THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

THE INTERNET IS BEING THERE | 2009-05-30

Posted by Bob on April 5, 2006 at 6:45 pm

"Stop HIDING behind the compter screen! Get out into the REAL WORLD!"

Since I am about the last person who can be accused of hiding anywhere, I am the perfect on to flush this nonsense down where it belongs.

I hate the telephone, relative to the internet, for a one reason: The person I am talking to is on a schedule. He calls me when I am thinking about something else, and he is on the way to something else, too.

A good deal of the time is spent trying to get get in what he needs to say to me when he can contact me personally.

On the internet, you are here when you feel like being here. I do not have to remember your telephone number or get ready to talk to you and intrduce you to the topic I am interested in at the moment, when your mind is somewhere else — otherwise you would be calling ME.

Phone call Stage One: Getting the number right and introducing the topic. Stage Two: Getting your input and my reaction to your input, all in the time allotted and at a time neither of us chose.

Personal visits are far, far worse t han the telephone. You have to GET there, which means that you have just been through a set of directions and little incidents.

Then comes all the "getting each comfortable."

On the internet, you are here when you want to be here and I am here when I want to be here.

Onthe internet, the topic is already introduced when you sit and when I sit down.

I am mystified as to why this constitutes HIDING:

"I actually met so-and-so."

My concern is not whether you physically sat down and saw the actual face of someone, but what did you SAY?

You can hide anything that was actually said in a talk about where he lives and how he looks.

Sight and smell are the province of a dog.

A dog can get nothing out of the Internet.

On the internet, if you tell someone you were talking to somebody on it, all you can discuss is WHAT YOU SAID.

I think the person who you of "hiding behind the computer screen" is the one who wants to hide. He wants to talk about where he was and how he was THERE, not about hwat was said, which is province of the human mind.

If anyone ever really reads and thinks about what I say, he will realize this is a repetition. The person who talks endlessly about "liars" is a liar. The person who talks endlessly about Hate is a hater. The person who talks endlessly about "hiding" is hiding.

That is the kind of thinking an interrogator does. It is the kind of thinking an interrogator gets so good at that he is paid for it.

Being there physically is a substitute for being there mentally.

CONSPIRACY OR COST OF INFORMATION? | 2008-01-17

richard looked up an old Quaker Oats ad and told me THAT was the original Quaker Oats ad, not the one I referred to.

I looked up the Mule Train on Google and found only a reference to one that showed up at civil rights rally in 1968.

I could be wrong on both counts, but I doubt it seriously.

It could be that there is a conspiracy, but I doubt that, too.

I saw the original Quaker Oats box in a history of advertising, with a discussion of it. I saw the Mule Train arriving at Cape Kennedy when there was the usual burst of publicity about it on TV in 1969.

This is one reason so many people believe in conspiracies. I am used to people seeing major stories on TV and talking about them and then, a year later, totally forgetting anything like that ever happened.

I tried to google the name of the original congressman who introduced and put through the creation of the House un-American Activities Committee. He was a Communist that KGB files showed was a paid Soviet agent. HUAC was set up to hunt down Nazis and KKK in the 1930s, and the left only got it abolished in a long campaign after it turned against the Reds after WWII.

John AshBROOK was on HUAC.

But I couldn't find the information I was trying to find about the Communist congressman. Some people here and on SF found it finally.

The problem is that if you look up HUAC, the only stories are about its persecution of Hollywood and so forth.

A Conspiracy? No, what you find is what someone PRODUCES. What exactly would anyone GAIN by ignoring Hollywood and going back to what I was looking for?

Here's a story you won't read elsewhere. While I was on Capitol Hill, they decided to dispose of the HUAC file, the WHOLE thing. They offered to GIVE it to anybody who wanted it, libraries, individual staffers, ANYONE.

No takers.

So I assume most of it got burned. If I had had the space, I could have it now. For all the volumes written about it, no one wanted the actual files. There were THE LATEST news stories to deal with, and everything that they needed for the stories on McCarthyism and HUAC were already there for the taking of anybody who wanted to get published.

Does that sound like a conspiracy or simply that no one wanted to bother with it?

There is only one giant industry that almost NEVER has a real scandal. Why? Because what exactly would someone who is making his livelihood inside that industry GAIN by exposing a scandal of this sort? The two blacks who wrote false stories, one of whom got a Pulitzer Prize that had to be taken back, are both still making a good living in the media. That would have ruined a politician or a member of any other profession, but conservatives were the first to say it was a minor matter, really. This is not a conspiracy. This is a cost of information.

Let me say it again: information is a PRODUCT, like bread or potatoes. It is not so much suppressed as it is simply not produced, not repeated. Who would GAIN by talking about the civil right's attack on the space program in 1969?

People on our side are as fixated on today's news as the newspapers. Their time is spent on the latest outrage. The only people who would be interested in these old things would-be professionals and professionals are the LAST people who are going to drag up the Quaker Oats bit in the middle of an age of Political Correctness, or report scandals in the media or dwell on the Gods of Civil Rights' opposition to the Moon Landing.

Do you really think that Bloomberg, who wrote the book Bias, is ever going to get a big job in the media again?

This is not conspiracy. This is the way the world WORKS.

When the Watts Riots got going, I stayed up at night listening about them on the radio. That was back when radio stations still signed off. I was on the East Coast, so the station I was listening to was going off the air. They finished up at about midnight California time and wound it up by repeating what every media outlet in America was saying at that point:

"This is NOT a race riot. This is NOT racial."

Try to find THOSE quotes on Google!

I remember that after Kennedy was shot, the first words out of Chief Justice Earl Warren's mouth were that this showed the danger of right wing extremists who had killed the President. Look THAT one up, gang!

Conspiracy, hell! Conspiracies aren't that efficient!

