THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

FOR A TEACHER, MORE IS NOT BETTER | 2007-11-22

Z is concentrating on my radio broadcasts, and is getting a lot out of them. He asks me to do more.

But it was also Z who EXPLAINED why I don't:

"As Bob has pointed out, he can't teach advanced calculus if you don't know the multiplication tables. Maybe you should go learn the multiplication tables first, before you attend class here? Go to Stormfront and ask these questions, this will only distract us."

One major reason I don't do more is because I have to keep reteaching the basics. I am a teacher. I have to keep hammering away at the Mantra, but definitely not because if is fun for me to do so. You think YOU are bored hearing about it? Try it from my end!

It is like a priest who, after forty years of hearing confessions, secretly wishes that SOMEBODY would come up with one novel sin! Every time a lot of comments go by WITHOUT repeating and extending on the BASICS, I have to go back again. There is no way for me to know, by some psychic means, that you really mean to go from the basics.

I have a lifetime of experience fighting from the basic training, and teaching how to do it. I have spent hundreds of hours prepping congressmen and candidates and senators and the rest for critical debates and testimony in important hearings. I have heard, "Yes, Bob, PLEASE don't say that again, I will REMEMBER that point." I have then sat there watching C-Span as they missed the opportunity to make the point that would have cinched it. The perfect opportunity is lost.

You've been in that position. How many times has somebody said that they will remember something critical to the point where they asked you to stop repeating it, and then totally forgotten it when the crunch came?

The Mantra is just a good example of this. How many times, after ramming the point home, did a Roman centurion listen to a soldier list the steps for battle and forget throwing the pilum?

I am here because I am good at this. I am here because I got PAID for this.

There are a lot more basics than the Mantra. There is "Heresy!" But if you forget the Mantra, you will surely forget the follow-up. Most important, you cannot argue sticking to the LOGIC of the Mantra. When someone gets off on why white countries deserve immigration because of colonialism, you must not answer THAT. You must reply, "You are JUSTIFYING GENOCIDE."

There is room for though and variation, but it must be VARIATION FROM THE BASICS.

I would LOVE to be able to go on into new things with new broadcasts, but every time you seem to be wandering, I have to go back again. This is not disrespect for you. I have had to do this with everybody right up to President Reagan and my hero and mentor John Ashbrook.

This is why, in Western Civilizations, fields of study are called DISCIPLINES. They are not disciplines in places where an "intellectual" is someone who dribbles nonsense that sounds good. Intellectualism is not free association. In a serious discussion, if you wander off into clichés the way they do in the East, you will be laughed at. That is why, as Back Bay Grouch pointed out, sociology is a joke.

Anyone I think is qualified to be here should be insulted if I let you off the hook.

Many, many times I am ready to write something that interests me and might interest you, but someone is back off a side dribble. So with a deep sigh I go off to bring the wandering sheep back into the fold.

What a good teacher teaches depends on the students. I cannot put in new stuff until you absorb the old and make this a DISCIPLINE.

Tighten it up, gang, and I can have more fun.

FROM JOE | 2006-07-15

Not Spam. OK. You win. I've had enough. I have never been anywhere, to any website, to any anyplace where I have heard the word "silly" used as often as it is used on this blog. Maybe it's a term used primarily in the South. Maybe not. I don't know. But I think it is overused here. Let's just take a definition of "silly" from my old 1967 dictionary: lacking good sense, foolish, stupid. Calling someone or something "silly" seems to me to be a value judgment. Fair enough. Sounds almost like a smear tactic. To avoid serious argumentation I'll just call you "silly." That's not my style. I'd rather deal with evidence. That is my style.

Everybody believes something. Jesus said, "all things are possible to him that believeth." I never try to upstage Jesus. That's a personal thing. But those Bible Belt Believers that you spoke of believed something. It's not hard to tell a true believer from a phoney. Just look at the life of the person, know what a Christian is supposed to be and take it from there.

There is no private reality. There is just reality. OK, sometimes it's with a capital R if you like it that way. If the believers just mentioned are wrong in their belief it does not follow that they are stupid, foolish or lack good sense. In my opinion. Anybody can be wrong. Anybody can make a mistake. In fact, I don't know anybody who hasn't made many mistakes. I don't call them foolish or stupid or silly or lacking good sense. Unless, of course, they make the same mistake repeatedly.

There are many believers who say they believe who really don't believe at all. They just say they believe and figure that's the only requirement. Then they'll rubber stamp the killing of anybody they think should be murdered. I hold these people in contempt because they are liars from the word go. Oh, yes, that's right they're willing to steal too. From anybody they can as often as they can. Then they'll tell you they're believers. That's not all of them but that's a good quantity of them. As James Dean once said to the beautiful Elizabeth Taylor as he was telling how beautiful she was, "and you know it too."

There is no "final reality." There is just reality. No private reality. Not your reality and my reality. Just reality.

I don't want to live in the world that professors rule. Professors are some of the biggest horses asses I have met in my life. Once again, not all of them fall into this category. Some are outstanding. Like Kevin MacDonald for instance.

Sorry. Materialists are part of Reality. They are part of the part that Reality declares falsehood. Hey, that sounded pretty good, didn't it? Heh! Heh! Heh! Have another drink.

