THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

WRITING IN THE GOOGLE AGE | 2011-03-07

In his Foreword to my last book, Joe Sobran praised it but also said "It's not really a book."

By training, Joe was a Shakespearian scholar, and a set of opinions and deductions like mine is not a book. He said it could use more citations and statistics.

My first book was subject to the same sort of criticism, though it was critically acclaimed by the most amazing people. But it was written to explain the point of view of Southern and "ethnic" working people, and it only included factual information they were likely to know.

My first book was dedicated to the proposition that you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to know you are getting screwed, though the self-styled "intellectuals" thought working folks hadn't figured them out.

And my bona fides for representing this point of view in 1976 were unique: I had been writing for working people's protests and had a list of groups that wanted me to do it for them that was as long as your arm.

Who said I could speak for them?

THEY did, and were pissed off when I couldn't.

You must suit your book to your message. My last book was written in 2004. My book was aimed at a whole generation which had lots of experience looking up things their professors wanted them to, but no experience at all in THINKING about the information they had.

You can lie every bit as effectively with a list of selected references as you can with no references. You can prevent someone from shoving THINKING on you by disputing and editorializing on each reference they make.

My book was NOT devoted to the idea that they had the wrong facts, but that they had been trained to warp their THINKING about the facts they did know.

In the days when books were hand copied citation was the essence of scholarship. As a result, the entire body of people I wrote the book about. Our Academic Priesthood, has perfected the technique of lying by selected references and shouting down all dissident thought about those references.

The usual answer to this is to write a book with different references.

In Medieval times, you would write a book only after you had read the entire literature on a subject, all ten books of it, and then quote it heavily. Doing that today makes you look smart, because that is what people USED to do.

But new information technology should produce a new genre from the Middle Ages model. If I cite what I think is a fact, somebody will tell me I'm wrong. Why keep thinking what you always thought when thousands of people can shake your most deeply-held illusions by Googling it?

The problem with old scholarship is that people don't say what they REALLY base their opinions on. Most of our society is run on assumptions that a scholar wouldn't actually state.

Most people would be petrified if they had over 3,000 articles in print, as I do in BUGS, where I proceeded to state what I was thinking without cleaning it all up. But in the Google Age, that is a new way to get your reality straight.

For twelve years I have done this and while a scholar would be embarrassed to death at having as many errors as I have had exposed, it has done me nothing but good.

Your computer can deliver information no ten thousand scholars could deliver, but it can't THINK for you. So I admit my inferiority on the scholar front and devote myself to what only the human brain can deliver.

THE NEXT STAGE OF CIVILIZATION WILL NOT COME FROM ASIA | 2004-02-14

When the average American thinks of Oriental Wisdom, three pictures flash through his mind.

One is the 1970s television series called "Kung Fu," where David Carradine took the great Chinese Wisdom and fighting ability he had learned as a child in a Kung Fu academy in China into the American West.

Actually, Kung Fu was introduced to China by a man whose BLUE EYES supposedly burned a hole through a wall, according to the legend. His name was Bodhidharma, and he is mentioned as "the blue-eyed devil" in the quote below.

Another thing we always see in the Orient is the Buddha, whose statues are all very Oriental-looking. Actually, Buddha was an Aryan who lived and died in India.

As one Buddhist puts it,

"We're all prepared to visualize the Buddha's blue eyes. He was an Aryan, of European descent, a nobleman in a societal caste system that did not 'officially' intermarry with native populations. The rigidity of the system can be seen even in further generations. Nearly a thousand years later, Bodhidharma, another Aryan descendant, was called The Blue Eyed Demon by the Chinese.'"

"Also, in recent years we've witnessed the startling discoveries of three thousand year-old blond and red haired Caucasian mummies in the Takla Makan area of western China."

http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/czs/bluelotus.html

A third thing we Americans know about Oriental Wisdom is medical treatments we think were invented there, like acupuncture. The Ice Man, the body of a white man found preserved in the Alps, is three thousand years old. He has tattoos on him that mark the spots for acupuncture .

Reading a history of the Orient is like reading a history of false starts. They invent a printing press and then lose it. They invent a mechanical clock and then lose it.

As a human being, I am interested in where the next generation of great advances will come from. New areas of the earth are being opened up with the fall of Communism. But I do not look for China to produce fundamental advances.

How about Russia and Eastern Europe?

HISTORY: MOMMY PROFESSOR HISTORY IS A HISTORY OF HISTORIANS | nationalsalvation.net

"The Renaissance Disaster" below goes back to another of our BASICS:

Information, like every other human product, is produced for a REASON. Anything someone says should be looked at from this point of view as well as just finding an answer. This is where "Mommy Professor" came from. One minute the anti is an intellectual, the next he is a kid repeating what Mommy Professor said.

