BOB'S BLOG - May 2004

Click Here to Buy Bob's New Book!


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

When you've been writing speeches and books and boiling down wordy stuff for busy people the way I have for decades, you listen to the same things other people do but you see it for what it is.  When I listen to a speech, I don't hear the same speech the other people do.
One example is what I call the "Me Rough. Me Tough. Me Dedicated.  Me Brave.  Me cry and give up."
It goes like this.  I get a note from yet another person who says that white people or conservatives or Americans or whatever are not rough and tough and willing to fight.  "You and I" he says to me, are willing to fight, but it's all hopeless because they ain't brave like we are.
So, he says, let's surrender.   After we have had this good whine, of course.
I have gotten this crap from dozens of Tough Guys.  I still get it.
Every time I get one of those letters, I laugh my ass off.
Nobody else understands what I am laughing at.  The Tough Guy Crybaby certainly wouldn't.




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 24, 2004


I think it was Walter Williams who came up with the following priceless quote:

"A 'stereotype' is an unpleasant truth."

William Bennett constantly declares that he is a gentile, so the stereotype of neoconservatives  being Jewish is disproved.  Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, we know it is a fact precisely because he has to say that so much.

Another reason I know neoconservative leadership is solidly Jewish is because they are good at what they do.   At the New Media Seminar, only a few people actually listened to every word I said, and every one of them was a Jew.

You see, I made a living and got published as a political strategist.   So when I talk about political strategy, you are getting something free that people paid for.  You don't appreciate that, but a Jew will.

Every big name in the talk radio business was at the New Media Seminar except Rush Limbaugh, who got the big award and was going to be there but had to cancel at the last minute because of what, if he were a left-winger, would be called legal harassment.

The big topic at the convention was how the public is becoming a bit bored by talk radio.  For four hours a day they talk about liberals, the Iraq War, liberals, how Bush didn't tell the truth, and liberals.  For some unknown reason the public seems to be wearying of it.

So when I brought up my book, they couldn't see what it had to do with liberals, the Iraq War, liberals, how Bush didn't tell the truth, and liberals.

Conservatives are constantly upset that when they finally see the importance of some idea, the neoconservatives have already taken it.  My boss hated neo-conservatism, but the foundation set up in his name is now neoconservative property.  They did that while conservatives were "busy" with the "Practical Issues."



I am going to New Orleans for David Duke's "coming out" party.  He invited me to speak.  I would be very happy to have David Duke use my ideas.   I met Dave in Moscow and helped him some when he was in prison.  He is a brilliant man.

And if Dave uses my stuff, it will scare the hell out everybody else.  He's good at that.

  I will drive all the way to New Orleans, and I will speak to that group.  They will look at me like I have a daisy growing out of my nose.  They will then proceed to do exactly what they always did, just like the Talk show people will.

What I just said will make a lot of people angry, but it will not cause one single person on the right to THINK.
So why do I go on?
I've seen my ideas work for the good, and every time I have faced this same bovine conservative mentality.  They want to know "What does that with the new Deputy Assistant head of the Department of Education?  You know, the one Nixon was trying to appoint."
That's the REAL stuff, the PRACTICAL stuff. 
How does what I say relate to the meat shortage?
You remember the meat shortage, don't you?
You don't even REMEMBER all the Practical Stuff, but if you will look at what I wrote about, you will see that almost all of it became part of very, very practical politics indeed.  You will not understand why everybody said that what I was writing about was Impractical and Untimely.

And you would be bowled over by what they considered the Big, Practical Stuff at time.  It was as pointless and dumb as what you consider the Big Practical Stuff now.  You just don't see it that way NOW.

I do.

So I am doing it again.   The people who looked at the daisy in my nose last time are staring at the same daisy now.  They know I was right then, but they know I am wrong now.
Except some Jews.
And when conservatives suddenly come up with the ideas I talked about before, they will charge forth with them and try to take the mountain I pointed out to them.  They will find that the Neos already hold it.




I'm tired and I want to bitch  some more.

"Busy, busy, busy, busy, busy, busy, busy, busy," ad infinitum.

When I try to get something done, everybody tells me how BUSY they are.

I made my living working with high Administration officials and congressmen.  When you are senior staff, you just DO it.
You get into your boss's office, tell him the exact situation, you then tell him exactly what decision you need him to make, you get his yes or no, and you get the hell out.  I am good at this, so I seldom got asked any further questions.  Decisions were my business.  That's why I was SENIOR staff.
Looking at the above paragraph, you can see why it is very tiresome for me to be told how busy somebody is.  I'm not going to waste your time, and I do not need to be introduced to the idea of what a busy person looks like.
In many cases, if I had the time a person wastes telling me how busy, busy, busy, busy, busy, busy, busy he is, I could have done everything I needed to do twice.




It's 3:30 am and I just got back from New York.
I forgot to mention that I was going to New York to the New Media Seminar sponsored by Talker's Magazine.  I met G. Gordon Liddy, Hannity, Colmes and the other stars of talk radio.  I talked to them about "Why Johnny Can't Think: America's Professor-Priesthood."
Like readers of WhitakerOnline, they are deeply interested in the latest news and opposing whatever liberals proposed this week.  My concept of an attack on the enemy's base, the universities, has not been mentioned by any liberal and is therefore off their radar.
I got letters from WOL readers asking how we might reverse Supreme Court decisions and one contending too much welfare for non-whites is bad.
One guy wrote me that he had read the book and told me what he agreed with and what he didn't agree with.  His interest in what I was promoting ended there. Let's all scream about Iraq.

You don't need me for that crap.

In other words, WOL readers walk like standard conservatives, they talk like standard conservatives, and they quack like standard conservatives.
One pathetic old guy wrote me the old line about "the ballot box or the cartridge box."  So he is going to go out and overthrow the government?  No, he just wants to pound his chest and say that if there is a revolution he will be a leader, but if not, he is just going to pound away at his chest.
WhitakerOnline was a noble try, but it failed.  "Why Johnny Can't Think" was a noble try, but it failed.  Unlike the old "ballot box or the cartridge box" braggart, I realized the size of what I tried to do so I am not all that upset..
Maybe I'll feel better tomorrow afternoon when I wake up.
I am tired and discouraged, and I don't want to deal with any conservative morons



May 20, 2004


A major theme of "Why Johnny Can't Think" is that Political Correctness is America's tax-paid, enforced RELIGION.  It is not LIKE a religion.  It IS a religion.
A religion does not have to involve a god.  Buddhism has no god.  We have a religion, and its doctrine is leftism.
So our whole social dialogue is divided into those who support the Established Faith, the left, and those who oppose the established faith, who are called, collectively, "the right."
Any political heretic is called a "conservative," even though he may in total disagreement with any other so-called conservative.  "Conservative" has no meaning except "anti-liberal."
I am just about the least conservative person you will ever talk to.
 I get along better with black radicals than I do with "respectable black leaders."  God knows I respect them more.   "Black leaders" are mindless slaves to the political left.  Our established faith pays them well..  They make an Uncle Tom look like Nat Turner.
When I hear the Nation of Islam talk, I find myself saying, "You damn right!"
When black housing projects get dangerous, the Nation of Islam doesn't sit and whine about the government not giving blacks enough money.  They don't yell about Confederate flags.  They get in there and clean the place out, drug dealers, pimps and all.
Have a little mercy, man, how can you expect a redneck from Pontiac, SC to say anything but "Go get those bastards!  Way to go!"
I don't give a flying horsehockey what they think of white people.  Those are MEN!
As a professor friend of mine said, "I like people who stand on their hind legs!"
Liberals are upset at black radicals because they are of no use in the cause of ridding the earth of white gentiles.  Instead of advocating big government plans to hire bureaucrats to "deal with the fundamental problems" of the projects, they get in there and do it themselves.
Anybody liberals really hate respectable conservatives hate even more.  So conservatives hate the Nation of Islam.  Respectable conservatives are also Uncle Toms to our established religion.  That's how they make their fat livings.
 I would rather give a dollar to the Nation of Islam than I would ten to some bureaucrat.
"Oh, but Bob, you can't give government money to Moslems because they're a religion and bureaucrats are public servants."
Bullshit.  Federal social bureaucrats are much a part of our established faith as the bureaucrats in the Vatican are part of the Catholic Church.




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.




I pointed out here that the pro-life "Christians" were not as sweet as they like to say they are.  They say they are wonderful because they believe that life begins at conception.  They say that liberals just protect the helpless, but they are protecting the even more helpless.
But, I said, the same church doctrine that says life beings at conception also says that babies who do not come to term go to Hell for eternity because they are not baptized.

Not so sweet!.

