There was an irritating whining coming from the idiot box this week as TV personality Bill O'Reilly got into a snit about a whites only prom that took place on May 2, in Butler Georgia.

It sounded like a stimulus/response thing to me.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but O'Reilly's on-going rant seemed like the kind of thing sometimes heard from whites who have been conditioned with false ideas about race ("genes" would be a better term here, but it would be a major digression to try to explain it all). In general terms, society today seeks to condition people to accept the notion that race is non-existent or is unimportant. When the opposite view appears, i.e. that race is a reality and that it is very important, there is an almost immediate negative response from conditioned people.

Pavlov's dogs could tell you all about this. Stupid bell rings and they can't help salivating. Can't control it. Comes from the subconscious. Never registers on the conscious. Bell ring...drool. Stimulus...response. Whites want to have all white prom...spout self-righteous nonsense. Drool. Stimulus...response.

The conditioning is all pervasive in our society, dear friends. It's on our TV shows,in films, in cartoons, in books, in our schools, in ads, in songs, in our minds. Easily suggestible people are the first to get their minds pithed by this conditioning. Then come others. Few can resist. Once their subconscious minds are rewired to accept false notions about race, it is a difficult process to get the circuits all straightened out again. Up becomes down and night becomes day. Truth is what the government says it is. Facts don't matter. Don't like the truth? Ignore it. Truth is inconvenient? Hide it.

Now, O'Reilly may not be too far gone to save. To his credit, and as far as I know, he never used that meaningless, all purpose, knee-jerk, smear term "racist" (which is almost never correctly defined by those using it). That omission may have been a sign. Instead, he used other absurd terms like "injustice" and "cruelty." But--and please excuse the ping ponging going on here-- also to his credit, in a more general sense, he's been on the right side of many issues, especially about illegal immigration, which he strongly opposes. Some wires are wrong. Some wires are right.

His wires that seem to be going in the wrong direction seem to mostly involve race.

As I wrote in another column, conditioning is a powerful tool that can be used to control animals, including humans. An example I used in that column was of an experiment where fish were put in an aquarium with a piece of glass separating the aquarium in half. Fish were on one side of the glass and food was on the other. At first, the fish would try to swim to the food but would be stopped by the glass. After a time, the glass was removed so the fish could swim to the other side for the food. Instead of doing so, the fish all died of starvation. Because of their conditioning, their brains had been hardwired to believe they couldn't get to the food. People caught up in the so-called anti-racist, false teachings of today have their brains hardwired so they can't objectively and critically think about the subject of race. Instead, otherwise intelligent people, when faced with the subject of race, suddenly become illogical and silly and parrot the current no-nothing, feel good orthodoxy on the subject.

Again, the incident that seemed to push O'Reilly's salivary glands was this aforementioned private prom held by a bunch of white students who apparently decided they'd like to have a non-government sanctioned prom off campus with people they like to be around, and who they have a lot in common with--especially genes. They simply wanted to be around people who they felt comfortable with. As I have also written, some place or other, all living things have an internal "will to comfort." We want to be in comfortable situations physically and mentally. "Will to power?" Forget it. "Will to comfort," is the primary motivator. These kids did nothing more nor less than try to be in a comfortable situation and have a fun party. Well, from the howls coming from O'Reilly, you'd think these students had decided to burn all the black students.

In fact, the white students didn't do anything to the black students. Nothing at all. They didn't keep them from the regular school prom--the government sanctioned one--which went on as planned. They didn't keep blacks from having their own party if they wanted. They didn't call them names. All they did was have their own private party in a private location with private money. Just like free people do all the time.

O' Reilly apparently doesn't like this kind of freedom, though. He believes the private party should have been fully integrated, and because it wasn't, this was, are you ready? UnAmerican. Yep. These evil white students were unAmerican because they exercised their first amendment right to free association. Imagine, these horrible white students exercised their right to choose their friends as they saw fit. Egads!

Maybe the students simply prefer dancing with other whites. Perhaps they prefer talking to other whites. Perhaps they realized that proms are rites of passage into adulthood and that proms and similar quasi-intimate social situations are courting events and preludes to romantic choices. Such events are one of the mating rituals of our society. Perhaps these white students prefer to mate with people who will produce children who look like them and who carry their genes and who will be their posterity. Maybe they realize that mating with non-whites may lead to their eventual extinction. Maybe they would only state it as "I want to date fellow whites. Period." Maybe they didn't want to muck up their mating ritual with people who they do not consider to be mating choices. Chances are they also didn't invite any married people or old people either. Subconscious motivations aside, it was their right to have a private party and to invite only those they wanted to invite. Nothing could be more American. It would have been truly unAmerican to force them to invite anyone they didn't want to invite and to force them into a courting situation that may be against their beliefs. Some might even call this a variety of rape. Some might also say that people, even white people, have a right to do what they want with their genes and their bodies, and this means that no one can force others into social situations that they don't want to be in.

