THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

ALL INSTITUTIONS ARE PARASITES | 2008-07-29

There are symbiotic parasites and there are more parasites that are only costly to the hosts.

When you swallow food, you drop it directly on tops of hundreds of strains of bacteria which have been harnessed by the body to help digest it.

Every one of those strains represents a tragedy that happened to your ancestors. Each strain came in as a pure parasite. They evolved and your ancestors evolved. The bacilli evolved because they were killing their hosts, and parasites in a dead host die. We evolved because those who could not survive them died.

In the end, the hosts and the parasites which found way to be symbiotic survived.

The Shakers, as you know, were a religious sect which took the St. Paul – Zoroastrian version of Christianity to its logical extreme. They made beautiful furniture and you can take a tour of where the Shakers USED to live.

The Shaker institution killed its hosts.

So did the Shakers' legitimate ancestors, the Zoroastrians. Z discovered what all institutions that have a huge priesthood to feed discover: You can get a major increase in paying members if you let EVERYBODY in. In the long run, Z killed its racial base and died. But priests and professors don't CARE about the long run. They become parasites, pure and simple.

Peter and Paul the Tentmaker earned their own livings.

JOHN KERRY | 2004-08-07

In his speech at the Democratic Convention Bill Clinton hinted at what I have already said.

See June 19, 2004 -- Kerry's Two Fatal Problems.

In that article I predicted that Bill and Hillary would be right up there on the podium backing Kerry all the way. That has come to pass.

I also predicted that, if Kerry picked Edwards as his vice presidential running mate, Bill and Hillary would sabotage him.

Sure enough, in his speech Clinton talked about how young and optimistic and charismatic John Edwards is. Then he joked, "I'm kind of jealous." It is perfectly obvious to everybody that John Edwards is a young Bill Clinton.

Whether or not Kerry wins this year, John Edwards has the inside track to be the next Democratic presidential nominee after him. The next race will be between a young Bill Clinton and the wife of the old Bill Clinton, whether it takes place in 2008 or 2012.

So Kerry can lose in 2004 and Edwards could lose in 2008, which would give the nomination to Hillary in 2012.

Or Kerry could win in 2004 and not win reelection, which would put Edwards on the inside track for the 2012 nomination, the one Hillary needs. That would give Edwards four years of national exposure as Vice President. A young Bill Clinton would be running for the 2012 presidential nomination with four years under his belt as Vice President. By then, the Clintons will be past history.

If Kerry wins in 2004 and in 2008, Edwards will have the 2012 nomination sewn up.

In other words, if Kerry wins in the election, Hillary will be in the position of Teddy Kennedy after Chappaquiddick. Until Chappaquiddick, Teddy Kennedy had the next Democratic nomination sewn up. After Chappaquiddick, Kennedy became a Senate lifer and has-been on the national political stage. That is where Hillary will be if Kerry wins the election.

The Clintons cannot let Kerry win in 2004.

I LIKE MANTRA BUT I DONT LIKE GURU | 2012-05-23

Mantra is probably one of those terms they like to use in the New Age crap.

Like the Beatles, they also fall for a "guru," who usually has a dozen Cadillacs.

We are definitely not hippie or New Age. Those are fads. We are in a serious and lasting fight that the media is trying to crush, not use as a fad.

I like being an old fashioned, very American Coach.

One commenter was saying that the Mantra was being determined by the only source that mattered, and I actually tightened up before he said "BUGS" rather than "Bob."

Dead right.

My whole goal is to get everything I have so practiced and thought out that I can be DONE WITHOUT, and not make William Pierce's chilling mistake of leaving no heirs.

Hell, I don't just want an heir, I want a whole set of replacements. That's what real teachers and real coaches do that gurus cannot.

A Coach is interested in his TEAM.

A Guru is interested in HIMSELF.

THE POLITICALLY CORRECT HATE LIST | 2003-05-17

We have lived all our lives with this game of Politically Correct Trumps, but nobody has put down in detail exactly what the trumps are.

We all know that Political Correctness says that White Men are Evil and that Non-Whites are lovers of Nature and moral paragons.

Another rule of Political Correctness is "Animals good, People bad." So if man is greedy that is just awful. If an animal is greedy he is just following nature. When people destroy forests it is pure evil. When elephants destroy trees, it just shows how nice they are.

So we know these two rules: Whites Bad, non-Whites Good and People Bad, Animals Good.

But then we run into a case like the mammoths. When it was white men killing them, history declared man killed the mammoth. But if Man killed the mammoth in North America, then those men were non-white.

In this case "Man Bad, Animals Good" runs up against "White Man Bad, Indian Good."

Another rule of Political Correctness is "Poor People good, Rich People Bad."

Political Correctness lives on Guilt, and there is no point in making poor people feel Guilty because you can't get anything out of them. So the Virtuous Poor People are the victims of the Evil Rich.

You can get Guilt money out of the Evil Rich.

But what about a case where a person is a rich member of a minority? Here "White Man Bad, Minority Good" runs into "Rich People Bad."

Another rule of Political Correctness says, "Men are Evil, Women Good." We know that men who make unwelcome advances cause traumas that leave all women psychologically wrecked.

But what if the woman is white and the man is black?

White Bad, Black Good. So isn't it her fault for leading him on?