Note I said eternity.  No one claims that the limbo that unbaptized babies are supposed to go to is eternal. In the end, according to actual doctrine, there is only heaven or hell, souls that belong to God and souls who are at the mercy of Satan.
I got lots of objections.
But let me tell you a little secret to finding out whether someone is telling you something just to contradict you or whether they are giving you the truth.  It lies in consistency.
One person sent me a web page that said that the Church sincerely wished that those babies not go to Hell.
One person sent me a link restating the idea of Limbo, which was supposed to impress me because it used the Latin term for Limbo.  Nothing on the page said anything about Limbo being eternal.
The fact is that St. Augustine said those babies go to hell, and that is official doctrine.  So another person wrote me that that doctrine of baby damnation began with St. Augustine and used lots of long theological terms to impress me.
St. Augustine's doctrine was embraced by the Church.  Pelagius, who denied baby damnation, is still a heretic.
But the first hint that all these excuses for a hideous doctrine were not true is that they are not consistent.
I mentioned that the first thing a person who wants interracial sex says is that all that matters is that the mating couple are In Love when the conception occurs.  The kid will be almost certainly look ugly and unnatural, but that doesn't matter.  Nobody cares if they are ugly if their parents were In Love.
I ridicule them and make them face the fact that kids, like all human beings, do care how they look.   If a girl looked like one of his mixed-race children, O.J. Simpson wouldn't give her the time of day.

The person pushing interracial sex never says he was wrong.  Every one of them immediately switches to saying that the kids will be lovely.   

I have been through this a hundred times, and I mean LITERALLY a hundred times.

Each of these twits now announces that "Everybody knows that the most beautiful people on earth are the x, and they are a racial mix of y and z."
In a hundred cases, not once has the person telling me what "everybody knows" cited the same x, the same y or the same z.

If the church actually had any doctrine contrary to embryo damnation, a number of people would have cited it.  My replies all objected to embryo damnation, but no two objections were alike.

I have never heard of any church that ever SPECIFICALLY denied that Pelagius was and IS a heretic.




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.




The actor who played Superman in the movie (Something Reeves, I can't remember names) is crippled from the neck down.  He is watching himself slowly die while Old Testament nuts are demanding an end to embryo research which has some faint hope of helping him.
The embryos couldn't care less. If the pro-lifers have their way, they won't be created.  If they were created, death wouldn't matter to a blob of 64 cells. 
 "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  If I had the choice of being created as an insensate blob of 64 cells and dying in the faint of helping real people, I wouldn't mind a bit.  In fact, I would be glad to volunteer.

But the Golden Rule is just what Jesus said.  Professional Christians couldn't care less about that.

Pro-lifers are very proud that their only concern is the blob, not a person in a wheel chair.  That makes them True Militant Idealists.

You know, like the guys who ran the Inquisition.

.Reeves doesn't like their attitude.

No decent human being could possibly see anything funny about this.
Which means, if you had have read Bob Whitaker, that I DO find something funny about this.
Reeves, aka Superman, has been a hard core liberal all his life.  He has always said that if a blond and black want to have sex, all that matters is that they are, for the moment, Truly In Love.  The feelings of the generations of ugly offspring they produce do not matter in the least.
For a liberal, everything is one huge sugary blob.
And the Pro-Lifers are delirious because they out-liberal the liberals in losing all sense of decency in exactly the same sticky sweet blob.
Pro-lifers are wildly proud of the fact that they are not only for the weak against the strong, but they are for an insensate glob of 64 cells against people in wheel chairs.   Reeves says, "But for God's sake, I'm HUMAN!"
Pro-lifers say, "Tough luck, Buddy.  We are fighting for the Truly Helpless, those 64 cells that wouldn't be created except to help you.  They have an inalienable right not to be created."
Pro-Lifer also have a Right to No-Life.  Those blobs cannot be created because if they did they'd have rights.  You can't "create them to destroy them."  So you don't create them.
To me, this is insane.    But so is Reeves, the life-long sugary blob liberal.
Reeves has dedicated his life to the kind of ideas pro-lifers that are so proud of.   
Reeves said that how two people feel about each other at the moment they have sex is to him infinitely more important than any effect on the offspring.  
Hannity does him one better.  He says that Christ died on the cross for interracial sex and he is for the blobs' Right to non-Life against anybody in a wheel chair.
You can only come to a conclusion like that if you don't think, if you don't give a damn about what really happens to people.  So the pro-lifers are preaching exactly the same doctrine to Reeves he dedicated his life to  The Old Testament anti-embryo nuts are all goo and sugar, just like the stuff Reeves dedicated his life to.
Reeves gave his life to making the white world brown.  He doesn't care about the fact that the brown world is a nightmare.  He wanted sugar, he wanted goo.

If I put this in WOL, the readers wouldn't know what I was talking about.  They would look at me as if I had a tulip growing out of my nose.  But to me the parallel is perfect.

When Reeves begs that he be considered, pro-Lifers point out that there is very little chance embryonic work would help him.  On the other hand, they say, those 64 cells would be REAL, a real soul bound for Hell because it is unbaptised ( though they wish it the best, of course).  He is just being theoretical, they are being REAL.

Reeves said that his white and black pining for each other were REAL, and the misery of a brown world is just theoretical.  All brown countries are awful places for children to be born in, but I can't say why, or prove that they always will be.  So, says Reeves, let's fight for the black Romeo and his white Juliet.

The black Romeo and white Juliet are REAL.  They could find somebody else, but why should they?  Future generations don't matter.

The globs pro-lifers are demanding non-life for would be REAL, and what Reeves wants is just a probability, a hope.  He can't PROVE that embryo research would do him any good.

Reeves is facing the same meaningless goo he devoted his life to.

Live with it, Reeves.
Die with it, Reeves.





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, ďThatís OK, Bob, Iíve been there myself.Ē  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.






History is not a matter of invention.  History is a matter of use.
The Incas had wheels on their children's  toys.   But they did not use the wheel at all.
There is phonetic writing on Indian monuments.  But written language was not used for communication.  China has a huge list of things people invented.  None of those inventions made the slightest difference.  Most of them were just forgotten.
A white society grabs things and goes with them.  Real history is the history of a whole people, not isolated inventors





One  thing that happened in the Iraqi prisoner scandal was that the grunts got fuddled and confused orders.  The brass desperately needed to get information at the same, and at the same time their main concern was pleasing Europeans and liberals.    So what got down to the grunts was a complete babble.

Official orders outlined the human treatment of prisoners the way the New York Times would like them.  Then when the grunts met with officers, they would say, "That's for public consumption.  Our men's lives depend on your humiliating these bastard and getting information!"

When the leadership babbles, everything falls apart.
If you are in charge, you owe the people under you clear orders.   That's the job description for a leader.

But you can't be a general if you are a leader.  You only get a star on your uniform if you are a bureaucrat.




We all hate to go to a store and deal with someone who is more interested in his own attitude than he is in serving us.
I have Adult Attention Deficit (ADD), so I never remember everything.  In the Post Office, I have often had to ask for some tape when I mailed a package.  I have done it at least twenty times over the years.
Every single white postal worker put the tape on for me.  Every single black postman handed me the tape.
Even an ex-professor like me has no trouble  sticking tape on.  But the attitude is what matters.    Black postmen served me just fine, but they also had to get that "Me no slave" crap in.
I think every sane white person would rather be served by a white person than a black person.
Because of the color of their skin.
The guy inside the black skin is very often interested in a Proper Black Attitude first and his customer second.
"Ah, but Bob, we're talking about centuries of oppression!"
No we're not.  We're talking about buying something.

I don't go into a store to humor the clerk.




