty spaces.

This man had spent most of his Federal career in intelligence, so his word was what counted most on clearances, despite all the required paperwork from elsewhere.  He was an Italian-American from New Jersey.  Those empty spaces in my resume came up.

He said, "I just assumed you were spookin'" which was the word for spying pros used back then.

What sort of explanation or other comment could I make that wouldn't require lots of other explanations?

But I always remembered that I was a Southerner and he was a Yankee.  My response was automatic:

"What's spookin'?"

If he had been talking to anybody else at my level in Washington, he would have said,

"Man, don't play that game with me!"

Instead he looked very satisfied and explained to this inexperienced Southern boy that "spookin'" was the professionals' word for "spying," and got into telling me about his experiences in that field, which was damned interesting stuff.

If you are serious about recovery from drugs and alcohol, you enter the recovery community, which is like a small town squared.  Everybody knows all about everybody else.

One black guy in the program, the recovery community, was a true son of a bitch.  One thing he did was to MAIL a white woman a picture of himself buck naked, full frontal and more.  She couldn't report him because she couldn't talk about being in the program.

What else this guy did is not up for discussion.

In an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting, one white woman who was terribly upset said, "He's a NIGGER!"

Suddenly she realized that half of the people in the room were black, so she stammered an apology.  A black woman said, "I know exactly what you mean, and you're right.."  Black heads nodded around the room.

It is better not to use the N word at all.  It is unnatural in soft Southern speech to pronounce Knee-Grow or nigger with the hard r.  Yankees loved Knee-Grow because a Southerner saying that sounded like he was crawling on his stomach.

But "nigger" with the hard r means something specific to a Southerner.  It is the exact equivalent of "white trash."  And this guy was exactly that.

Addiction is, in the most literal sense of the word, a DEADLY problem.  Most people die before they get to AA or Narcotics Anonymous (NA).   Thousands of war heroes could not fight addiction and died.  If you do live to make it to the program, you are nowhere near home free.

The death rate in AA is high.  The death rate in NA is staggering.

This is not a theory or a statistic.  These are people you know intimately.

So what the black woman was saying about he N word that slipped out was, "This ain't a tea party.   This is life and death.  Say it, damn it! Let's go. let's go!""

Anybody who is an orthodox leftist is called a rightist.  The media and the universities only know about liberalism and socialism versus everybody else.  But there are whole worlds out there.

Nobody really takes leftism seriously any more.  Even  leftists just hate rich people.  None of the great plans for the future they used to preach are even mentioned today.

As for me, my last ties to conservatism are dying away.  National Review is good when it criticizes leftists, but what it pushes is just plain nasty.  Their opposition to all embryonic research is inexcusable.  They blindly follow anything that can expand the military.  They want war and their country is Israel.  They want to prove that they hate the South more than liberals do.

Conservatives like Shaun Hannity declare that Jesus died on the Cross for interracial dating.  National Review tacitly agrees.

What e hell do these "conservatives" want to "conserve?"

They want to conserve twenty-year-old liberalism.