I regularly stop before answering any argument and think back over the BASICS. So I give antis hell when they say they are white by pointing out that they are like Communists bragging they are Americans. That is WHY they say that. They think that self-sacrifice is a virtue, so treason against their own kind is virtue. And I say this is insane.

I've tried it. No one has a comeback because it's obviously true. They produced the information to look good and I made it look like the treason it is.

Don't spit out the standard replies. Use OURS.

So WHY do we have Street Lamp History?

The results are barely beginning to filter down, but archeology and carbon dating and other science is ripping received history, The History of Mankind, to pieces. It will get worse yearly for standard historians, for Mommy Professor's orthodoxy.

After all, what IS a standard historian? He is someone who deals exclusively in WRITINGS. He has to mention scientific breakthroughs, but he doesn't understand them and he hates them.

At first historians handled science by concentrating on anything they could twist into political correctness. The Egyptians had pyramids? Well, the Incas had pyramids, too, so the white history is not so hot.

The "Out of Africa" stuff. But, as so many times before in history, our established religion is finding that science is getting out of hand. And while Mommy Professor has not changed "World History" one iota, everybody on the Internet is getting regular updates.

Historians are limited to quoting WRITERS. More important than the Library of Alexandria but never mentioned is the entire Persian literature was burned, the only hint of history and folk memory we may have had back to Mount Ararat on the Black Sea, the Flood.

This is easy to ignore because it doesn't exist in the quotations historians rely on.

WHY is this information produced?

BASICS, gang!

Historians love the Renaissance because it praises writers like them. The real development of Calculus is ignored by saying we stood on the shoulders of Euclid, who would not have had the slightest inkling of the what or even the why of advanced math. He produced a sophomore course of little serious value.

But he is a Giant to historians, because he can be CITED. Pages on which real Medieval mathematicians developed the Calculus were scratched out so that scarce lamb skins could be used for more copies of Euclid the Giant on whose shoulders we mere Western barbarians stood.

In other words, Mommy Professor rubbed out the complicated stuff and got more copies of what he could understand and quote. But the real development of Calculus is still there, though historians have carefully ignored it.

Mommy Professor can UNDERSTAND Euclid. To him Calculus is some kind of Babylonian god.

Mommy Professor's "history" is a series of surviving quotations twisted to suit the agenda. It is Established Religion crap that makes a Moslem fundamentalist look literate and sane by comparison.

All this from BASICS.

ONLY JEWS CAN SUFFER | 2005-05-15

In a documentary on the Titanic, I noticed a comment about the third-class passengers.

Third-class was the way that almost all the wave of immigrants who came between 1880 and 1920 got to New York. Those were the millions who came to the famous Ellis Island.

That was the wave today's New York Jews descend from. So the crying and moaning about the treatment of third-class has been loud and endless.

Oh, how they SUFFERED!

The only thing discussions of the Titanic ever notice is how the third-class passengers were ignored when the disaster struck. But if you listen closely, some other comments about third-class back then are worth hearing. One thing is that there was always PLENTY of GOOD food for third-class passengers to eat.

They had to sleep in bunks and their other accommodations were small compared to First Class. But compared to where they came from in Europe and Russia, it was a luxury cruise.

Each third-class passenger had his OWN bunk. In Europe poor families did not have a real bed for each of them. Third-class was CLEAN, an experience you seldom found in the poor areas of Europe.

Let me repeat that, for the poor of Europe, third class was a luxury cruise.

When your and my ancestors came over here, the ships were NOT clean. The food was moldy. The first thing people did at the CAPTAIN's table was to rap their bread on the table to get the worms out. That went on well into the nineteenth century. On those ships, after a week or so, the water was foul. You and I and the third-class passengers who came to Ellis Island would have gotten sick at the smell of it.

So when today's New York Jews talk about the crowded ships their forefathers came over on in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, it is another example of Jewish SUFFERING.

They grieve over the way their ancestors were treated as Jews when they arrived in America.

If their Jewish ancestors had gone into Boston, they would have seen the place littered with hiring signs that said, "No Irish Need Apply" and store signs that said, "No Irish." But the Irish are not Jews, so they can't SUFFER.

When my ancestors got to Jamestown, half the town starved to death. I did not say "died of malnutrition," I said STARVATION. Unless you have seen and smelled starvation, this does not give you the cold chills the way it does me.

Jane Fonda says in passing that large numbers of children in South Carolina die of starvation. People are always talking about "starvation."

But real starvation is something else. Even in our poorest days, very few people have died of starvation in America since 1750.

My ancestors, including the sons of a professor at Cambridge, came over on ships with rats the size of dogs. They STARVED often. They were attacked by Indians and were slowly burned alive by experts at torture who could have taught the Spanish Inquisition a few tricks.

But they didn't SUFFER.

New York Jews are always saying, "The history of the Jews is Suffering." Let an old American make a statement to the New York Jews:

With all due respect, which is very little*, New York Jews are full of that which makes the little flowers grow.

*Thanks, Sam.