There is no difference between hatred and righteous resentment.  Leon Trotsky began his career in Russia as a Jew desecrating Russian Orthodox holy relics.  He was reacting to centuries of Orthodox oppression against Jews.
Trotsky was part and parcel of the Red Terror when it was declared by Lenin.   He fanatically supported Lenin when Lenin began the Gulag.   Lenin died shortly after he became dictator of the USSR, so he did not live to carry out the slaughter he began.
Molotov, for whom the Molotov Cocktail was named, was Stalin's most loyal supporter.  He was the only   Soviet leader who wept at Stalin's funeral.   Molotov also worked for Lenin when he was dictator before Stalin. 
Molotov knew both Lenin and Stalin intimately.  After Stalin's death, Molotov said, "Compared to Lenin, Stalin was a pussycat."
Lenin said, "It does not matter whether the earth's population is two billion or half a billion.  What is important is that the remaining half a billion be Communist."
 It was Lenin, not the pussycat, to whom Trotsky was loyal all his life.
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, author of the now-forgotten trilogy, the Gulag Archipelago, wrote a detailed history demonstrating that Molotov's statement that, Compared to Lenin, Stalin was a pussycat" was exactly right.
Trotsky built the apparatus that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot used to kill tens of millions of people later on.   But Trotsky is given a pass by history because he was born Herschel Bernstein, a member of a minority group that was persecuted.
Trotsky  demanded and helped carry out the slaughter of millions, but Trotsky was not a hater, you see.  He just engaged in Righteous Resentment.
Everything Hitler did Trotsky and Stalin did first.  And more of. 
Trotsky did not object to Stalin's Terror.  He objected to the Terror he and Lenin started "being misused" by Stalin.
After Stalin drove him out of the USSR, Trotsky kept complaining that "I built what Stalin just USED."
He was exactly right.
Without Trotsky, Hitler would never have become a major figure in Germany, much less dictator.  But Hitler and Stalin were white gentiles, so history says, "They had no excuse."  So Hitler was a Hater.  You are even allowed to say that Stalin was a Hater.
But nobody says outright that Trotsky was a Hater because he was a Jew.  He did not hate, he was a misguided idealist whose feeling was Righteous Resentment.
Trotsky is still killing people, right now, today, in Cuba, Red China, Angola, Vietnam and in guerrilla movements around the world.  Do the people dying in Communist concentration camps and prisons RIGHT NOW understand that Stalin's part in their fate was Hate and Trotsky's part in their agony was "Righteous Resentment?"
To those dying people, Trotsky's Righteous Resentment looks like Hate and smells like Hate and talks like Hate, and, above all, it FEELS like Hate.
Henry Kissinger is a Jew who was born in Austria.  His whole family in Austria disappeared during the Nazi regime.  But his comment on all this Jewish Righteous Resentment crap was, "A people that has been persecuted for two thousand years is doing something WRONG!"
Too many Jews excuse anything in the name of Jewish Righteous Resentment.  The Jewish community created the people who founded and built Communism.  Marx became a Christian and then a Communist, but his fundamental mindset was based on the Righteous Resentment he was raised on.
A radical young rabbi once looked Jews right in the face and said, "Before you point out the mote in your neighbor's eye, look to the beam in your own."
Germany produced one Hitler.   The Jewish community produces a  constant stream of Karl Marxes, Trotskys, Rosenbergs, and  modern worshipers of Castro.
Here is another quote:
"By their WORKS you shall know them."  Not by their excuses.  "By their WORKS."
Even Hitler never called his hate by that name.  He said it was Righteous Resentment.   All haters call it Righteous Resentment.  They are right to do so.  Hatred and Righteous resentment are exactly the same thing.




As I mentioned here before, I am great at handling top secret and sensitive information, but every time I try to do something "on the sly" I am exposed immediately.  The example I gave before was the time when I just had to go see a Klan rally about 1955, so I hid away back from the burning cross.   The television cameras back then would ruin their pictures if they were in a glare of light, so they were right behind me, out of sight.
When we watched the local TV news that night, it looked like Bob was burning this huge cross, and the guys in the robes in the background were just visiting.
In politics in South Carolina, I dealt with the Klan, Black Muslims when they were openly black supremacist, and anybody else I could get my hands on.  But I was very, very careful about being connected with them.   In other words, I was trying to be sneaky.
I am a trustworthy person.  In fact, those who know me tend me consider me so trustworthy that I am not even a person.   So this is an example of that, too.
I was a graduate student and teaching assistant.  This does not make you rich.   But for a graduate assistant I kept a pretty healthy bank account of almost a thousand dollars.  That was a lot of money in South Carolina about 1962.
One day I noticed I had many thousands of dollars in my account.  This is impossible to explain, but odd things always happened to me, this was certainly no threat, and I was busy saving the world, so I figured the best thing to do was to let it ride and wait for an explanation.
Sure enough, I went by a filling station run by a Klan leader and he said their Klan was having some kind of squabble about money so they dropped the money in my account until they got it straightened out.  It never even occurred to him to tell the institution, Bob Whitaker, what he had done.  I was the only one everybody trusted to hold a lot of money for them.
So there sat old Shrewd Bob, the guy who hid the fact that he even talked to Klansmen, with a straight gift of -- I forget the exact amount, but it was thousands of dollars -- in his bank account.
The IRS and the FBI were after the Klan at that time, so when I went to get what we called "Tippy-Top Secret" Clearance, those deposits were in the investigation record.  It wasn't a problem.   My whole record looked so weird that this one incident was hardly noticed.  But so much for my efforts to do something on the sly.





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.



All my life, I have laughed in the wrong places.
In my latest book, "Why Johnny Can't Think: America's Professor-Priesthood," I talk about the time a professor read out the Preamble to Soviet Constitution and I laughed out loud.
Everybody thought I was crazy.
They may have been right.
This Preamble says, "The Soviet Union is a nation of peasants, workers, soldiers and intellectuals."
When you have to explain a joke it ruins it.  But here is the kind of thing that hit me:
Let's say some ten-year-olds are deciding to set up a country.  One kid says, "Tommy, you be the peasant.   You'll be out in the mud all day and raise our food.  Billy, you're be the worker.  You'll be in the factory all day.  Jimmy, you're be the soldier.  You'll got out and get your leg blown off defending us."
Since Tommy and Billy and Jimmy are not college students in class, they will ask a question:
"While we are out slogging in the fields and factories and dying in the war, what are you going to be doing?"
 The kid who set up the game replies, "I'll be the Intellectual.  I'll sit around and tell you what to do."
Oh, come on, man, nobody would fall for that crap!  It's laughable.
But I was the only one who laughed.  About a hundred million people died under Communism because nobody laughed then, either.
If someone had had the brains to see how ridiculous this was and moral courage to laugh, the agony of hundreds of millions of people could have been spared.  You could once have beaten this nonsense with ridicule.
But nobody laughed. 
A thousand war heroes mean nothing compared to one person who has the brains and the moral courage to say the right thing at the right time.



Speaking of laughter, one reason I laugh in all the wrong places is because I LISTEN.
When you hear the same crap for the tenth time, it is boring.  But when you hear the same crap for the hundredth time, it gets funny.
Let me give you an example.  I keep saying that the reason I don't like to see a blond girl with a black guy is because it's ugly.  The kids will look awful.
In college, I would routinely ask people who wanted interracial dating to sit there and drink Coca-Cola mixed with beer.  I would do the buying.  All they had to do was look me straight in the eye and tell me, every time I asked them, that Lowenbrau mixed with Coke tasted great.  I got no takers.
So I laughed at them.
I pointed out that Coke was the most popular beverage on earth.  I said that Lowenbrau was known around the world as an excellent beer.  But if they said that anyone who didn't like mixed dating was a racist who was anti-black or anti-white, then they must be either anti-Coke or anti-Lowenbrau.
After being ridiculed on the ugly front, every one of them told me that mere appearance doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter how the children look.  All that matters is that the black and the blond are Truly In Love.  Our ruling doctrine says that children don't care how they look. 
That's easy for you to say if you aren't stuck with the Golden Rule.
"Do unto others as you have them do unto you."  I'm stuck with that.  Children HATE being ugly.  The black guy who gets his blond would never marry somebody who looked like their kids.
Can you imagine O.J. Simpson marrying somebody who looked like his kids?
The offspring have to live with their looks for the rest of their lives.  When they are seeking acceptance, they could say, "I want you to know it doesn't matter  how I look.  My Mommy and Daddy were Truly in Love."
Do you think a guy like Daddy, a black guy who wanted a blond, would give  a damn about the emotional state of Mommy and Daddy twenty years before?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Having ugly, unnatural looking children is a sin.
When I drive this point in, the same people who said the children will never care how they look immediately start arguing that the children will look great.
They always do that.  I laugh.  nobody understands what I am laughing about.  But this is the hundredth time I've heard these same lines.  Give me a break!  It's hilarious!
OK, we're back to my original point: when you hear the same thing the tenth time, it's boring.  When you hear it the hundredth time, it gets funny.
At least a hundred times, people who said children don't care how they look switch to the next standard line: mixed kids look great.  What they say next never varies.
They say that everybody knows that the most beautiful people in the world are the X's.  The X's are a mixture of Y and Z.
I have heard this line over a hundred times.  But the X's everybody knows are the most beautiful people in the world have never once been the same group.  Everybody knows they're the most beautiful people on earth, but they're never the same people.

There is also no overlap whatever between the hundred Y's or the hundred Z's.

I laugh at this because I LISTEN.   Most people hear this same crap a hundred times and they don't remember what anybody said.  It's news to them every time, and they believe.  They cannot understand why Old Bob is laughing so hard.

The people who push interracial dating are nasty people who don't give a damn what happens to the children.  I agree that is no laughing matter.  The Communists were also nasty vicious people who didn't care what happened to people.  But if you don't laugh at them at the right time, you'll never get rid of them.





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.
If you are on the public payroll as a person who is charged with raising orphans from babyhood, this idea of teaching them thirty words in a hundred languages is ideal.  By the age of seven, your charges will be able to read sixty words in two hundred different tongues!
You will, of course, get some objections from reactionaries who think that a child of three having a practical vocabulary of thirty words is a quote "bad thing" unquote.  When you deal with such a taxpayer, you will need to reason with him.
Point out to that person that anyone who opposes multiculturalism like him is anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.  Explain that, for unspecified reasons, the most wonderful thing in the world for a child is multiculturalism.
If they still don't like what you are doing, ask them this penetrating question, "So what the hell are you going to do about it?"  I absolutely guarantee they will just splutter and back down.
Remember, no parent has ever had the moral courage to ask what the hell multiculturalism is really supposed to do for his OWN children.  He is not about to demand an explanation when it comes to a bunch of orphans.