Comment by joe rorke —

MY REPLY:

I don't look in dictionaries for the meaning of words. And it never bothers me in the slightest that I am being repeititive. When anyone is pretentious, when he keeps tryuing to make his opinions sound sophisticated, I point out, over and over and over and over again that he is just being silly.

You want me to stop using the word "silly." Believe me, THEY want me to stop using the word silly. You want to return to a world of Objective Reality, where everyone can be accused, if you look at it in sophisticated terms, of being "silly." Every respectable conservative honors your point of view.

I don't.

When a person says that socialism works, he is being an ass. When someone says he is libertarian and if he took over America and made it libertarian and opened the borders to Mexicans and Indians, it would REMAIN a libertarian society, he is droolingly silly. You want me to change the word. Buckley wants me to change the word. I am not ABOUT to change the word.

If you believe the universe is fundamentally different from what I believe it is, that is a POINT OF VIEW. But if you keep telling me that diversity works, you are being a silly ass. A person who insists that something works that doesn't work there is simply no word to describe him except being silly.

You said, " If the believers just mentioned are wrong in their belief it does not follow that they are stupid, foolish or lack good sense. In my opinion. Anybody can be wrong." That is what Buckley says. But Orwell pointed out that the essence of truth is saying that two plue two is simply four. If you say that two plus two is not four, that is not an alternative opinion.

If you insist two plus two is five, you are reduced to enforcing it by law and terror. You are saying that two plus two is five is an alternative opinion. Two plus two is five is not an alternative opinion.

There is one thing I had in common with the Communists. They always understood that this was a battle to the death. They always knew how to exploit a Buckley or a Kennedy who took them seriously. It was only when Solzhenitsyn was saying that no one took Marxism seriously except Western professors that Communism started coming apart.

I was deeply honored when Bill Rusher told me that at a weekly editorial meeting, someone told William Buckley, "You've got Solzhetisyn and Whitaker after you." Can you IMAGINE the joy of being put in that league? But both Solzhenitsyn and Whitaker had condemned his taking Soviet Marxism as an alternative "point of view."

If a person can be just plain silly over and over and over, I can call him silly over and over and over.

Evil is evil. Silly is silly. Anyone who thinks a person who denies reality is not being a silly ass is a silly ass.

BUGS HISTORY | 2011-03-12

In 1915 the Supreme Court had to knock down the very obvious violation of the fifteenth amendment that was the Grandfather Clause.

BoardAd was giving me some particulars about which states allowed women to vote in 1915.

There is a connection here that relates to real history. The problem is that we ignore real history to concentrate on Marxist Historical Inevitability or other nonsense.

In 1920 women were given the vote by constitutional amendment.

So why did the NAACP win its first big legal battle on the Grandfather Clause?

Because no one else at the time was interested in it.

So how did a number of states allow women to vote with a bewildering set of restrictions?

Because, in each state, somebody was INTERESTED.

This is important to BUGS.

While so many others say it's all about Exposing Them, the Conspirators, and the entire commentary class talks about Historical Inevitability, we say that what matters is that WE, we few, are going to get the message manageable, and then we are going to get our message out.

That concept is absolutely alien to the Marxist and the Conspiracy Theorist. They see a world in which Geniuses and Capitalists have taken control.

There is a story in each state which allowed the vote. There is a story in the restrictions in each state.

BoardAd tells me that a lot of states only allowed women to vote in school-related issues. Every state that allowed women to vote unconditionally was a state that needed to attract female immigrants.

And in a lot of cases, when you look at the state and the exact restrictions, your reaction is "What the hell?"

By which question you are cheating yourself. Behind every single case and every single restriction is a story, a story of someone and of a society and exactly what that person was balancing and thinking about.

In other words, real history.

EVERYONE WHO SUFFERS IS NOT A HERO | 2005-05-27

I have written about the Jew I used to get drunk with who was in a German concentration camp as a child. He kept telling me about how Jews VOLUNTARILY turned other Jews over to the authorities. His family, he insisted, was turned over to the Nazis by Jews.

When I said those Jews were probably threatened or trying to save themselves he got furious with me. NO! He said, they just did it. It is the only time in my life that somebody got furious with me for being soft on Jews.

Jews in Nazi Germany behaved just like white gentiles in America do today. They turned on each other in exactly the same way that white gentiles are the biggest enemies of white gentiles in our present society.

I know a German guy whose father was a guard at a concentration camp at age fourteen. Lately, they nearly took away his citizenship because of that. He had told them that fifty years ago, but now the supply of old Nazis is running out so they decided to go after him.

There are people who have spent their whole careers doing nothing but chasing down old Nazis, and they've got to do SOMETHING.

Jews are exempt from this persecution. A fourteen-year-old German kid was blamed for not walking up to the SS, the guys with the skull and crossbones on their hats and a pistol at their sides, and telling them he would not guard their camp for them.

No Jew will ever be blamed for turning in other Jews or for not offering any resistance at all when they were rounded up. What's the excuse for this?

Well, Jews SUFFERED, you see. Whatever they did, they were OK. No Jew who turned in my drinking buddy and his family will ever be criticized, much less prosecuted. This made him very, very angry.

I wonder why?

So when I talk about McCain, I am told that no one is allowed to criticize his cooperating with the enemy in Vietnam because he SUFFERED: "How dare you attack a man who went through all that?"

I dare because I do not believe that everybody who suffers is a hero.