THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

SEX, REDNECKS AND HICKS | 2006-01-12

Some critic once wrote of a book:

"Some of it is true and some of it is new. "

"Unforunately nothing new in it is true and nothing true in it is new."

"I'd give it a miss."

My knowledge of sex falls into the exact same category. What I know that is new about sex can be comfortably fitted into a matchbox with the matches still in it, but what I know is NOT true about sex would fill volumes.

But my main job in this blog is to express exactly what you are thinking and to amuse you while doing it.

I expect my discussion of sex to do exactly that.

My whole life has been spent building up a total contempt for people who are trying desperately to be "sophisticated." Hick, redneck, ANYTHING is better than being accused of trying to be one of those pathetic little self-styled sophisticates the Southern white suburbs and country clubs are so infested with.

By the same token, I have steadily built up a truly militant contempt for guys who talk about how sexually sophisticated they are.

Naturally I have made up a joke that goes with this particular bit of tired contempt:

"From my conversation with other men, I have concluded that I am the only heterosexual male who did not lose his virginity before he lost his umbilical cord."

Men who are secure in their manhood don't brag about sex. The ones who do are the ones who do the talking, so my joke is very nearly true.

Every time guys start talking about sex, they say they not only lost their virginity before the rest of us reached puberty, but the girl they did it with said they were better than any man she had ever lain with.

The adult males in the room remain quiet, but another guy of this sort then pipes up and claims he lost his virginity even earlier and did it better.

The original speaker is then reminded of an earlier incident.

And so it goes, down to the umbilical cord bit.

If I am ever more or less forced to make a remark by somebody saying he saw me with some attractive girl and I probably started early with my gift of gab, I have a standard reply:

"No, I was a late bloomer. I did it late and I did it badly."

This is the exact equivalent of my reply to some "sophisticate" who indicates that I am a fellow sophisticate. When I reply that, under all my education, I am still a redneck from Pontiac, South Carolina.

It is an expression of bored contempt.

Nothing is a grosser insult than some sex-braggger including me as one of his fellow sex-braggarts or some pitiful little aspirant to "sophistication" counting me among his kin. But I try to react kindly by a self-deprecating joke instead of breaking into the physical violence I would like to commit on him.

THEOLOGY REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE, THE GOLDEN RULE REQUIRES A CONSCIENCE | 2004-02-21

Theologians never mention the fact that Jesus never condemned anybody for not reading the Bible enough.

He condemned many who were Biblical experts, like the scribes and the prideful high priests of the Temple.

There have always been many who substituted theology for a conscience.

At the end of the eighteenth century, Doctor Jenner came up with a means of ending the deadly scourge of smallpox. He found that if you gave a person a shot of cowpox, it would make them immune to the deadly smallpox.

Practically every preacher in London started screaming about how evil this man Jenner was. They quoted the Old Testament about how the human body was the temple of the soul. They said putting cow germs into humans was something no Christian would do.

As a direct result of that campaign against vaccinations by the preachers, thousands of people died of smallpox. Thousands more were horribly disfigured for life.

There is no record of any preacher ever feeling the slightest bit guilty for this. If you've got your nose stuck in the Old Testament, you don't need a conscience.

So theologians find everything easy. There are millions of people in wheelchairs for life. Maybe developing embryos and using them to replace cells could put those on their feet. If I were the embryo, I wouldn't mind at all. But if you can just quote the right theology, you can block it, and if you are a good theologian, the real people in the real wheelchairs won't bother you a bit.

No matter what happens no theologian will ever feel guilty about mere human beings. But if you are stuck with the Golden Rule, the world is a very complicated place. You can't stick your nose in the Old Testament and forget that people exist.

If you are stuck with the Golden Rule, you can't ignore anybody. If you are stuck with the Golden Rule, you have to try to realize exactly how others think and what other people want.

Life is much simpler if you can ignore the Golden Rule and look for a good quote in the Old Testament that saves you from having to think and feel.