The group that calls itself "The Greatest Generation" has completely screwed up what was once the American world view.  If you weren't in the War, you got no right to talk about anything.  All that matters is courage in war.  And that only matters if you were on the winning side.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth and in real history, a hundred Medal of Honor winners are small potatoes compared to the person who has the MORAL courage to say the right thing at the right time.
Any decent human being visiting Arlington National cemetery is supposed to feel sadness, inspiration, and above all Gratitude, Gratitude, and more Gratitude. He is then  supposed to ask himself, "How about some Gratitude for a change?"
So much for a decent human being.  My feeling when I visited Arlington Cemetery was entirely different.
I thought, "Every combat veteran lying here is here is dead because people who worked exactly where I work today screwed up.  Those men had to face bullets and high explosives because somebody in my position didn't have the courage to face being embarrassed, to be all alone doing what needed to be done while everybody else squawked about the Great Issue of the Day."
I am right at home today, hitting on what counts while everybody else is frantically e-mailing each other about the how Bush lies about Iraq.  That's the story of my career.
The Iraq War is a policy that was determined while all the frantic e-mails were squawking about Clinton's sex scandals and a balanced budget. 

Her on Planet Earth, the job of a reasonably intelligent, decent person is to prevent the NEXT war.

Those crosses at Arlington testify to the people who  didn't do that.  They were too busy.
We've all heard the term "The Silent Majority."  That term was coined by Mark Twain in 1868 when he was describing the giant cemeteries in, around, and under the City of Paris.  At that time the living population of Paris was in the hundreds of thousands, but those cemeteries held at least a million.  So in one line Twain referred to those million dead as "Paris's silent majority."
At the end of World War II, the veterans' lobbies represented twelve million people, at least a fifth of the entire voting population if you ignore their families.  They were young and active, and all anybody talked about was the debt we owed them.
While everybody is showering Gratitude on the veterans' who vote, there should be one person in Washington who represents a silent population out there across the Potomac River by taking a cold, hard look at the real world and trying to prevent more heroes from lying under those crosses. 






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.





A guy just sent me 6600 words of a story he is writing for my professional opinion.
I started out reading what he sent me as an obligation I was happy to take on.  Let me explain that first.
You know how a doctor can't go to a party without half the people he talks to getting around to asking him about that pain they have in their left side?  A professional political writer has that problem, but much worse.
In politics, you have to go to a LOT of parties.  Every second person there tells you he wants to write.  When you give advice, their eyes glaze over.  I finally found the solution.  I would say, "I never discuss the theory of writing.  Here is my card.  If you will send me one page describing what you want to write, I'll be glad to help you out."
In three decades, exactly ONE person ever took me up on that.
So when this guy sent me, I repeat, 6,600 words of a novel, I jumped at the chance to be a professional writer helping out somebody who was trying to get started.  So it began as a piece of work, albeit work I was happy to do.
About 1000 words in, I discovered I had stopped being the critical pro and was reading the story he had written
As I told him, "I don't write stuff like this.  I BUY stuff like this."
I have submitted at least a dozen science fiction stories.   I never got a nibble.
Some of the things I write about that happened to me sound like I made them up.  I wish to hell I had.
I can't "plot."
Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus, the Library Journal and everybody else has said that my writing is just great.  James Dickey himself praised my writing ability.
I write very well.  What I can't do is "plot."  I can't make up a story editors will buy.   
This guy can plot.  He writes just fine.  I can't do anything for him except be a fan.
He ought to be shot.


Long, long ago in a place far, far away from America, I was sitting in a bar drinking with a guy who said he was an Australian.  You will see in a moment why I am so circumspect in saying that.
After a few drinks, he said, "Bob, you know a lot of people America would like to know about."
I replied, "I know those people because they know I won't sell them out."
That ended the business he had come on.
He just grinned and said, "That's how it goes sometimes."
In the real world, you don't run into "CIA men."  They send people.  The people they send, at least to see peasants like me, are not highly trained dedicated professionals.  To find out quickly whether a drunk might give them something, an Australian drunk would do just fine.
He could have been sent by somebody else.  In that place, if somebody said he spent some time in the army, you would naturally ask, "Which army?"
I think he was sent by the CIA because, as we got drunker, he began unstinted praise of the red, white and blue.  He bought all the drinks, and he talked about how Americans were not a bunch of cheap asses like so many others.  They gave you a hell of an expense account, and didn't niggle about it, he said.  He then told me he would pay all the costs for the evening.  After we were truly soused, he wanted us to take rooms at the luxury hotel and buy us some female help for the night.
He was deeply disappointed at my refusal to take him up on this proposal.  I got the distinct impression that his disappointment was not at the loss of my company for the evening.  He wanted to get drunk and laid at Company expense, but I had to come along for it to go on that wonderful red, white and blue expense account.
I decided that he was, as he claimed, an Australian.  I am sure every Truly Sophisticated Person who has Been There will explain to you that there are big differences between an Australian accent and a New Zealand accent, but I never noticed any.
It was not my talents as a linguist that told me this guy was an Australian.   What told me that was my talent as a drunk.
An Australian has a dedication to getting really soused that New Zealanders do not show. This guy was drunk, he had an expense account, and he wanted to get much, much drunker.  Like all men who are three sheets to the wind, he also decided he was a sexual athlete and yearned for a female to prove it to.
Nobody is more convinced he is Don Juan and less able to prove it than a guy who is bombed out of his mind.
I know, believe me, I know.





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.



I just discussed blog and GUB, and that reminds me of the word "gruntle."
Yes, Virginia, the word "disgruntled" comes from the equally legitimate word "gruntle."
"Gruntle" is probably the English word that sounds the least like what it means.
If you "gruntle" someone, you make that person feel good.  It is a legitimate word.
If someone said they had gruntled somebody, the last thing you would think they had done to that person was please him.  That is probably the reason everybody stopped using that word long before living memory.
But the word "gruntle" is alive and well in the term "disgruntled," which means exactly what the word "gruntled" sounds like it means.




My webmaster, Rick Rowland, has GUB.
Before you start asking me what hospital he is in, let me explain that GUB is not a disease, at least not to a Southerner.  GUB is an old-fashioned Southern abbreviation got Good UpBringing.
The reason I feel so free to beg people not to be damned fools is because I have been making a damned fool of myself on a regular basis for over half a century, and I confidently expect to keep on doing it.  One case in which I did this was this bad case of GUB that Rick has.
Rick kept writing me as "Mr. Whitaker," and I kept asking him to call me "Bob."   But Rick also made many flattering remarks about how I sounded like his father, a Southerner he admires very much.  Finally, something got through this concrete bunker I call a skull:
"I am being a damn YANKEE!"
All of us remember how offended we were when we first heard some Yankee kid call his father by his first name.  Here I was discouraging Rick, who had been raised right, to call me "Bob."
Here the man was complimenting me and I was trying to turn him into a good little Yankee.  The moment I realized that, I turned around with a sound like a NASCAR auto doing a U-Turn.    I sign my e-mails Bob (Whitaker), free permission to call me Bob.  But if are younger and you feel more comfortable with Mr. Whitaker, bless you.  I prefer Bob, but I prefer your GUB far more.





Whitakeronline (WOL) seems pretty straightforward.  It is anti-leftist, but our biggest target is not even liberals, it is respectable conservatives, the liberals' kept opposition..

Respectable conservatives cannot deny that they are allowed on the media because they do the right kind of groveling and softballing for liberals.  So they call me a dangerous rightist revolutionary for saying that.

Whitakeronline makes it clear, again and again, that the present accepted racial policy is genocide against the white race.  Nobody wants immigration into Asia or Africa, but any white majority country that is not open to third world immigration en masse is condemned.  Immigration and integration not only apply to ALL white countries, but immigration and integration apply ONLY to white countries.
The "solution to the RACE problem" really means "the Final Solution to the WHITE problem."
Nobody can deny that.  So respectable conservatives, in their usual reasonable way, say that Whitaker is a racist, a Klan sympathizer, for saying it.
Far right and racist, right?  So far everything about WOL is straightforward.
Whitakeronline recognizes that Israel rules over out foreign policy in the Middle East and says so.  Whitakeronline even points out the openly anti-white line that Boasian Jews, followers of Franz Boas, have adopted.  The latter point is not exactly secret.  It was discussed on PBS in a biography of Boas.
Once again, no one can deny either of these two things WOL says about Israel and Boasian Jews.

