November 15, 2003 -- A Quick Note to “Anti-Racist” Conservatives

November 15, 2003 -- Tribute to an Extinct Species

November 15, 2003 -- If You Are Careful About Your Statements, Will People Trust You?

November 15, 2003 -- I Say “Never” a Lot

November 15, 2003  -- I Would Rather Make The Point Than Win the Argument

Fun Quote:

Alcoholics Anonymous recommends that a person who just stopped drinking should attend one AA meeting every day.   After that AA recommends they attend at least one meeting a week.

Then there is a group called Workaholics Anonymous.

They go to fourteen meetings every day.

                             A Quick Note to "Anti-Racist"  Conservatives                                

Respectable conservatives tell us that, as a good white gentile Americans, they do not care about white gentiles.

Then they complain that Hispanics born in America, whether their parents are Cuban, Mexican, or El Salvadorian, consistently prefer the interests of illegal Hispanic immigrants over those of their “fellow Americans.”

“Anti-racist” conservatives complain that Moslems worry about Arab interests rather than those of “their fellow Americans.”

They complain that when it comes to a confrontation between the white police and black thugs who terrorize them, the black public always favors the black thugs.

So let me briefly explain reality to these conservative spokesmen:

1)      Hispanics favor Hispanics;

2)      Blacks favor blacks

3)      Moslems favor Moslems;

4)      You are an idiot.

                                                Tribute to an Extinct Species                                                                 

The best fact-checking reader we have for Whitaker Online is not only a socialist professor, he is a white man who has a black wife.

Nobody knows his quotes and facts better than this fellow.  He is a throwback to the old leftist intellectuals who actually liked facts and discussion.  Believe it or not they actually liked to hear different points of view.  When he dies, there won’t be any of them left.

When I was at the University of South Carolina, I set up a lot of groups.  I never had any shortage of student members, but, as on today’s campus, that didn’t matter.   You had to have a faculty sponsor.  Then as now, leftists could get sponsors, rightists couldn’t.

When I showed up with that “I need a sponsor-for-my-new-group” look in my eye, professors ran, hid under tables, or went into fetal position.

Except for one: Professor John McConaughy.  He was a liberal from Chicago.  His father had been a  law professor.  I never had a problem with him.  If I had some members, as I always did, he would sponsor my group. 

John McConaughy was an actual, honest-to-God free speech liberal.

He’s dead now.

          If You Are Careful About Your Statements, Will People  Trust You?                     

No.

If my leftist fact-checker tells me something I believe him, even though he is off the edge of my world politically.

If John McConaughy said something, I would believe him because he had earned my trust.

But I am the only person who is like that.  No matter how insane a leftist spokesman’s last pronouncement was, every conservative, respectable or not, treats his next pronouncement as if it were the Voice of the Prophet.

When a liberal makes another stupid statement about gun control, no conservative has ever been heard to say, “What about the last time when you said that if a person had a gun, he was exactly forty-three times as likely to have it taken from him and get killed with it as he was to defend himself with it?”

Every liberal spokesman is always treated as if he spoke the Gospel, no matter what he said last time.   His words have to carefully considered and dealt with respectfully and only with something you have looked up.

So what’s the point in honesty?

Every national liberal spokesman openly predicted that if people were able to get gun permits, there would be a “bloodbath.”

No conservative has ever been heard to remind any liberal of this fact.  Every time a liberal makes another pronouncement, he is assumed to be factually correct until somebody finds a reference to the contrary and finally gets a chance to publish it somewhere.

I used to write speeches for my congressman that drove his main opponent to shrieks of rage.  And all I did was to repeat the nonsense he had said the year before.

No conservative ever does that.   So what is the point in a liberal being right?

                                                  I Say "Never" a Lot                                                           

I am careful about using a word like “never” or “always.”  But I would rather use those words and make my point than not use them and win an argument.

For example, I couldn’t find the exact statistics in time for a WhitakerOnline, so I stated that hundreds of thousands of permits had been issued and there had not been one violation.   Nobody else ever mentions that, so it is critical that I make the point.

I figured that if there had been any violations, the press would have pounced on them.

Since I wrote that piece, Rick Rowland found are that, in Florida alone, the number of permits is more than 200,000 and the number of violations is five.   I would dearly love it if an anti-gun nut jumped on that and won the argument against me.  

What do you think everybody listening to this debate would remember?  Would the important point be that I lost the argument or that the actual statistic was one violation for every 40,000 permits?

I’ll stick my neck out that far any time to make a point like that.

I said in the last WhitakerOnline that the group that calls itself "The Greatest Generation" allows liberals to say that they fought World War II and their buddies died in that War so that third world immigrants could pour into America and Europe.   If they contradict this statement publicly they could be embarrassed.  That would take a form of courage they don’t have.

I don’t have a lot of courage, but I do have a little moral courage.   Among conservatives, that makes me like the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.

                             I Would Rather Make the Point Than Win the Argument                     

When I was in graduate school, people learned to beware when I made an argument too easy for them.

I would say things like, “Every Communist country has to kill people to keep them in.”   Well, that was a big statement, and it gave them a chance to show Whitaker up.  Everybody knew I was a notorious ass, but it was frustratingly difficulty to beat me in an argument, so the temptation was great.

One fellow told me Yugoslavia was the exception to my rule.   I asked him if Yugoslavia didn’t require an exit visa.   Like most people who argue with me, he claimed that he knew the answer to this obscure question right off the top of his head: “No.”

I then let him win.  “If Yugoslavia doesn’t require any exit visa, then they don’t keep people in like the other Communist countries do.”

He got his win, but he later regretted it, because I got my point.  You see, during the entire generation that the Berlin Wall stayed up and escapees were being shot, if you mentioned dictatorship everybody talked about Hitler.  But everybody who listened to that argument remembered that Communists were killing escapees while we discussed it.

The left wants to think about Hitler, not the Berlin Wall.  I never let this guy or his listeners forget the Wall.