THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

JEWS: JEWS AND STUFF | nationalsalvation.net

When you bought a new Ford car off of the assembly line around World War I, you got a free copy of Henry Ford's book, The International Jew, with it.

A lot of Jews probably bought the car and then sold the book for a quarter.

As I understand it, it was threats of giant libel suits that caused Ford to back down.

As you doubtless know, Hitler said that "Ford," he didn't know the rest of his name, was the only American who understood the Jewish Problem.

In one of the ten thousand security checks I had to go through - though I may be exaggerating slightly, my Adjudicator was a conservative Jew. Looking at my background he asked in passing if I was anti-Semitic. I told him the truth, that in Politically Correct terms I definitely am.

Jews, as group, have attitudes. All groups have general attitudes. In fact, people will point out that some Jews are anti-Semitic, but all they are doing is using the exception to contradict the rule. The only reason an anti-Semitic Jew stands out is because there is a general Jewish attitude which is NOT anti-Semitic.

In general, you expect someone named O'Hara to have a special attitude toward English pretensions to high virtue in their history. You would be astonished if France, which is west of Germany, never allied with Poland, which is east of Germany.

The oldest treaty in existence is on clay, and it was country A and Country C forming an alliance against Country B, which was between them.

Once again, this is a world view which is as alien to pro-whites as it is to anti-whites.

The reason for this is because we have let the other side impose their world view on us. We shout anti-Semitism while they shout pro-Semitism, but neither side is looking at the real world.

The debate about anti-Semitism is miles from reality, like our constantly trying to deny the racist label they throw at us on racism.

Whatever you label it, there is Western white attitude towards Jews and there has been a Jewish attitude toward Western whites. But we begin by talking about a conspiracy and they begin by saying any attitude we have is anti-Semiotic.

No attitude? Good God, we are talking about two groups who have been cheek by jowl for two thousand years!

You do not start discovering Jewish hostility as some kind of late conspiracy. Jews are in outer space if they insist that Jews have been hated but have never ever responded with hatred themselves.

If you are going to make any sense at all, you have to have a basic world view that makes sense.

MARK | 2006-09-10

Not Spam

NOT SPAM

Bob, sorry for being off subject here, but a question:

I just read where a man named BOB WHITAKER photographed albumn

covers for the Beatles during the mid 1960's. I don't guess

youre the same BW, are you?

Okay, back to the regularly scheduled programming...

Comment by Mark

ME:

Boy, Mark, you really stepped in it!

You gave an old man a chance to talk about HIMSELF!

Thanks for looking me up, and I will no longer pan anyone for doing exactly hwat a seminar is all about. So you done good.

Bob Whitaker who wrote about the Beatles is not me. There is also a Robert W. Whitaker who wrote a book about psychiatry lately.

In fact, back when I wrote my first book, I was on Capitol Hill and the Library of Congress still had a card catalog. When I looked up my name, the drawer I pulled out consisted almost entirely of Robert W. Whitaker. Whitakers filled drawer after drawer.

In the 1960s a buddy of mine from Brazil pointed out that there was a Whitaker on the Brazilian Supreme Court.

When our family historian traced out whole family tree back to Jamestown, she had to find the names of ONE THOUSAND direct ancestors. She is obsessive, like hte rest of our clan, so she is very worried that she can't find ONE of that thousand.

But she added an important one to make up for that. Alexander Whitaker, who converted and baptised Pocahontas and wrote the first book in English America and DIED before the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts, was the brother of my direct ancestor Jabez Whitaker.

She now has a fairly complete family tree back to about 1450, with a Thomas Whitaker.

But there is a problem with us Whitakers. In all that thousand and the ones before, there is not one single FAMOUS one. There is not one who ever had a title.

My cousin, Bob Whitaker, ran Emory University for many years. Like me, he was a staffer.

My cousin Bob Whitaker was the perpetual Assistant to the President of Emory University. The President of Emory changed regularly. It was a job that was given to big money retired exceutives of the Coca-Cola company, which supplied giant infusions of money to Emory. They enjoyed hte title, but the last thing a retired executive wants to do is run the politics of a university. So they went out and made speeches and raised money for Emory.

Bob Whitaker ran the University.

One of the more ironic incidents that happened in the early 1960s, when I was a graduate instructor at the University of South Carolina, and firmly on the FBI list, was when the head of our department, who already had a very high position in academic terms, received an even better job at Emory University.

He came to me one day while he was waiting for the academic year to end and his going from department head to his better job at Emory and said,

"Bob, there is a Bob Whitaker who actually runs Emory University. Are you kin to him?"

I replied, "He's my cousin."