So respectable conservatives say Whitaker is anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

So far, everything is straightforward.  Whitaker is a dangerous, bomb-throwing rightist, a white racist, and hates Jews.
But with Whitaker, there is never anything that straightforward.  With Whitaker, something has got to be weird.
Whitaker would rather die than be in the "some of my best friends are Jewish" category.  Whitaker would rather die than be in "I love black folks" category.  I DESPISE that kind of white gentile wimp..
But one of the two people who got me to start this blog, who encouraged me and cheered me on to write a biography, is a black man I correspond with.
By far the best "look it up" fact checker for WOL is a socialist white professor who is married to a black woman.
So is one of my best buddies black?  Is this socialist miscegenator "one of my best friends?" 
I have been on this planet for 63 years, and I have been repeatedly crushed by finding out that people I thought were my friends hated my guts.  So what I am about to say sounds like some kind of attempt to be a Wise Man.   But what it really is is the heartfelt statement of a sensitive man who has been hurt a lot.
When someone asks me, "Is he a friend of yours?" I always reply, "I don't know.  I am a friend of his."  I am a friend of these two guys.  I could not have made it clearer in my correspondence with both these guys (Whitaker is not subtle) that I despise black people AS A RACE.  But while blacks are always saying "Tell it like it is," nobody is more able to dish it out and less able to take it than black people.  This black guy of whom I am a friend actually likes my honesty, whether he likes my opinions or not.
Everybody says they're like that, but practically nobody is.   I know.  As an official naziwhowhowantstokillsixmillionjews and an Evil Hater of Black People and "a dangerous rightist"  I know this all too well.  Believe me, I know that the people who claim they love honesty the loudest are the first ones to lynch anyone who dares to be really straightforward the way I am.
I do not tolerate fools.  For me to respect your mind you have to have one hell of a mind.  So you would think that a professor with a mind like that who is a socialist white man married to a black woman would be a full professor at a major university.
That's because you don't understand bureaucracy.
It is amazing how the academic bureaucracy has a "feel" for the people it wants in its upper reaches.  They want socialists.  They want racial intermarriage.  But, above all, a bureaucracy wants LOYALTY.  When push comes to shove, this white socialist of whom I am a friend would take the side of a heretic against the other professors, and they know it.
He is lucky he was able to keep any teaching job at all.
The black man who helped cause this blog started off by attacking me for backing Bessinger against Walmart.   I have gotten a number of hostile comments from black people, but when I wrote them back, they discovered they would need more than the usual cliches to deal with me.  I would not apologize.   I said I was white and I worried about my own race, not theirs.
So no black person ever replied to my reply.
Except this guy.  He enjoys the hell out of our correspondence, just as the socialist professor does.
I said in introducing this blog,

"I have been confidential advisor to everything from mercenary soldiers to alcoholics and drug addicts to the President.  This list could go on a long, long way.  I have learned to think like a host of people."

"So my blog will be an exercise in writing from inside the skin of a lot of other people besides me."

"I can try to think like a Klansman one day and like a Communist the next.   I've known plenty of both, and I have given advice to both, free of charge.   I respect and will give PERSONAL  help to any honest person, wherever that honesty leads them."

I despise socialists, whites who marry non-whites, and the black race in general.  I am a friend of these two guys because they are so rare, people who truly value honesty and real thought.

I hope they are friends of mine, and I would value their friendship.

But in the end everyone is alone.  Friendship is inside the mind.   Concentrate above all on making a friend of the one person whose mind you can get into, the one you see in the mirror.





When my family lived in Atlanta about 1947, I heard the song "Dixie" on the radio.   It sounded like a great place, so I asked my mother if we could go to Dixie someday.  She promised we would.
Sometime between that time and the fifth grade, 1947 and 1951, I heard about the Civil War, and for the first and last time in my life, I was glad the North won.  My father's business partner was a Yankee, and his son was coming out to play at our place.  My mother mentioned that the North and South had had a war.  I asked who won. 
Notice I had to ask.
She said the North won, and I looked forward to telling this news to my Northern playmate.   I was a little disappointed that he was not interested.  He was even younger than I was.
Then, when I reached the fifth grade, I got a full dose of the horrible truth.  Back then our textbook on state history was Simms' "History of South Carolina," which was, incredible as it may seem today, totally pro-Southern.
It was pitiless.  Our teacher went on and on about Sherman's March Through Georgia, which was followed by his march through South Carolina, during which he burned my home town, Columbia, SC (our mail was delivered to a Columbia address: Route #3, Box 991-A).
When I gotg to college, I found the the Northern-oriented history department insisted that Sherman burned Columbia accidentally.  They also insisted he burned Atlanta accidentally.
Poor old Shermie.  Accident-prone, he was.
One kid in class with me in the fifth grade got tired of Yankee s winning, so asked if this whole story had a happy ending.  The teacher explained to him that, in the real world, you don't always have happy ending the way you do in the movies.
I can't believe I was ever that young.
We then went through Reconstruction, when Yankee troops held my home state in occupation for twelve years after the War.  Finally, in 1877, Wade Hampton took  back the governorship, with the militant help of the Redshirts, of which my grandfather was a member.
I have been reminded at least a hundred times that the Chinese had black powder and printing long before Europe did.  But inventors don't matter.  If a society can use it, inventors will invent it.  What matters is not invention, but what a society DOES with inventions.  In China black powder made a few ineffective rockets.  In China, the printing press printed a few playing cards.
And before you remind me, I know we have a phonetic language which makes printing easier, while China does not.  But Korea also had movable type AND a phonetic written language.  The printing press did nothing there, either.
A Chinese genius whose name we know invented a mechanical clock.  It lasted about a hundred years before it was destroyed, and after that the Chinese totally forgot they ever had it.
The point of this digression is that what you hear only matters in terms of what you do with it.  I had known long before that fifth grade introduction to the tragedy of the Civil War  that history doesn't come out with a happy ending the way movies do.  That was not what I learned in the fifth grade. 

What I discovered in the fifth grade was something no one else conceived of.  What I learned was that I was a Confederate.  I wanted to know WHY the South, which was larger than any European country except the USSR, should be part of the Union.

I could not see why the South should a part of the Union.  Nobody else could conceive of anything else.
Practically nobody who graduated from our rural school ever went to college, so we had to move into an apartment in Columbia for a year so my brother could go to a city high school to be ready to go to the University.   So for the sixth grade I went to McMaster grammar school, which a lot of readers will know because it is now the Music School at the University of South Carolina.
At McMaster I wanted everybody to wish we had won the Civil War.  Like robots, they all repeated, "Are you for slavery?"  And for the first time in my life, I began the business of going back to basics with parrots.
I've been doing it ever since.




I always heard that every people in the Roman Empire had to worship the emperor, with the single exception of the Jews.   I assumed that almost all the Jews under Roman Empire were in Palestine, with a tiny minority in Rome.

The assumptions I just stated are what our whole picture of history is based on.  When you know the facts, Christian history changes completely.

The ruling Christian myth is that all the Jews were in Palestine.  One day the Romans destroyed the Temple and drove the Jews from their homeland and the Diaspora began.  All the Jews were in Israel, and they all have the Right of Return to Israel.

There were about six million Jews in the Roman Empire, about one in ten of all Romans.  Only a tiny minority of the Jews were in Palestine when Jesus was born.  The Methodist preacher I told this to was outraged at this idea, he looked it up.  The lowest figure for Roman Jews that he could find was five million, ten times the total population of Palestine at the time.

This Great Diaspora never happened.  All the Jews living in Palestine never happened.




When the Supersonic Transport (SST) flew its last flight, that marked the end of the race between air speed and teleconferencing.   With modern communications technology, you don't need to be anywhere that fast.

One mark of progress since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was the steady increase in the speed of transportation.  But this generation cannot get to Europe as fast as the last one could on the SST.  This is the first time in centuries that the maximum speed of public travel has gone down.

Another race went on, and is being decided.  Science fiction always had men making first contact with other planets and exploring them.  Sometimes robots did it.   Just as flying to Europe fast in an emergency appeals to the sense of adventure, so does human space exploration.

But humans going first is not practical.  By the time we have the means to do pioneer flights to other planets, we also have the means to do it more easily and safely and cheaply by using computers and machines.

So the humans in space suits being the first to see a planet has gone the way of romance, just as the ten thousand-mile-per-hour airplane envisioned  not that long ago is no longer an aim of society. 

In the next generation the whole definition of life will change. The whole definition of the earth has changed from the Book of Genesis.  Churches killed a lot of people to stop it, but now they act like they always accepted it.

Preachers and priests make their living telling people to see their misdeeds and avoid them in future, but churches NEVER do that.  They will kill off a few million people and decades of progress in fighting embryo research the way they did fighting smallpox vaccinations, and they will remember neither.

 As usual, while the theologues shout and pass the collection plate and publish National Review, the borders between life and non-life will blur with scientific advances.   It is fun and dramatic to panic over this, but all it will lead to is the prolongation of life and. a new generation that looks upon the disease of aging as the same sort of alien horror that we see in the bubonic plague of 1361.





When I was a senior staffer on Capitol Hill and in the Reagan Administration, I worked for desperately busy people.  I had to cut the crap and get to the point.
I would often be called into a superior's office and he would hand me a book and say, "Tell me what's in this."
I just published a book that is about 40,000 words in length, a very short book.  If he handed me that book I would say, "He says Political Correctness is America's established religion and universities are liberal seminaries paid for by the public.  He doesn't say PC is LIKE a religion, his point is that it IS a religion, because it is based on an enforced belief in ideas and programs that never work."
"He says the government backs this religion by giving professors a monopoly."
My two minutes would be up.  If the boss needed to know more, he would ask me.
Now if I can be that ruthless in boiling my own 40,00 words down to two minutes, I can be just as hard on anybody else's 100,000- word book.   That's what I got paid for.
But if you do that kind of cutting the crap for a living, every book you read is an entirely different book from the one others are reading.  Every speech I hear is a different speech from the one the guy beside me is listening to.  And above all, what he says to me is not what I hear.
Adam's Smith's endless book, "The Wealth of Nations" is the foundation of modern economics.   He realize how important two words were, "supply" and "demand."   Then Adam Smith had to write a huge tome to explain this to the one percent of the population that was smart enough to read his book.
Isaac Newton realized the importance of gravity.  He then had to write a book to try to explain to the smartest one percent of the literate population how you could go a long way toward understanding the whole universe if you realized how critical gravity was.
I know that my concept that Political Correctness is religion and universities are publicly financed religious seminaries is revolutionary.  I also know that all my readers are going to spend more time sending each other frantic e-mails about how Bush is lying about Iraq than they will thinking about this idea.
If your average Joe gets the point, the point would not have waited for somebody like me to express it.  To repeat, that's what people like me get paid for.





The greatest revolt that is actually happening today is totally unnoticed.  That revolt is the growing demand by people that they should be happy. 
When people think of a society with suicide built into it, they think of Japan.  Actually Indo-Europeans (Aryans, whites, Nordics) are truly suicidal.  Many of the Wise Sayings of the Norsemen were about why one should not kill oneself.
The blue-eyed Aryans who invaded India and set up the caste system based on skin color (the Sanskrit word for the caste system is naryu, which means color) had to develop Hinduism to avoid suicide.   Hinduism says that if you kill yourself, you will just continue to live in another body.   But suicides make bad karma, so the new body will be worse than the old one, some kind of animal or a human Untouchable.  Hinduism assumes that life and rebirth are a bad thing.  The point of Hinduism is true death, an escape from the Wheel of Life.

All the animals and races until the Aryans just lived until they died.

The reason Aryans were so drawn to suicide was because the Aryans were the first to demand that life be worth living.  Aryans have a white skin because they are naturally aggressive***.  They are demanding.  So they demanded that life be worthwhile or they would refuse to live it. 


*** March 27, 2004 -- E.T. Reports to His Home Planet on Human Races

*** March 27, 2004 -- Human Races Have Developed as One Would Expect


Mark Twain said "Ask a man of fifty whether he would be willing to live his life all over again.   He wouldn't.  That tells you whether life is worth living or not."

If you ask fifty-year-olds today if they would relive their lives, they will show you they are Happy and Adjusted by saying yes. But the reason Aryans needed an anti-suicide religion was because so many of them concluded that life was not worth living.
Not long ago every Christian priest and Protestant minister agreed that anyone who commits suicide goes straight to Hell.
Like the damnation of unbaptised babies, the damnation of suicides is now soft-pedaled.   But Pelagius is still a heretic and those are still official doctrines.
All over the world, people are throwing away their traditional clothes and their traditional hard, hungry lives.  They are adopting white technology and the Aryan attitudes that go with it.
More and more people, especially young white people, have the attitude of our ancestors.  They demand that life be made worth living rather than suicides prevented by the fear of Hell or being reborn as a raccoon.





The Hottentots in Namibia, like the one who was featured in the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy" are a different race from today's blacks.  They are, in fact, a vanishing race which has been driven out of most of Africa by blacks in the same way as American Indians were driven back by whites in America.

Well, not exactly.   It will be a long icy day in Hell before any black person ever feels guilty about driving the ancestors of today's Hottentots off their land and slaughtering them into the bargain

Another difference is that American Indians died mostly from white diseases, not white violence.   For over two thousand years, the black slaughter of the ancestors of the Hottentots was up front and personal.

The more general term for ancestors of today's Hottentots is "Capoid," since today's Hottentots are only one part of that old race.   All that is left of the old race is down around the Cape of Good Hope at the tip of Africa, around Capetown, South Africa..

Two thousand years ago they held every inch of Africa all the way up through Nigeria.

The Cape Coloreds in South Africa are not a mixture of black and white, they are a mixture of Capoid and white.   If there is one group on earth with the right to truly hate black people, it is the Cape Coloreds.

They do.

They told me so.






Around the year 400, a Welshman took a boat from Wales to the top end of France.  He then walked all the way from the top of France to Rome.  His real name was probably Morgan, but back then a literate man in Rome took a Latin name, so he called himself Pelagius.
Pelagius walked to Rome because he didn't like the doctrine that unbaptised babies spent eternity screaming in uncomprehending agony in the Pit of Hell.
What a picky guy!
Bishop Augustine of Hippo took Pelagius on in public debate.   Augustine made a big point of how exclusive Heaven was.  Only a tiny few of especially chosen people like Augustine went to Heaven.   He wanted those babies in Hell where they belonged, along with all the rest of those who were not chosen.
Augustine won the argument and became SAINT Augustine.  Pelagius ended up in Hell with the other heretics and babies.   His idea was referred to as the Pelagian Heresy for over one and a half millennia.

Pelgius'  idea that a baby who is not baptised can escape Hell is still a heresy, but recently it has been regarded as bad public relations to say so.

Just a little while back, the Roman Catholic Church began to soften up a lot of its rigid principles about Hell.   What used to be a "mortal" sins, for which you went to Hell if the mortal sin had not been remitted by a priest, is now a "serious sin."
The mortal sin of not being baptised is no longer a sure ticket to Hell.  The Church now says it "hopes for mercy" to the unbaptised baby.  But if a baby is baptised and dies before it reaches the age of awareness, the time when it can commit a sin on purpose, it goes straight to Heaven
Good public relations.   Emphasize the positive.   But that doesn't change the theology or the fact that Pelagius is still a heretic.
It was very important to St. Augustine that Heaven be limited to a very few especially chosen people like himself.   It was important to Augustine that everybody else roast in Hell.
John Calvin and the Puritans inherited this idea.  It was not just important that they go to Heaven.  It was critical that everybody else go to Hell.   Jonathan Edwards, the leading theologian of the Puritans, repeated what to him was the familiar Calvinist doctrine that one of the chief joys of the Righteous in Heaven would be looking down on the agony of those who are in Hell.
John Calvin said that God got a kick out of it, too.   Babies shrieking in the Pit of Hell, said Calvin, "glorified" God.   God's position at the peak of Heaven could not be appreciated without the contrast of souls in Hell.
The more the merrier.

No, I am not making this up.   This is the doctrine of the Puritan Fathers who founded New England.  You cannot understand the Yankee mind without knowing this.

When one glories in the agony of others, that is true hatred.  Hatred is not just a bad opinion of someone.  Hatred is wanting something awful to happen to them.  For Puritans, hatred is what Heaven is all about.
Southerners get confused when they are accused of Hate.   It doesn't translate.
Even Yankees who are sympathetic to Southerners explain Southern attitudes in Puritan terms.  They say,
"Yankees love blacks as a race but hate them as individuals.  Southerners hate blacks a race but love them as individuals."
That has a lot of truth in it but it is not a good translation of our real attitude.   We don't hate blacks as a race because we would not enjoy it if bad things happening to them as a race.  Our attitude toward blacks as a race is contempt, not hatred.   You can have contempt for people, but you do not get a kick out of something bad happening to them.

That's sick.  That's Yankee.   That is why Yankees use the word "Hate" so much.

In fact, contempt is to a large extent the exact opposite of hatred.  Hatred usually goes with blame.  You don't blame somebody as much if you consider they are born without the ability to tell right from wrong.   You tend to hate people you think of as doing evil and knowing it is wrong.

Hatred implies equality.   Hatred is what Yankees feel for Southerners, not what Southerners feel for the black race.







Reality is a form of communication.  

Natives of Papua-New Guinea regard their dreams as being as real as anything else.

Suits me.  They can dream their butts off as long as it doesn't affect me.   Reality matters because what you really do happens to me, too.   Dreams just happens to you.  Reality communicates itself to me.  I can of telephoning you all night, but that doesn't make a telephone call.

Cyberspace is real space to he extent that you and share it, or at least it satisfies a major qualification to be reality.

But something doesn't have to be real to make me happy.   If I can taste it  and see it and smell it and feel it and smell it, my senses are satisfied whether you notice it or not.

So if we are all in cyberspace together, it doesn't matter how many trees fall in the forest out there in reality.


