INTRO AND GUESTS | 2005-05-14

I have no intro for my show yet. The intro is where music comes on and someone announces, "This is the Bob Whitaker Show" and so forth. A young professional announcer has volunteered to do my intro and I plan to take him up on it.

But that will require another piece of equipment. I need to learn to use what I've got first.

I would also love to have guests. They could talk while I am trying to turn my mike back on.

When I was guest on James Edwards's "The Political Cesspool" a couple of times, I seem to have done well. James is another young pro who has his own radio station in Memphis and his show is on the internet at Listen to the Political Cesspool live.

James tells me he had his second best audience with Bay Buchanan. But his audience when I was his guest the second time doubled even her numbers.

James has volunteered to be a guest on my show anytime I want him, and I will want him a lot.

So what's holding me up?

The intro requires more equipment. Having a guest requires even more equipment, all of which I must learn to handle during the show. New equipment will have to wait until I learn to handle this stuff.

Add to all that James Kelso tells me having a guest on is "very simple."

That statement alone scares the hell out of me.


I wish that, when you read my stuff, you would think of me as trying to lead you through tangled undergrowth. Normally, in he important ones, I go over the usual "two sides" you have been presented with all your life, and then make a point that, if you follow ME closely.

The problem is that, as I go through the usual clutter of ideas you are used to, I hit every hot button you have had inserted in you over your whole lifetime. But Bob's Blog is useless if it is just a discussion of what you are used to.

One person wrote the usual point about how we have to control the national media. I don't think he is a regular reader, or he would have gotten one of my major points: That if we accept that some people are after money, some fame, some offices, and we are after POWER. He is simply going back over the same old ground he is trained to go over. I teach that owning things is not the key to POWER.

In the last piece, "The Hook, I went through the history of the ianity that has substituted itself for Christ. But the point was that this is an example of how we confuse Christianity in the West, either with all that the West is, or, on the other extreme, as the cause of all our troubles.

I am glad to have the comments, and I was the one who says that I often don't answer your questions but make the points you make me think of. Pain got my point best.

One commenter was offended by my using 'hook-nosed." I am with him.

I am desperately tired of statements about The Evil Jew. But in this case, it was just another example of the fact that, if I have to choose between good taste and a good pun, I will choose the pun, boredom is a reader's worst enemy.

Come on, now, how could I be writing about The Hook, then the Jews, and not throw "hook-nose" in there?

All of this distracts from what Bob's Underground Seminar IS.

If you were able to go through my writings and extract the usual hot point "both sides" out of it, you would have a long series of critical observations.

"Both sides," in the end, have nothing to do with what I am teaching here.

I started "The Hook" talking, not about Christianity, but about Communism. There is a hook in EVERY side of EVERY issue you are exposed to. The institution you love most has a hook in it. The institution you hate most has a hook in it.

You have to see THE HOOKS to see the truth.

Randian total freedom and Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the same thing from my point of view.

But you are trained to regard them as "both sides."

To me, the Catholic priesthood and the Calvinist priesthood and the Politically Correct priesthood are the same thing, though they regard themselves as complete opposites, and everyone is trained to do that.

You are expected to have your own world-view. But you are in THIS class to get what the Professor has to TEACH you, not to agree with every example he gives.

I want YOUR comments, but I want you to read the piece and say, "What is BOB saying here?"

My short summations are more important than all the lead-in to it. The lead-ins you can get ANYWHERE.

My theology you can get anywhere. My prejudices you can get anywhere.

You are HERE for a reason, and what makes my job so difficult is that this is the ONLY place where the aim is NOT indoctrination.

The point here is to go over the familiar and then cut through the bullshit and give you a rational approach. That means REPEATING the bullshit. But if you get wrapped up in THAT, you lost the path completely.

I will often say, "This is the conservative viewpoint." "This is the antireligious viewpoint." I oversimplify both because I would bore you to death if I went into all I know abut both and made it exact.

By the time I get to MY point, which is the only that makes this reading worthwhile to you, most readers are lost back in my descriptions of where we are.

Back Bay Grouch and Elizabeth are analyzing my comments about priests about how they get along with THEIR priests. By the time I get to MY point, I am almost alone.

So when I wrote abut the Masturbation Generation and how they, like Catholic bishops, are ashamed of how they let the sergeants molest them or their comrades, all I got was a discussion of the military or the Catholic Church as homosexual outfits.

I had to repeat over and over and over and over that this had nothing to do with what I was saying.

I describe what we usually think about on any given issue and you are still correcting me about THAT, since that is what you know about already.

