THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

"ON POSITION" -- PAIN IN GENERAL COMMENTS | 2008-05-03

On position:

Americans hate authority but worship status and don't know the difference. This is exactly the other way around from how Americans were in 1776 and Southerners in 1861, who respected authority but disdained status and knew the difference between authority and status. This used to be the defining difference between Americans and Europeans, who spent their lives trying to earn titles and status to strut around with.

Or should I say "position?" Is there a difference that matters between status and position?

Although he would deny it loudly, Bob is an authority. He might say he has been fighting authority his whole life, but he hasn't, he has been fighting words and people with status they don't merit. Bob may have little formal position right now, but he does have power derived from his authority.

COMMENTS (7)

#1 shari | 2008-05-03 19:22

All REAL authority comes with conformity to the truth, no matter what kind of efforts are made to supress with "The Truth." Many aren't knowing liers or deceivers, but believe such, just because they are too busy to even give it any thought. Of course, others are just too lazy. I don't think that all the seeds that Bob Whitaker has planted will yield nothing. Not hardly! I see signs of spring. I have learned to see and recognize those signs from paying attention here.

#2 mderpelding | 2008-05-03 23:46

I think we need to define what we mean by "authority" and "status" before we compare them.

And, judging by my own experiences, authority is a derivative of status in this country.

For instance, you don't see any MSM political shows with a garbageman as commentator, do you?

Any waitresses as political prognosticators?

Why not?

As a lifetime member of the so-called underclass I tend to think that "Candy" at the Waffle House has a more realistic view of world events than Bill O'Brien or George Stephanopoulus.

After all, there are far more waitresses in the world than media pundits.

Note that I am throwing two logical fallacies at you. One qualitative. The other quantitative. And if you are better trained then me, you can provide the exact Latin terms for each.I cannot.

The world is chock full of people who depend on others to think for them.

Think for yourself.

Please.

#3 Dave | 2008-05-04 01:15

Our situation with regard to "authority" is something else isn't it?

The establishment runs three candidates who offer the public three brands of swindles, swindles so incredibly shallow that each of the candidates is not even capable of uttering one authentic phrase.

And this, we are told by those paid to tell us, is democracy.

This we get from a Congress that does not include even one member who opposes Congress's wide-open grant of speculation in Treasury obligations, issued without the slightest regard to preserving their value, something any government interested in its long-term preservation would never permit, for a government can legalize crime and pretend that crime is not crime, but it cannot abolish the requital that is owed the innocent.

What is authentic and authoritative hides on the horizon and jumps from one shadow to another.

Look at the current monetization of commodities, for example: What is in all those containers containing what they should not contain, raising wants that should have never been raised, and sowing harm and injustice that not even the wide Pacific Ocean can bar?

And every single one of these punks in that abomination that calls itself Congress believe themselves immune from the consequences of their crimes, and believe themselves immune from reckonings THEY THEMSELVES have sown into the very fabric of things.

Telling a lie, or going along with a lie, is not a little thing.

Lies come around in a circle, where the beginning and the end are one in the same.

Another reason why what creates the future is little noticed.

#4 Simmons | 2008-05-04 11:12

If any of you here take what passes for authority here in the USA seriously turn in your badges immediately. Yes there is some power and anyone would find that out if he advocated violence against some of the pets but other than that "authority" has vanished from our shores in any meaningful sense.

That is where we come in. If anyone had the time to surf the chronicles' site and the latest Buchanan commentary I about summed up the charade of authority that exists today.

What exists today would vanish in a week if even the simplest most basic questions were asked of its authority figures. I mean really could any of the clowns from the left to the right honestly answer what "racism" is much less what "racist" is?

In our country of cults which one would be allowed real authority? The holocaust/Israel cult is the closest that comes to the fusion of authority and power, but it takes some powerful taboo to keep it there other than that pickings are pretty slim.

Its witch doctors and rabbis in front of gray stone buildings casting spells on the masses, what a joke.

#5 Pain | 2008-05-04 15:29

The lone sheep is still a sheep. The lone sheep worries about his status. He wants to be the biggest sheep. Sometimes he thinks he is a wolf, so he bites the other sheep. The lone sheep thinks for himself and the coyotes pick the lone sheep off one by one.

A sheep is someone who cannot tell the difference between status and authority. He who cannot tell between status and authority is a sheep and must be guided by a shepherd. The sheep do not know the right way. Those who know the right way automatically become shepherds, authorities.

A man holding a hooked staff may hold the status of a shepherd, but if he does not know the right way, he is no authority. If he comes to steal sheep or if he leads the sheep astray, he is an enemy of the sheep. A shepherd who has lost his way also is an enemy of the sheep.

The good shepherd and the sheep dog love the sheep. They don't mind that the sheep don't know the way. The sheep are family. Their wool brings warmth to the shepherd's loved ones and the sheep themselves are company to the shepherd and the sheep dog. Of course the more sheep that know the right way, the easier their job would be.

And anyone that knows the way is actually a shepherd – as long as he helps the sheep.

An employee, on the other hand, only wants the status of having a flock, his pay, and a safe bed at night. The employee can serve a purpose, but when the going gets tough, he goes running.

The shepherd is anyone who knows the right way, knows right from wrong, likes his company, and will defend his family and flock at the cost of his own life.

#6 backbaygrouch4 | 2008-05-04 20:02

Status seems to be that honor/respect/fear etc., that flows from many to the other. Status can exist without authority, e.g., present day European monarchs.

The energy of authority flows the opposite. It is that which can be enforced on others. It can demand honor/respect/fear, etc.,. Authority always has status, which is a form of uniqueness. Example, a prime minister serving under a monarch.

One with status is different from others. Status can have a negative connotation, e.g., a mendicant. Authority is almost uniformly viewed as a positive.

This leads to the supposition that authority is a subset of status, sort of status with teeth. It is possible to ignore status, but not authority.

#7 mderpelding | 2008-05-09 19:09

Pain,

Make sure that your value judgements are based on actions and not identities.