O'Reilly didn't say it, but one suspects that someone who shares his views might say something like, "The white students just hurt themselves by not having blacks at their private party." Of course others, who are still capable of critical thinking about race, might ask how, exactly, did they hurt themselves? What did they lose by not being around people they didn't want to be around? The answer is: nothing. In fact, they probably had a nice time and enjoyed themselves. They didn't feel they had to watch what they said, lest they hurt a black's feelings. They didn't have to feel they had to act black lest they offend a black. They didn't dance with people they didn't want to dance with. They didn't waste their time with members of the opposite sex who they had no romantic interest in. Of course, had blacks been at the party and had whites not danced with them, O'Reilly would probably be complaining about that. And, if the whites didn't kiss the blacks, he'd probably be complaining about that also. Where does it stop? If they didn't eventually have sex with and bear children with blacks, he'd probably complain about that. If their children weren't mixed race, he'd probably be in another snit. In his May 8, column, appearing on his Web site, O'Reilly shows his lack of consciousness by writing "What is it about the UNITED States that folks don't understand? United means we are all in this together." I would ask O'Reilly, "What is it about FREEDOM that you don't understand? What is it about GENOCIDE (even if it is bedroom genocide) that you don't understand?"

To me, O'Reilly's comments illustrate a larger problem with our conditioned masses. These masses don't really believe in freedom except when it is in keeping with their own preconceived brainwashed PC views of reality. The masses have been reeducated away from nature's truths and indoctrinated with false truths. O'Reilly also writes in his May 8 column that "Nobody is willing to state that a segregated school event in the year 2003 is unacceptable behavior." Well, in the first place, it was not a "school event." If it had been a [public] school event, that would have been unacceptable. But it wasn't. It was a private party held by teens who did not use tax payer supported facilities for their party. This is not unacceptable even in 2003 PC, post-American America. Not yet at least, and it never will be so long as people fight for true freedom and their right to choose their own destinies and can make their own choices, free from the intrusion of the government and its lackeys, in their personal lives.

Oh, the white students could have been nice little brainwashed automatons and had a certain number of blacks at their party. They could also have had a certain number of Asians and a certain number of this and a certain number of that. They could have made their party look like those phony PC ads for some product or other that look like a mini U.N. or a scene from the Star Wars bar. They could also have then listened to rap music about killing whitey and they could have been told that they don't know how to dance. Then they could have listened to blacks talking about things, perhaps in a black patois, that may not interest the whites. They could have then gone out in their cars and necked with blacks. The whites could have done all these things. But why should they? Why should they do what they don't want to do? They weren't hurting anyone and they weren't breaking any laws. Why shouldn't they have a party with people they want to be around? Why pretend that you are something you're not? Why not just party with people you like to be with? Isn't a party about letting your hair down and having fun? If you don't feel comfortable around some others, for whatever reason, why invite them to your private party? What does freedom of association mean if it doesn't also mean freedom to not associate with others? Had these been blacks holding the private party it is doubtful that O'Reilly would have even mentioned this matter. And, if this is true, wouldn't it them be reasonable to ask O'Reilly whether he understands the concept of noblesse oblige racism?

In his column, O'Reilly then goes off the deep end and brings up 9/11 and soldiers in Iraq. I kid you not. It's like the old "If we can put a man on the moon," argument. O'Reilly writes:, "The soldiers who are defending us against those killers and their enablers are all colors." Huh? So what? That means we can't have private parties with people we choose to be with? Are our soldiers protecting our "freedom" to be forced to dance with those we don't want to dance with? O'Reilly also writes, "That 17-year-old black student (O'Reilly's imaginary student who we're supposed to identify with) at Taylor High has been taught a lesson that will stay with him the rest of his or her life. And that lesson is that skin color can disqualify you from attending a social event." Of course, this is just the old skin color equals race argument that blurs the fact that race is far more than skin color. But, his point, if properly restated, is "race can disqualify you from attending a social event." Of course it can. Just as religion or any other characteristic can. If it's a private social event, you don't have a right to attend and you can be excluded by the hosts for whatever reasons they have. Freedom means people can choose. You may not agree that you should be excluded, but it's not your party. You didn't organize it. You didn't pay for it. If Jews don't want to have non-Jews attend a Jewish event, should they be forced to do so? If blacks want to have a private black event should they be forced to invite whites? America is not supposed to be about forcing people to associate with others if they don't want to, or not associate with others if they want to. Forcing people to do either, really is unAmerican.

The important thing to remember about this, and the thing that O'Reilly seems to want to gloss over, is that this private prom was not done with any tax payer money or support. It was private. It was paid for with private funds and it was on private property. As such, it's really none of O'Reilly's business who was, or who was not invited, any more than it would be our business who O'Reilly invites to his parties and for what reasons.