JAMIES FORUM AND BLOG, WHITE NEWS NOW | 2009-11-21

Jamie Kelso called me to announce he has his first blog ever. Since he and Don Black pretty well run Stormfront this was a surprise to me.

It is called White News now and the link is here, under "Friends of Bob", as he has our link on his.

When people first get to Stormfront they do a lot of "venting." All the years of rigid suppression of saying anything Politically Incorrect naturally leaves a lot of pressure, so they tend to blow it out at first, and our people are naturally the ones who resent this the most, so the steam comes out hot. That is venting.

So there is a lot of battling inside Stormfront. As a result one of the major rules on White News Now is no internal squabbling. It is for people who are used to their own forum. In fact, it is aimed for those of us who have been in the movement a long time.

It even has pictures of "heroes" lining its home page. Mine is of me on The New Right Papers, when I was at my fattest and most drugged out workaholic stage on Capitol Hill. Jamie made that OK because he put my picture on the US Grant Postage stamp!

His play on the words on the stamp is also hilarious.

I PREFER MY HUMAN SACRIFICES THE OLD FASHIONED WAY | 2005-09-27

In the Middle Ages, parents would routinely obtained the blessings of the Church by bringing a young child in to become a monk or a nun.

If they were truly blessed, their child would spend sixty to eighty years in hunger, exhaustion, self-loathing, physical self-torture, sleep starvation, and humiliation. That was what GOOD monasteries were for.

Usually, in the less perfect convents and monasteries, the child would learn homosexual sex early.

There is one authenticated case, and probably thousands more less well documented, where a boy was delivered to the monastery after his mother died delivering him. In his long life of eighty years he never saw a single female.

That was a GOOD monastery.

In the pagan world they would leave a newborn out in the open to die of exposure in a day or two. For some reason, that was better than actually KILLING the child.

There is an old American country saying, "A man should shoot his own dog."

In other words, if your dog has to die, you make sure it is done right and painlessly by doing it yourself. To my country mind, if you want to kill a newborn, you should kill it yourself instead of leaving it in hours or days of uncomprehending terror and thirst in the cold and in the sun.

That is the Golden Rule talking. No churchman ever even mentioned that aspect of the matter. The suffering of a newborn doesn't matter, or we wouldn't have circumcised hundreds of millions of male babies.

The only thing that mattered to the Church was that the child was exposed and actually killed rather than spending a lifetime suffering. That would been a holy act.

A lot of the sacrifices in pagan days were voluntary. But the Church abhorred that kind of human sacrifice. Human sacrifices in monasteries were usually voluntary, and that makes all the difference.

The difference mystifies me. According to the Golden Rule, you shouldn't do that to yourself.

The Church disapproved of other forms of suicide.

Political Correctness says that when the Temple Jews convicted Jesus and turned him over to the civil authorities, the Roman, they had no idea he would be executed.

A good conservative can swallow that line, but back on the real earth there were only two alternatives if the Temple Jews convicted a Jew of heresy, stoning by Jews or crucifixion by Romans.

Christianity abandoned the cross when it took over. Instead it used a very slow burning at the stake.

After days or weeks of torture, which the family had to pay for.

When a heretic was burned, the Inquisitors held a celebration feast.

The family paid for that, too.

If they were lucky. Many a person confessed and went to the stake because if they died heretics, everything the family had would be confiscated. They couldn't pay for anything.

That sort of self-sacrifice was usually futile. The whole family of a heretic was suspected of heresy, so another member was usually arrested later. Eventually the Church would get the whole kaboodle anyway.

My favorite professor made himself a human sacrifice. He and a friend were in a boat when the lake was suddenly flooded and the boat overturned. He was to shore, but his friend couldn't swim well, so he went back, though exhausted, to try to save him. He drowned trying to save his friend.

He was no Christian, but he died to do something for another person. He died according to the Golden Rule, as Christ did.

That is ONLY reason for human sacrifice, even if the person being sacrificed is you.