THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

I AGREE WITH MIKE AND HS ON CHRIST'S | 2005-06-15

If you look at the comments on the article below, "This 'God is Sort of a Spirit' Thing Mystifies Me," you will find what I see as an unusual note of agreement. If HS or Mike do not agree, they will definitely say so.

I will not include their comments here because I would like readers to get used to reading the comments themselves.

Here is how I summed up what we agree on:

Theologians write millions of words -- literally -- about who they, meaning Christ -- feel

like forgiving.

Christ died for our sins. He forgave those who did not know what they were doing. This

means it takes a positive effort to AVOID being part of His sacrifice.

Jesus also said, "and forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US."

What Jesus said was that He made the one sacrifice that will ever matter for every person

who is not positively bad, not just for those who read the Old Testament right.

As I say, I will fight for the right of a person to stand in the church door and demand a

correct theology. In fact, as a Wordsmith myself, I kind of admire the theologians' ability

to make what Christ repeatedly said into a paying institution and hundreds of millions

of words.

St. Paul said, "We must be all things to all men." That was simple enough: We Christians go to THEM, we don't sit inthe chrch door waiting to examine them when they come to us.

To avoid Christ's sacrifice, you have to positively evil: "For God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only begotten Son..."

That doesn't sound like a God who is champing at the bit to damn almost everybody.

"Forgive them for they know now what they do." That is enough to be part of Christ's sacrifice. He said so.

"Forgive us our trespasses" not because we satisfy some theologian, but "as we forgive those who trespass against us."

How do you make that complicated?

I would hate to face the Judgment in the shoes of a theologian.

I cannot imagine anything more evil or more a rejection of Christ's sacrifice than standing in the church door turning people away.

THIS REPUBLICAN PARTY "PRINCIPLE" HAS NOT CHANGED | 2000-04-22

After Reconstruction ended, the Southern Republican Party began to dwindle. By the beginning of the twentieth century, no one was elected on the Republican ticket to anything in the Deep South, so everybody with any ambition left it.

In fact, there was only one reason to be a Southern Republican by 1900. Every state had a minimum number of delegates to the national Republican Convention every four years. So each four years a tiny group in each state would get together, call themselves Republicans and send some people to sell their convention votes to the highest bidder.

This was not a secret. At the 1912 convention, a reporter asked a drunk Southern delegate how the South would be voting. The delegate replied, "Some of us are for Taft, some of us are for Roosevelt, and ALL of us are for SALE!"

The majority of South Carolina's Republicans in the state senate voted to pull down the Confederate flag that 76% of Republicans in their primary had voted to keep flying over the state house. Their openly stated reason? They said that standing on principle might cost money, estimated at a maximum of a dollar or two per South Carolinian per year. Principle is nice, they agreed, but money is nicer.

So the only difference between the majority of Republican state senators today and Republican delegates in 1912 is that in 1912 they held out for a better price.

THE SHORTAGE INDUSTRY | 2010-06-28

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/06/11/2323227/ITER-Fusion-Reactor-Enters-Existential-Crisis

I have talked a lot about fusion energy. The environmentalists are trying to prevent it. They want everything planned by Mommy Professor. They do NOT want any technological solutions to any shortage.

The opponents are described as environmentalist anti-nuclear. But they are in fact the group I discussed at the end of my 1976 book. They are the education-welfare establishment which wants the Kyoto world Mommy Professor dreams of, where there is a shortage of everything and bureaucrats make the choices.

Fusion is nuclear, but that is all it has in common with atomic power plants. Fission puts out radioactivity, fusion does not. We have no idea what any of the problems will be with fusion generation because there is none yet.

None of this has anything to do with the opposition to it. Every single socialist I know of became an environmentalist the day the USSR closed down. The USSR was, after all, just what I said, "A place where there was a shortage of everything and bureaucrats made the choices."

It is interesting that Chernobyl occurred in Mommy Professor's Heaven.

Nobody else would put it that way. And that is the problem.

Just as the real aims of anti-whites are never discussed, the real motives of Mommy Professor are ignored.

It is interesting to me that the big push on fusion energy is happening in Europe. Europe is the place where they usually are the first to pee on themselves when Mommy Professor says something is politically incorrect. Yet France uses nuclear power to an extent that, if copied in the US, would about get rid of our oil shortage.

But this is a crisis coming to a head that only we understand. So far this fusion project has hit $20 billion.

We now have a twenty billion dollar investment facing the environmental industry which represents trillions they hope to control from the shortage industry.

And shortage IS an industry. It is called environmentalism, but it represents millions of people who want to control things and distribute things the way they once wanted to do under socialism. The power companies backed down on nuclear power because theirs was a tiny power compared to the shortage industry.

The shortage industry is no more interested in the environment than it was in working people when it called itself socialism. Millions of people are already employed in it and it wants hundreds of millions.

All of the big companies the shortage industry gets its money from and claims to oppose are, combined, small compared to the education-welfare, environmentalist establishment. But we still debate with them as if they were Idealists against Big Money.

My first book discussed this, but the world view was weeded out as conservatives learned to use only the arguments that didn't make their liberal heroes look like what they were. Just like today our side weeds out the Mantra.

ALAN PARKER | 2007-01-23

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

this is Al Parker, logged in as Peter again.

Like the European intellectuals who talked a good deal about how wonderful Communism was but didn't want to cross over into Eastern Europe, how do we know WE would want to live under the type of government that would be empowered with upholding the views and values expressed on this blog?

I wonder if we are malcontents or if we really mean it.

Comment by Peter

ME:

As so often happens, what I am about to say is so true it sounds like a joke.

But, Al, what IS the type of government I seem to advocate? I ask this because, since I gave up conservatism, I am no longer sure what it is I would advocate. My aim now is to concentrate on race and, since my faith in my race is strong, to let THEM decide policy.

I have a very good how WIDE a range "type of government" covers. That was my job.

I have advocated that any honest citizen be allowed to be armed and my freedom of speech ideas would be ACLU if THEY believed in the same freedom for the right as for the left. I would not only end subsidized higher ed and the education monopoly, a major proportion of today's college administrators and professors and others would be punished under anti-monopoly law.

Beyond that, about all I have done here is read the Preamble to the United States Constitution to you.

No, illegal aliens would have NO rights here, and there would be far fewer legal ones.

I am being honest here. What kind of government IS being advocated here, Al?

No answer constitutes a reply.