THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

THE COURT IS THE LAST RESORT | 2006-10-06

The only idea that I ever got credit for was my statement that, in every big change in our society, the federal courts are always the last resot of those who were going out of power.

In 1934 the courts ruled for the Indians and Andrew Jackson told them to go to hell. In 1857 the Court ruled that the congress could not prevent slavery from being extended i ntot he western territories and the 1860 Republican platform told them to go to hell.

In the 1930s the courts tried to stop the New Deal and Roosevelt tried to pack the court. History says he succeeded, because hsi court-packing plan was rejected. But he kept getting reelected and got himself his own court. Today the courts back every 1960s-style "Social Experiment."

When the courts are your last bastion, a person who knows history puts the undertaker on alert.

A BROWN FUTURE? | 2004-05-25

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a white minority. I have been a white minority for much of my life, and we were much more racially conscious.

We have always been in a minority, what is changing is WHERE we are in a minority. Fanatical white anti-whites were always in Minnesota and Sweden and Canada, away from the objects of their affection. A threatened white minority has a MUCH better chance of unity and survival than yesterday's Yankees and Europeans for whom the poor little colored brethren were just a theory.

Actually, the only thing that unites Yankees today is a common hatred of the South. We serve the same function for them that blacks served for us in the slavery and segregation days. Pathetic "American patriots" like today's National Review have nothing to be loyal to. They play John Brown's Body, they worship Abraham Lincoln, but they have nothing of their own at all.

A threatened self-conscious white minority will have a much healthier mind-set.

It is true that the slavish minorities will give liberals a majority soon by election. But there is a time limit on that, too. The NAACP had been in existence for over sixty years before it had its first black president. Then there was what was called a "black takeover." Liberals were astonished to see blacks taking over the NAACP!

When minorities become majorities, they stop being slaves to liberals. They take over with their own spokesmen. The Lt. Governor of California is a member of a Hispanic supremacist group. He refused to drop out when he ran for governor.

Whites will be the largest minority and they will have to bargain as whites.

I wouldn't worry too much about the "Future voters." There won't be any. All multicultural societies are tyrannies, and any multiracial society is tyranny squared.

Somebody like Saddam takes over. He took over Iraq for the 40% Sunni minority. Tito did the same thing for the Yugoslavian Serbs.

As a third world society gets richer, it experiences a population bust. People want to spend the money they would have spent on children on their own toys. The third world doesn't have children if they have to pay for them. In the classic third world, children are an asset or a source of pride, and if you don't want them you just let them starve. With a little income, the government begins to demand that you pay for your kids.

Anyway, the whole question of children will be 100% choice before long. Swedes hate white people, but a lot of Indians would love to have pure Aryan children. The Aryans were the top caste of India. Buddha was a Nordic. India loves blondness.

They can choose. And there are a billion Indians, while China's population is dropping already.

With all those variables and my own experience, I know damn well that the future is totally unpredictable. The only people I know who are so wrong they are silly are the ones who talk about an "inevitable future."

They are drooling idiots.

HISTORY IS BUNK! | 2006-10-23

There is no such thing as history. A true historian studies other people's PRESENT. That is why Politically Correct history is such a farce. The PC historian is trying to show how everybody he is writing about was doing things in order to produce the political outlook of today. They search through every word Jefferson said to find something that will show he really thought just like he was supposed to.

A true historian studies other people's PRESENT. For example, it is hard for any of us to fully realize that those we read about in Ancient History had an ancient history of their OWN. Nothing illustrates the poverty of our history better than the fact that there has only been one book, in ANY language, about tourism in ancient times, "Travel in the Ancient World" by Lionel Casson.

I have read it at least twenty times. I have it right here beside me.

Casson points out that the pyramids were a huge tourist attraction in 2000 BC. You see, by then the older pyramids were ancient history to the Egyptians who were traveling four millennia ago. We telescope history together so we do not realize that a thousand-year-old monument was as much a wonder to them as Middle Age churches in Europe are to Europeans and Americans today.

One assumes that hieroglyphics on those pyramids were readable to the scribes who visited in 2000 BC. If you think so, try reading something written in Anglo-Saxon a thousand years ago.

Herodotus is known as "The Father of History." He wrote in the fifth century B.C. But there is something startling modern about WHY he traveled all over his ancient world, all the way to the Black Sea. He was trying to prove exactly what historians are trying to prove today, that everything began in the Middle East.

Herodotus overriding interest was comparative theology. He was traveling when the Egyptian Empire was already three thousand years old. So he tried to show how the Greek gods were derived from the Egyptian gods, just as historians today say that every invention and civilization itself are solely products of Egypt, Mesopotamia and, of course, ancient Israel.

We now know, of course, that the Indo-European gods had nothing whatever to do with the Egyptian ones. We know about Indo-European history, but that was heresy when it first came up. It is still heresy to say that anything came from anywhere but the Middle East, until you are praising ancient China or showing how Egypt was produced by black Africa.

SIMMONS RF (REPORT FROM THE FRONT) | 2008-08-07

I'm trying the idea chain at freerepublic. Been there for years bounced once for "racism" many years ago. Not an open forum by any means and I hold no illusions that one day its front page will print the Mantra. I had one phrase make it up to national cable news when it counted and I started it there so the place is not totally wordist useless.

One thing it has become is a rightwing bloggers training ground. There is the target group, mostly wordist but highly competitive for those few scraps that exist for them, therefor more fertile territory for us than writing letters up the chain to say the Jewish National Review.

Now what exactly are they useful for, the diabolical plan to cleave up the left and separate the white libs from the FCCs. Who opposes this, mainstream conservative opinion of two camps the neo-cons who rely on the power straddle they share with their jew brethren and the Limbaughs who rely on the huddled masses for their master to protect them from the librul monolith of doom (send money today).

With the libs cleaved up and reduced to a simpler less effective machine I expect the right to have to rearrange its batteries of field guns. Now more than likely they will turn them in our direction but that is where the Mantra comes in frontally.

Anyway my effort is to introduce the next set of questions into the debate the ones that take apart the left's cults.

Â

-- Simmons