In "Look Homeward. Angel," Thomas Wolfe told about how, when he was a boy, his father would say that the food Tom was eating was HIS food.  Wolfe said the food would choke in his throat at those words.
I had the same experience.  A boy needs his pride.  His father tells him that he is a beggar at the family table.
Jesus never said "praise God" one single time.  The Old Testament Yahweh ate it up, the way every pagan god of that time did.  If a Greek flattered the goddess Minerva, he could become her favorite. 
Jesus said Love God, but he never referred to a God with an inferiority complex who needed constant and endless soothing.  The God of Jesus knows who He is.
So when my father told me the food I ate was HIS food, I had my first experience of someone demanding Gratitude.
For most people life is a misery of pain, obligations, joys that are tiny, disappointing and few, and, above all, just waiting.  My preacher told me that after that, most people would go to Hell.
My preacher then told me we should thank God for this every day.  

I was raised with the World War II generation, the people who call themselves The Greatest Generation, and they hgave been demanding gratitude and more gratitude all my life.  We were supposed to thank them daily for their Sacrifices.  We had it easy because of What They Did.  Like Bob Dole, they were supposed to be Quiet Heroes, but God help anyone who worked for Bob Dole who didn't talk about the Debt of Gratitude for His Military Service everybody owed Bob Dole.

For over fifty years, people have been demanding gratitude, gratitude and more gratitude.
I wonder if anyone else is sick of it?




When you see a conservative glorying in the facts that he agrees with liberals on something, that something is evil beyond belief.
Professors of ethics at Harvard are shoulder to shoulder with Catholic bishops and fundamentalist preachers in standing against any research using human embryos.  Pro-lifers are in their glory.  They can say that they love the embryo for the sake of the Lord and nobody dares be against those embryos.
How sweet it is!  They love babies so they insist that a baby is human the day a human egg is fertilized.
In 1960 I was talking to a Franciscan priest.   One topic we talked about was what happens to unbaptized babies when they die.
I had always heard that Catholic doctrine said that unbaptised babies went to an eternal place called Limbo, which was between Heaven and Hell.   The priest said No Way.  He said that even if babies did go to Limbo until Judgment Day, after Judgment Day there were only two eternal states of being, Heaven and Hell.

Catholic doctrine says that no one goes to heaven without baptism.

Catholics and pro-life evangelists agree that, on Judgment Day, you belong to God or to Satan.  In every religious doctrine that officially says that life begins at conception, the official doctrine also says that, if that baby dies before birth, it becomes the property of Satan.

Before you get too goo-goo eyed over the glorious idea of life at conception, you had better take into account what the theologians say will happen to that babies.




Whatever truths I have arrived at come largely from the study of erroneous ideas.  Every ideology represents conclusions honest and intelligent people accepted, and if they could accept a wrong idea, so could I.
Marxism is silly in theory and disastrous in practice.  But studying Marxism taught me how ridiculous you can get if you think you are an "intellectual," above all other men.   I have made that mistake.
We are humans because we are descended from imperfect mollusks.  The perfect mollusks were perfectly adapted to their environment.  But our ancestors adapted to new environments because they were the ones who happened to have the right imperfections that allowed them to go elsewhere.
The descendants of the bacteria who were perfect duplicates of the bacteria that split in two to make them are still bacteria.
There are two-headed pigs and you have that little abnormality you were born with because imperfection is part of your ancestors' survival strategy.
Congenital abnormalities that are such a tragedy for families are often part of the same survival strategy.
Most male homosexuals probably have too many female hormones.   People have the idea that heredity follows a strict rule.  Actual human heredity comes in distributions.   All men have some female hormones.  Down at the end of the distribution curve, some are going to have too many.
You keep hearing people repeat that ten percent of males are homosexuals.  Actually the careful studies put the figure at about one and a half percent.   Obvious a male human needs some female hormones, and some are going to get too many.
Little boys are going to be attracted to women without anybody to teach them to like females.
Liberals woud like ten percent of white men to be homosexuals, and it might be that if they had a program concentrating on that, they could take the ten percent of men who have the most female genes and make them honosexual.





Do you realize that, of all unlikely people, Monica Lewinski's Bill Clinton is the most likely man who might officially be designated by the United States Government as our First Gentleman?



My grandfather was a Methodist circuit rider and my sister was a Director of Religious Education, which also required ordination.
I was never called to the ministry and I thank God for it.  I have had responsibility for peoples' lives, but I don't want to be responsible for their souls.
This is why much if not most of the professional clergy are actually psychopaths, also called sociopaths.  They are people who are incapable of feeling responsibility or guilt.  They make up about two percent of the entire population.
Recent glaring examples have been Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, hundreds (at least) of catholic priests who regularly raped little boys, and the bishops who helped them do it.
To be a clergyman, you have to be one of two things.  You have to be someone who knows he is filled with God's truth, or you have to be someone who can use God's name when it is useful
I know Christian psychopaths well. Every respectable conservative uses God all the time





I keep hearing our people bitching and moaning that when they tell people the truth, very few listen, and even those who listen usually get it wrong.

Jesus said that few listened to Him, and that those most of those who would hear his message would pervert it.

If Jesus Christ had to settle for this, why the hell do you think you won't?





The most hilarious monologue I have ever hear was when an old Cherokee was explaining to Josie Wales in the movie about how he had been part of a Cherokee delegation to Washington when the War broke out.
It went like this,
"We wrote tall hats like President Lincoln wore.  They sent us to see his Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton."
"He told us (and now his voice took on the exact, hard accents of a Yankee being self-righteous.  It sounded like a tape recording):
"Endeavor to persevere."
"We thought about that, ( back to the hard accent) "Endeavor to persevere."
"We held council about it. Then we thought about it some more."
"And after we had thought about it, we declared war on the Union."





"Men are the romantics.  Women are realists to the core."



When somebody starts laughing hysterically and can't stop, they carry him off to the Looney bin.
Maybe an insane person is just somebody who has suddenly realized how goddam ridiculous we are.





Everybody is arguing about the Atkins Diet, and about low-carb diets in general.  

I remember reading an account by an Arctic explorer who was caught with others in the polar regions for months.  All they could eat was meat.

I mean ALL they could eat was meat.  A little garden in a polar region in winter is not feasible. 

I said ALL.  I meant ALL.  In his account of the experience, the explorer said he knew every medical expert was going to crucify him for saying it, but while eating nothing but meat for months, they were never healthier in their lives.   Their hair was glossy, they felt great and they looked great.

Medical orthodoxy says that if you don't get a huge amount of dietary fiber, you get constipated.  Meat has no dietary fiber at ll.  This guy said no one got constipated.   He had never been so regular.

I mentioned this to a doctor the other day and was astonished that he did not come back with the "calories are all that matter.  You have to have a balanced diet" line.

This doctor was in the Air Force reserves for thirty years.  In a survival course he took, he was told that people are regularly marooned in the Arctic where they can only eat meat.  The doctors running the survival course said not to worry about it.  They said that no one had ever spent months on this all-meat diet without coming out healthier than when they went in.

Remember, this was a SURVIVAL course.  They were responsible for keeping people alive. If they shade the truth to suit medical orthodoxy, people die.  So they reported that it works that way, and they said they had no idea why.

Medical orthodoxy will tell you it CAN'T work that way. 



It's funny, I have a great reputation for keeping national secrets and dealing with restricted information of every kind, but if I try to do something sneaky, I get caught at it every time.
The first thing I remember watching on television every day was the Army-McCarthy hearings.  In the 1950s, we young folks were all terrified of any association with any group that could haunt us the rest of our lives.
About 1955 they had a Klan rally in Dentsville, just up the road from us.  My brother was in medical school and he was worried to death about even watching a Klan rally.  But we wanted to see one.
So he and I stood away of the light of the big cross where nobody would see us.
That night we were watching television, and they had motion pictures of the rally on the local news.  It turned out that they had to put their camera out of the light of the burning cross so the picture wouldn't get blanked out by the glaring light.
In other words, the TV camera was right behind the two guys who were carefully standing out of sight.
I kid you not:  It looked like me and my brother were burning this huge cross, and the guys who were wearing the robes in the background were just watching.
When I try to be sneaky, I ALWAYS get caught at it.



Speaking of real history, Charlemagne is considered to be the first King of France.   Actually his capital was in Frankfurt, Germany.  His native language, Frankish, was one hundred percent German, more purely German than the German language spoken today in Frankfurt.

The Franks, for whom France is named, were 100% German.   Historians always like to talk about the fact Charlemagne encouraged the use of Latin.   Actually, the literate people of he day were monks who wrote in Latin.

As to "Charlemagne's" real idea of the correct language for his empire, he tried to substitute German names for the months of the year in place of the Latin ones.

As to the standard historical statement that "Charlemagne tried to reestablish the Roman Empire," that is true hogwash.  Charlemagne stated flatly that he did not want the Holy Roman crown the pope wanted to give him, and the pope literally ran over and stuck  it on his head while he was at Mass.