If tax funds had been used in any way, it would be different, but apparently none were. This shouldn't even have been a news story. But, O'Reilly apparently figured this was a sexy story and maybe he thought he could build up some brownie points about what a wonderful unracist guy he is by harping on it. Instead, he just showed his ignorance about race and proved that he doesn't really understand freedom or what it means to be an American.

Despite what O'Reilly may believe, no one in this country is duty bound to mix with others. Such mixing is often used by totalitarian governments to destroy distinct peoples. It was tried with the Jews a number of times in history as various nations tried to force them to mix with other peoples and disappear into a common gene pool. Hanukkah is a Jewish holiday that is about Jews resisting being blended away. Or, to put it different terms, the Jews went to their own proms, that's why they still exist. Forcing people to mix and blend was also tried with the Gypsies in Eastern Europe. It failed. The Gypsies went to their own proms. Had the Jews and the Gypsies followed the rule of O'Reillly, there probably would be no Jews or Gypsies alive today. But it's apparently okay with those who take a line similar to O'Reilly's for non-Jewish, non-Gypsy whites to be blended away by not being allowed to go to their own proms.

O'Reilly seems to want to brow beat white kids into integrating their private parties and, ultimately, via romantically intimate social events such as proms, their love lives. Of course, O'Reilly, who often brings up the fact that he's Irish, might do some soul searching and wonder who he'd be today if his ancestors had gone to the type of integrated proms he's pushing. Would O'Reilly still be Irish? He might have the same name, but he might also be black, like the blacks in Jamaica who have German surnames and pictures of great grandparents who were blond, white Germans (discussed more fully in one of my earlier columns). Would he think the same way? Would he feel the same way? Would O'Reilly really be O'Reilly?

The truth is that we are our genes and our genes are us. Change the genes and you change the person. All of us, including the Irish, such as O'Reilly, are who we are because of our genes; not because we were born into any artificial modern nation. People such as O'Reilly may now say that they are just unhyphenated Americans, but this doesn't give an honest clue to who a person really is, as does, say, the word "Irish." Should O'Reilly visit that "foreign" land of Ireland, he would find that he looks more like the people there and shares more with the Irish, on a deep, basic, genetic level than he does with a black who may live across the street from him in America. This is so, because O'Reilly's forbears went to their own exclusive proms. "American" is a veneer that is pasted on top of what is real and genuine. This does not mean that those who understand this, are unpatriotic or that they aren't proud to be Americans, but it does mean that they have, unlike O'Reilly, apparently, scratched the surface of existence and know there's more to who they are than is taught in high school civics classes. And, more and more white people are starting to understand that it is okay to be white, and that they don't have to apologize for wanting their families to remain so, and that they have a natural right to have their own private proms if this is their choice, and if they pay for them, themselves. This is the American way of freedom and self-fulfillment. This is what it means to be truly free and to have the right of free association, even if some others don't want them to have such freedom and such a right.

Another thought occured to me. Could it be that O'Reilly is so confused about race, ethnicity, and genetics that he believes "Black Irish," means that there are Irish Negroes and that he's one of them? Was he upset because he thought he was being excluded from the prom?

#  #  #

1. ROAMING THE WASTELANDS

NEW! JUST RELEASED! H. Millard’s latest sacred cow toppling book,
is now available at Amazon.com by clicking on the following link
or by calling 1-877-823-9235.

“A fun–and sobering–thing to read” Alamance Independent

2. THE OUTSIDER
(ISBN: 0-595-19424-9)
H. Millard’s underground classic story of alienation
is available at Amazon.com by clicking on the following link
or by calling 1-877-823-9235:

"Millard is an important writer" - New Nation News
"Millard is an original. His books aren't like your typical fiction. If you don't know where to put his books, try the same shelf with Kerouac, Kafka, Sartre and Nietzsche" - a reader.

Recommend this page to a friend

• References: (Note: links may expire and content not necessary endorsed by H. Millard
  or New Nation News but presented for further study for those interested in the topic by the NNN editor.)
• Pavlov, His Staff and Dog in his Classical Conditioning Laboratory
• White prom news headlines
• Prom Night - All White By Bill O'Reilly
• O'Reilly and the prom
• Prom pictures
• R&B singer Case performs at the First Annual African American Prom, which kicks off at 9 p.m. Saturday
• Black seniors at Chicago's Brother Rice High School recently staged a blacks-only prom
  
  
• Bill O'Reilly on immigration
• The Irish in Mexico, Chiapas and the Zapatistas * MEXICO: Vincente Fox and his Irish father
• The "Black Irish"
  
  
• Freedom of Association
• Radio Talk Show Host Neal Boortz vs. O'Reilly - (Von Bluvens link)
  "BOORTZ: What part of freedom of association escapes your great intellect, Bill?"