So while I am describing how Rand and Marx are similar, you are welcome to give me information abut Rand and Marx, but you should also be looking for what ***I*** am saying here.

A good example of this is that Back Bay Grouch will think I just criticized his talking his relationship with his own priest. I am NOT.

I read it several times and I NEED it. That is what you are USED to hearing about. That is NOT what I am saying.

When I describe Rand and Marx or respectable conservatism and liberalism or Toynbee versus Yockey, I am concentrating on telling you that, while your eyes have been fixed on the battle between THEM, you are so obsessed with that, THAT you cannot see that is NOT where the truth lies.

They are both arguing about nonessentials that are important to THEM, and they are in full agreement that the truth is not where it REALLY is.

I am trying to get you to raise your eyes and see the truth.


Somebody needs to write a book about liquor laws.

Liquor laws are what I call real history, not about Historical Inevitability or The Conspiracy, but about real compromises that are so human they are funny.

But never forget that every law on alcohol represents a compromise that was life and death to real, live, active people.

We know that the Eighteenth Amendment, enforced by the Volstead Act, established prohibition. The twenty-first amendment repealed the eighteenth.


In order to get the necessary two-thirds majority in congress for repealing Prohibition, a compromise was required. The twenty first amendment did repeal national prohibition, but it also included a clause almost no one today is really aware of, but which is still active.

National Prohibition was repealed, but local prohibition was specifically sanctioned.

It is specifically stated that, when it comes to alcoholic beverages, state law is sovereign over national law.

I used to ride in trains where this reservation made things VERY confusing. You are going along at sixty miles per hour and the Club Car is open or closed every few minutes or every few hours.

It was interstate transportation, where in all other things the Feds have always been sovereign, but a guy well on his way to a good drunk had the glass snatched out of his hand because they were passing through a dry county.

State law.

On absolutely nothing else could state law override Federal law by declaring COUNTY law to take precedence over FEDERAL law.

Except for that clause on that amendment.

This made for a lot of confusion in the days of propeller aircraft.

Today it is still legally true that serving a drink on board a jet aircraft flying over a dry country is illegal.

And, in fact, if a real person in a real dry county pressed it in court, he would win.

NEVER SAY "ANTI"!!!Liquor Law

One or more of you could break into the publishing biz by writing a book on liquor law.

They are a human comedy.

Because the twenty first amendment repealing Prohibition specifically put the control of alcoholic beverages into state hands, every state was thrown into a major battle.

In South Carolina, each liquor store has a red dot somewhere on its front.

In 1940, South Carolina legalized liquor stores, over enormous opposition. Since each state has absolutely no restrictions on its liquor law, every aspect of the law must be passed by compromise with hard shell Baptists and screaming Methodists who, at the time, made up over ninety percent of the state's population.

So one compromise was that, though liquor stores could exist, they could not advertise.

One Prohibitionist took that to court before the law took effect and obtained a court ruling that that provision prohibited the liquor store having a sign that said "Liquor Store."

As a result of that one person's initiative, none of the new liquor stored could say they sold liquor.

So one new store owner had an idea. He proposed to all the other new store owners that they paint their stores a bright, eye-hurting orange with large red dots on it. Twenty years later it looked like someone on LSD had made it up.

When South Carolina liquor stores opened in 1940 there was no way anyone could fail to know what they were. Eye-hurting orange with three-foot-across red spots became the signal of every such business in the state.

"Sign?" We don't need no steenking SIGN!"

And even today every single liquor store in the state has at least a couple of red dots.

In fact, thinking about it, I don't remember what the sign at the local liquor store actually says.

Liquor Law Again

I was in Mississippi many years ago, and stopped at a liquor store.

Mississippi was a dry state.

But as I said, the twenty-first amendment's blanket declaration that state law is sovereign over Federal law puts terms like "dry state" into the Twilight Zone.

Mississippi law was straight Prohibition. It was officially listed as a dry state.

But who could ENFORCE that law? Mississippi declared that only county authorities could enforce state-wide Prohibition. So if you elected a sheriff who chose not to enforce the law, it could be a very wet county indeed.

Please note that I am not kidding you here.

The only problem with leaving enforcement to the local sheriff was that the state wanted the huge source of revenue represented by the liquor tax.

Once again, I kid you not the slightest: instead of a liquor tax, the state imposed a "Black Market Tax."

When someone sold something, not specifying what it might be, in violation of state law, but state authorities were prohibited from preventing its sale, a tax must be paid to the state on this Black Market Item, whatever it may be.

And if the tax was not paid, the state could enforce it. There was a Black Market Commission for that.