None of this matters to historians.   To them the history of Europe for a thousand years was entirely a matter of preserving Latin manuscripts.




    Someone wrote me,

In early times, the Arabs made some serious progress scientifically. While europeans were stuck in dogma.

 My reply was:
That's an old idea that is largely false.   There were no Dark Ages.  Northern Europe promptly made advances in technology that the Romans would never have made.
Histrory is a history of historians.   Historians are much more intersted in the preservation of old documents that monks and Arabs did than in the transatlantic movements of the Norsemen.   The Roman yokes choked any horse pulling a heavy weight but Rome had lots of professional literary men.
To a historian, the lonely light in Dark Age Europe was the Celtic monks in Ireland who recopied he Bible, not the heavy plow that increased crop production beyond Roman dreams, or the horse collar.  For historians, the Dark Ages ended when Europe started producing historians.


One thing you keep hearing from liberals is that the reason Communism was so bad was because those countries that called themselves Communist didn't have REAL Communism. 

Professional Christians keep telling me that the reason churches keep having Inquisitions is because they don't have REAL Christianity.   The knee jerk nuts who are trying to stop all embryonic research are an exact repeat of the ones who fought vaccinations against smallpox in 1800 and the ones who silenced Galileo. 

And in fifty years they will seen as just as ridiculous.

And in fifty years preachers will be saying that this set of nutcases weren't being "real" Christians. 

A list of incidents where the church was ruled by "unreal Christians" doing evil things would run for pages.  Something is bad wrong.

There has not been a single Communist country that practiced "true" Communism.  Meanwhile Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, China, Mongolia, Outer Mongolia,  the Soviet Union, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Albania, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Cuba have all been ruled by Communists who did not practice "True" Communism

This is supposed to prove that Communism is really a good idea.



I get desperately sick of reminding people that I have Adult Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and I am sure they get tired of hearing it.  But ADD is a disability, and I have to keep reminding them I have it when I forget their name.  I have a government disability check for ADD, just as a paraplegic gets a disability check because he can't walk.

The difference is that if you are in a wheelchair, people don't forget that you simply can't do some things.   But if you have ADD, people get offended that you can't remember their names.  I can't remember names for exactly the same reason that a person in a wheelchair can't run a hundred-yard dash.

Nobody ever walks up to a person in a wheelchair and says, "My legs get tired quick.  I think I have some of the same 'crippled' stuff that you do."   But if I point out that I have a disability that makes it impossible for me to remember names, they say, "I have trouble with names, too.   I must have some of that ADD, too."

You don't have "some of that ADD" and you don't have "some of that cripple stuff."  When you say you have "some of that ADD," you are implying that you remember names that are important to you despite that problem, and I could remember your name if I cared the way I should.

I get desperately tired of telling people, again and again, that I have ADD.  But I have no choice.  Nobody remembers it the next time they get offended when I forget their name, so I have to go through it all again.


One of two people caused this blog to get started is black.  We write each other because he can take criticism as well as dish it out.  I  tell him I can't see why protecting his race has to mean destroying mine.   He says blunt things to me, too, but of course I am the one who makes all the sense.

This man doesn't just tolerate my bluntness.  He ENJOYS it!  And don't believe that crap about how blacks in general want whites to be honest.  This guy is almost unique that way.

A sample of what I write him is below.   It is an e-mail sent under the title "Routine White Contempt for the Black Mind.":

   Here it is:

"I am usually the only person who remembers anything.  When Jesse Jackson was in his first debate with other Democratic candidates, the commentators were discussing the fear that every other candidate had that he would make Jesse Jackson look like a fool.   No one found this attitude anything but routine.

The other candidates treated Jesse like an idiot member of the family.  To say he got the softball treatment is the understatement of the year.
Those other Democratic candidates were all the beloved, all-for-black folks liberals black "leaders" forgive when they say anything bad about blacks.  "Massah Bobby Byrd, he good people."
A black woman who is leading the fight for slavery reparations in Chicago said, "The only reason America is rich is because they got all that black labor free."
No adult would be allowed to get away with horseshit like that.  But she is not regarded as an adult.  She is black.
I have heard black "leaders" say, "The Bible says that 'all men are created equal.'"
No adult would be allowed to get away with a quote like that.
I can tell you deal with same kind of people because once, sitting at your COMPUTER, for God's sake, you asked me "What have white people ever done?"
If a white man wrote that, I may or not bother to say, "Don't be an ass."
But a black guy is supposed to be reasoned with when he says that.  People you associate with permit that sort of thing. 
I am not going to treat you like a retard, and I am not going to talk to a retard, no matter what color he is.
The funniest remark I hear from blacks on television is, 'Tell it like it is!'
If someone had said to that Chicago slavery reparations woman what they would have said to any adult white person who said that, she would scream racism and call for her Liberal Mommy.
You don't need that, or I wouldn't be writing to you.  The one time attitude that snuck out with "What have white people ever done," I ignored it.
"Respect black people," they say.
Bullshit again.  You have to EARN Bob Whitaker's respect."

  I  was in the gym today when I saw a lovely young girl.  I wanted to say, "You have about the most beautiful complexion I have ever seen."  

I didn't just WANT to say it.  I NEEDED to say it.  I think that's part of my sex drive and my sexual instinct.
Men need to say things like that for exactly the reason women love to hear them.  My male ancestors said things like that to women BECAUSE women liked it.
The result was that women were more willing to let those men have their children.  That's one reason I'm here.



I write some of my correspondence in foreign languages.  But I never use foreign expressions in an English-language letter.  It's rude.
I got a good lesson on that point when I was working in Germany.  The man I worked for regularly dictated letters in perfect German, Italian, English and French.   At one conference I went to with him, he had to translate between French and English, both of them foreign languages to him.
Once he said, "Bob, I notice that a lot of people writing in English use French phrases.  If they want to use French, why don't they just write in French?"
My reply genuinely confused him.  I said, "Because most of them can't write in French?"   It took me a while to explain to him how sophisticated our so-called "intellectuals" think they are because they know some foreign phrases.
The pretensions of a lot of people who think they are sophisticated are hard to explain to a truly sophisticated person.


The real history of the Jews has nothing to do with the Old Testament.  The real Jews of today may summed as "the people who wouldn't convert."
The religion of  Judaism exists because Jews were given a tolerance that was extended to no other religious group in history.  Jews were allowed to practice their faith in Catholic countries that burned any Protestant alive.   Jews were allowed to practice their faith in Protestant countries where every Catholic was executed.
In every generation for at least two thousand years, many Jews became Moslems or Christians.
Meanwhile, In every generation, a lot of people became Jews.   The Khazars and the Hussites were given the choice of the established Christian religion or Judaism and they chose to become Jews.  If they kept their old faiths, they would have been burned alive in the name of Christ.
The modern Jewish gene pool has nothing to do with the Old Testament Jews.  But it is a special gene pool, two thousand years of old Jews who would not convert to the more convenient religion and people who chose to become Jews rather than join the ruling faith.
My Wodinist forefathers were burned alive.  The only non-Christian group that was allowed to live was the Jews.
All you ever hear about is how badly the Jews were treated.  That's because there are no other large non-Christian faiths left to tell what real persecution looks like..
I hate the use of foreign phrases in English writing.  A lot of people used to use Latin phrases, but I think that if the damned Romans don't want to learn English, they should back where they came from.
The one Latin phrase I would like to use in English is 'mutatis mutandis'?.   If you say that something doesn't happen, 'mutatis mutandis'?, it means that it is not absolutely impossible that such a thing could conceivably happen, but it would occur so seldom so it makes no real difference.
To me, what 'mutatis mutandis'? really means is, "Don't be ridiculous."  You cannot conduct a conversation if you cannot lay to some basic rules of reality for your discussion.  So you must say that some things don't occur.   There is always the guy who argues that it could conceivably happen, but he does not actually think that bare possibility makes the slightest difference to the point under discussion.  He just wants to impress you with his carefulness or, more often, it is a tactic to keep you from making a valid point he doesn't like.
Almost everything is 'mutatis mutandis'?.  I find lying extremely difficult, but all my life I have been asked, "How are you?" and I have replied "Just fine" without a qualm, no matter how bad things got.
Jesus was condemned by the Jewish hierarchy and turned over to the secular authorities, who were the Romans, for punishment.
Pontius Pilate literally washed his hands of the matter and said he saw no guilt in Jesus.  But he ordered him executed anyway, because he had to.
Every Jewish leader condemns the Catholic Inquisition for the execution of Jews.  But the Inquisition never executed anybody.  The Church condemned Jews of heresy and turned them over to the secular authorities for punishment.  The secular authorities then had to execute them.
If the Inquisition was responsible for the killing of Jews, then the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus.
Take your choice, but you can't choose both.





© Copyright 2001. All rights reserved. Contact:

Hit Counter