READ THE COMMENTS, THEY'RE SOUNDING PROFESSIONAL! | 2008-08-29

I was very happy with the comments on "The Annotated Mantra."

All of them sounded like people who approach this as a JOB OF WORK. I can only say that I felt like I was in the middle of a bunch of PROS.

This is the product of YEARS of interaction which I have never tried before. Which NOBODY has ever tried before.

The reason is simple enough. Those who learned the trade in what AFKAN calls "Movement Past" still live in a world I remember intimately. All means of communication were blocked. All you had were low-budget publications and face-to-face discussions.

Face-to-face discussion was excellent practice, and I used it literally thousands of times. I honed my skills at it.

I learned decades of lessons in power strategy and how to communicated, and I got PAID for it. But the one thing I could not tell others about was how to USE this experience for OUR cause.

On the subject of race, I could not COMMUNICATE to others what I LEARNED in face-to-face discussions and in the propaganda work at which I was a recognized professional. I also had no chance to try out my approaches outside the little world of people I talked with.

Before the Internet there was no chance to form a TEAM like BUGS.

It is no wonder we are NEW. The opportunity, the world of commununications, is new.

It is not easy for someone who spent decades in movement past to keep plugging away at the same old stand. Exactly the same thing happened in ninteenth century medicine. A lot of doctors kept killing patients with the old theories. That is undertandable, but it is not forgivable.

If what we are doing were not a matter of life or death, we could be patient and understanding.

Inside the movement a lot of people are talking about Jews, a lot of people talk about race, others tout other strategies. But they don't field test them and report. But we are the ONLY group which is dedicated to finding out what WORKS out in the field, in face-to-face and Internet communications and on what discussion shows we can book.

We constantly hear defeatists talking about our failure to communicate, but nobody but BUGS STUDIES COMMUNICATION ITSELF. Nobody but BUGS has EVER dropped worrying about whether I have been insulted or whether there can be quibble with what I am saying, but instead concentrated entirely on how to CONVINCE people of the truth in a brainwashed world.

BUGS is Doing its absolutely unique job.

As usual, once we've done it everybody will say they knew it all along.

A BRILLIANT TRIBUTE -- ANNOTATED | 2005-09-09

Right after my retirement I got a letter of praise from one the people I try so hard to reach.

My quotation of his support was right above my quotation of the encouragement of a female black guard who read my book from cover to cover and who thinks it's terrific.

What I write is simply true. Nobody with a good brain has any trouble with it. It cuts through the crapola and says what we all know.

Now that, brothers and sisters, is a VERY hard concept to explain.

Anyway, this brilliant appreciation of EXACTLY what I am trying to say needs some more commentary. So I repeat it below with my own comments enclosed in **********

It is a burden to a person with my modesty to reiterate such instinted praise. It offends my natural modesty.

But for you, dear reader, no sacrifice is too great.

A Brilliant Tribute

Filed under: Comment Responses— Bob

Dear Bob,

After I wrote to you the first time, you posted my message on your blog

and guessed that I'm a "respectable conservative."

The truth is even worse, I'm afraid. I'm a liberal, I come from a long

line of Yankees, and I live in San Francisco.

********There is NOTHING worse than a respectable conservative.

******** Liberals hit us from the FRONT.

******** In any war, your objectives with the ENEMY are 1) rout him, 2) kill him, 3) capture him.

******* Collaborators, like respectable conservatives, you just shoot.

So why do I like your stuff? Well, being a liberal, I favor scientific

method over authority and very much dislike established religion. And

you have, in my opinion, written the most convincing justification for

science and secularism that I've ever read.

********* I believe Christ's kingdom is not of this earth.

********* He said so.

I'm also against genocide and racism, and you're the least racist person

I've ever come across. As you see it, no group of human beings should

be treated as animals or angels. Instead, you believe that human beings

should be treated as human beings. You accept that anybody who is human

will do both good and bad, and when you see him doing something bad, you

do him the honor of saying so. People don't come less racist, or more

humane, than that.

********* Many thanks. I am a decent human being, defensive of my own and respectful of others.

********* It takes great perception to cut to that simple reality despite today's brainwashing, aka, "education."

It doesn't really matter much, however, that I call myself a "liberal"

and that you call yourself a "conservative".

******* I am about the least conservative person you will ever meet. In today's political dialogue I have no choice but to ally with that category.

******* Liberalism has become the code word for the established religion of Political Correctness. I have fought it all my life and have had to ally myself with respectable conservatives and so-called "Christian" conservatives whom I despise.

We're both white American gentiles, which means that we're kin, and kinship is the only foundation

upon which a democracy may be erected.

******* If you said that out loud in a liberal or respectable conservative gathering they would lynch you.

"Democracy" is a Greek word that means "rule of the people." It does not mean "rule of opinion." Rule of opinion, whether that opinion be the Public's or the Supreme Court's,

can be many things but it cannot, by definition, be democratic. But you

have already made this point much better than I can.

My main point in writing you today is: 1) to let you know that I'm not,

contrary to your guess, a "respectable conservative" and that the truth

is even worse;

********* No. You are explaining that you do not belong to the category that would make a maggot gag. (see FOOTNOTE below)

2) to let you know that if your writings have managed to

get beyond the Stormfront types and reach *me*, a left-leaning San

Francisco liberal, then your work is truly "out there" now and your

decision to call it a day is therefore entirely justified.

I'm very glad that you've decided to continue the blog, however. It's

nice to know that there's at least one place on the Internet that can

offer enlightenment not only about life in Washington and the history

of Christianity, but also about Baywatch and the Village People.

******** Wait until you see my discussion of Kermit and bare-assed amphibians!

Best wishes,

FOOTNOTE:

Thanks, Lake!