Today the micro breweries for beer are a big thing. Every one of them is gigantic compared to some of the liquor sellers I saw in Mississippi. One half-pint bottle of clear liquid I found in a store had a white label stuck on it with the words, in ink, ".... Smith, Route 3, Hattiesburg, Mississippi."

It had the Federal and Black Market Commission stamps on it, and was as legal as Budweiser.

Some counties were dry. Some were as wet as New Orleans. All in a state which officially had no change in its law since the Coolidge Administration.

A doctor acquaintance of mine had a girl friend from New Orleans. She had lived there all her life. One day when she was visiting him in North Carolina they went to a liquor store.

She had never seen a liquor store before in her entire life.

In New Orleans you bought liquor off the shelf, the same way you bought Campbell's Soup, Every Seven-Eleven had liquor on the shelf.

She had trouble with the concept of a liquor store the way you might have a problem with someone taking you to a Mustard Store.


There was a ritzy meeting of moderate Republicans down in Florida.

Gov. John G. Rowland of Connecticut told the group that the party platform ought to change because it is offensive to women, teachers, unions, homosexuals, and immigrants. "I will report to you that the good news is that the rich people and the business people still like us," said Rowland. "But that's about it."

Actually, Republicans get less women and more men. So they don't lose "women." Women are in the majority, so if Rowland were right, Republicans would never win a single election.

The Republicans certainly don't turn off union members. In a typical election year, Republicans get forty percent of the union vote in direct defiance of union leaders.

Presumably, then, what moderates are talking about is not union PEOPLE, but union MONEY. Unions are the only institution in America that can take money by force and use it in politics any way they want to. Media, moderates and McCain want to keep it that way.

So we are left with what the media and moderate line really is: "Republicans can't win if they don't appeal to women's libbers, teachers, homosexuals and immigrants." Rowland leaves one out of the groups in the standard formula: "Minorities."

Rowland's conclusion is even more revealing: "the rich people and the business people still like us." This is what liberals, moderates, and respectable conservatives always say: If you are not a minority, a homosexual, or an immigrant, you are a rich white man. This might give you a hint as to why moderates, who religiously follow this liberal line about voters, so seldom seem to win.

This moderate-media line is so insane that we need to repeat it, because no respectable conservative ever will. They imply, and often state, that anyone who is not women's libber, homosexual or minority is a rich white male. I challenge you to listen closely and not realize that that is what they are saying!

The media and the moderates completely leave out the group Reagan and Gingrich actually won with. These were the Wallace-Reagan Democrats, those who are increasingly unhappy about where this minority-immigrant-homosexual line is taking the country.

Yet the same media announced in 1994 that it was "the angry white males" who took both Houses of Congress away from the Democrats.

They said that because the line is that an angry white male is really anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. Anything they don't like always ends up being called Nazi.

The base of the Republican Party is white. The Democrats are a coalition of minorities. According to the line of all moderates and all the media, the latter is easier to hold together. Meanwhile, back in reality, as the minorities grow, their competition grows.

Only one thing keeps the Democrats from being a permanent and shrinking minority, and that is Republican strategy.

Democratic strategy is to give more and more of what the "haves" have to the "have nots." And remember, to them a "have" is anybody who is not a women's libber, a homosexual, or a leftist in a

minority group!

But there is a definite limit to how long one can win elections and buy minorities with white money. As minorities grow, their competition for "rich white money" grows, and only so many fleas can live on one dog.

The decades-long Republicans pursuit of the "Negro vote" is hopeless. Blacks have spent their political history in lock step. They will vote as their leaders tell them, and the liberals own their leaders outright. But other minorities are not so uniform.

For example, the same media that says Hispanics only vote for Democrats also insisted during the Gonzalez flap that the huge Cuban-American vote in Florida could be ignored because it was lost to the Democrats anyway.

The media-moderate argument is that minorities will never vote for a party whose base is white racially and Western European culturally. They then argue that the white population WILL vote for a party based on a minority coalition. In the meantime, the white majority gets more Republican when Republicans go for them, and minorities are learning that competing for dominance with other minorities causes serious problems.

The tendency of moderates and the media to use the word "Hispanic" and the word "immigrant" interchangeably represents the kind of real-world problem they have. To liberals, these two groups are the same.

To Americans with Hispanic names, there is lot of difference. Very few real American Hispanics want to trade in their American standard of living for an open border. But in Mediaspeak, anyone with a Spanish name who wants to restrict immigration at all is "a rich white man."

The deciding factor, strange as it seems, may be the truth: liberal programs don't WORK, rightist programs WORK. A party which is devoted to that proposition, rather than to following the polls and the fads, may be the one that wins in the long run.