This seemed to surprise him somewhat. A self-proclaimed segregationist redneck from Pontiac, SC does not fit the image of families that run universities. He didn't know my father was the unchallenged top world expert on brick making and had been sent to Russia to represent the American Ceramic Society.

There are other members of my family who wrote books and ran things as second-in-command. It seems to be a family trait. Why would he bother to find THAT out?

I keep going back to Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina. He KEPT saying, "I'm just a country lawyer from North Carolina." When Senator Baker of Tennessee said to hin, "Dammit, Sam, you are a MAGNA Cum Laude graduate of the Harvard Law School, Ole Sam smiled and said, "Yes, Howard, but nobody will ever know it."

In Massachusetts they say, "The Lodges speak only to the Cabots, and the Cabots speak only to God."

The Lodges and the Cabots get a real kick out of that stuff.

They can have it. We just want to rule the world.

CONCEPTS AND THE FLU | 2011-01-03

Adelheim tells me that in Norway there was a series on national TV that discussed environment vs heredity and came down on the side of heredity. The host of the program actually pointed out that races can be different because every Olympic dash team is black, from Sweden or from Africa. I have been hammering at this for years. It is something everybody sees all the time on TV, but no one ever MENTIONS it. They also used the point about identical twins.

What Adelheim doesn't realize is that there is a huge probability that HE got it on his country's TV.

This is critical: You no more know whether you instilled an idea than that you caused a flu. The bug that is making the announcer in Atlanta hoarse on cable TV may well have come from someone just off the plane from San Francisco. God only knows where the person who gave it to them came from.

It is just that the general public finds a flu less painful than a thought.

Adelheim pointed out in general comments on ANOTHER incident. A professor wrote a book saying that the aim of real anti-racism is to wipe out the white race or make it a minority anywhere it exists.

Tell me THAT didn't come from a couple of decades of hard pushing! I know that first-hand, gang! I remember the years of cowlike reactions when I stated the Mantra at conventions and in Stormfront.

I've done this before, a LOT. I made my LIVING at this kind of thing.

So, Adelheim, PLEASE don't piss me off with "modesty." When you deny that little old you couldn't have done this Great Thing, you are also telling Bob Whitaker that his life's work is in vain.

The one thing we really have over the other side is that we don't NEED credit. We do this on faith and because it obeys the Golden Rule. Childishly impractical, isn't it? But somebody important had a very good opinion of the little children.

My circuit rider grandfather used to tell a tale about a little preacher like himself who was in Heaven when all the preachers got together. The Great Evangels shouted about the giant revivals they had presided over and how many crying people they Brought to the Lord.

One of the Great Evangels who had been glorying in his own praise happened to see this small-time preacher he had known in life. He said, "I remember you, Brother. How many souls did you save?"

The little preacher replied, "One."

The little preacher was well aware that most of the people who came weeping up at a Revival had relapsed and been Saved many times. He GUESSED and he HOPED that in some cases he had been ONE of the factors that saved one or more souls.

In short, he had FAITH. But he KNEW of only ONE soul he had saved.

Considering what Jesus said about the fate of the Proud Priest, that Great Evangel made it in by the skin of his teeth.

There is almost never a connection between the person who comes up with an insight and the one who uses it. But I made my living because mine were good enough for my boss to buy them. So this is an easier faith for me to have than for you.

But being "modest" can KILL us. Again and again the lead time is just about right for me, a person who has done this professionally for decades. The slightly morphed Mantra in Norway is no accident.

And I do NOT appreciate BUGS "modesty" about it.

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A REPUBLIC | 2005-11-14

The Warren Court ruled that states could not do what the United States does. That is, a state cannot have an upper house which gives one senator to each county regardless of its population. The US Senate gives each state two senators regardless of population.

The Warren Court ruled that a state legislature had to apportion BOTH houses on the basis of population. Prior to that decision practically every state had done just that for a hundred and eighty years.

How did the Supreme Court explain this?

One provision of the Constitution requires that every state "shall have a republican form of goverment." At the time practically every country on earth was ruled by a monarchy, so the term "republican" referred to the absence of a monarch.

Period.

But the Warren Court ruled that if a state apportioned one house on the basis of counties rather than on population, it did not have a "republican formof government."

Not only does the United States Constitution have a Senate based on states rather than population, but THAT IS THE ONLY PROVISION IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHICH CANNOT BE AMENDED.

We could take out the whole Bill of Rights and the presidency with a constitutional amendment, but we cannot touch the Senate being accorded strictly by states.

The Supreme Court stated this very plainly: a government which has a house apportioned on any basis other than population is NOT a republic. Every state has gone along with this.

The United States is not only not a republic, but it CAN NEVER BE a republic under the Constitution that the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting.