THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

HITLER AND JEWS, ANTI-WHITES AND WHITES | 2011-09-11

What exactly IS the difference between the way Hitler spoke of Jews and the way so-called "anti-racists" speak of whites?

Like Hitler's Jews, whites are the source of every major evil the world has seen. Like Goebbels's Jews, whites are UNIQUELY evil. One anti-white on OV in Stormfront was going on about the unique and soul-deep evil in white people.

I mentioned that whites had never done anything BAD that others hadn't done. The only things whites had done that were unique were GOOD things, like ending smallpox and starvation. What this guy was talking about every race had done, and the only difference was that whites had more power to do good or evil.

This guy expressed his doubts about that, which gave me the exact opening for my KO punch.

The only alternative to whites doing nothing unique in the Evil Department, I pointed out, was to say that whites are evil by BLOOD. His whole cesspool full of crap about all races being genetically the same and race being a myth collapsed when he said he doubted my simple point.

That was when absolutely nobody on our side would EVER have hit him with that point. They would be tailgating his arguments, trying to prove that other races were worse.

In the Swarm, one of our commenters gave me a wonderful point. When someone says that all races have good people and bad people, he said we should ask how many good people a race must have to protect it from genocide.

That is a perfect Whitakerism.

But no one seemed to notice that but Whitaker.

DO NOT TAILGATE. Their own argument always has its own destruction in it.

CYBERROOTS REBELLION | 2007-03-02

The story is that the Reformation was the result of a GRASSROOTS rebellion. This grassroots rebellion was the direct result of the printing press.

There is a distinction here. It is the sort of distinction I made a good living explaining. It is the lesson I offer you free. But you have been reading Bob's stuff so long you probably consider it obvious. Everything I say is obvious, in retrospect. But the people who paid me knew it in PROSPECT, and they won.

OK, I hope to you it is obvious: The revolt of those who could READ that was the Reformation was anything BUT grassroots. They did read to the illiterate masses, but the basis of the revolt was a new class, middle class which could READ.

Anyone who makes his living in television knows that it is critical to reach the right demographic. Peasants in the days of Luther were largely still pagan. They went to church the way Japanese peasants have icons of Buddha, Christ, and Shinto deities. The Lutheran/Calvin revolt was not grassroots, it was a rebellion on the part of the new ruling demographic.

The reason people paid me money was for observations so obvious that, when they become generally accepted, you wonder why the HELL someone would pay MONEY to a person who claims it was some kind of Special Wisdom.

But if you are fanatic like me, you couldn't care less. It worked. Now to the next problem.

It should be obvious, and isn't, that a Cyberroots rebellion is different from a grassroots rebellion. After a few thousand of us marched for Confederate flag over the South Carolina capitol building, there was really massive march AGAINST it. Tens of thousands of blacks packed the street to the extent of the Million Man March in DC, to the point where they were jammed so tightly they had trouble breathing. They won, because it was supposed to be a GRASSROOTS revolt.

They were led by the clerics in backwards collars and with Bob Jones's timely support, but it was solid black.

So I asked, "What percentage of the anti-flag masses were SWING votes?" In our few thousand, some hated Beasley and some might still vote Republican. But every single person in those hundred thousand ant-flaggers was a committed liberal.

When it comes to politics, the grassroots are meaningless.

Let's do some real political arithmetic:

Bob Joes IV or XIV or whoever he is will sell out to the highest bidders. All of his slaves will vote Republican. He has family business to run. The blacks and the guys with the backward collars will vote liberal Democrat. So if I were getting paid to advise on POLITICS, I'd say you better forget the apparent grassroots and pay attention to the people who have OPINIONS.

So what is the demographic that sane people are looking for?

MTV's desperate attempt to get its watchers, tens of millions of them, out to vote is one of the best-known failures in popular history.

Those poor bastards! I've BEEN there! MTV is run by overaged hippies. They were Young Radicals in the NINETEEN SIXTIES for God's sake! Has anybody taken a look at a CALENDAR lately? But they figured "I am a young radical in the year 2000 and when I say 'young radical' in 2000 AD all these young folks will sign on and get out there and vote anti-racist."

You never heard abut it when a Soviet space shot failed, complete with lots of dead people. You never hear about it when a Radical Initiative goes pfsst. The MTV campaign went pffst.

A Cyber Revolt is entirely different from the Workers' Class crap Jane Fonda dreams about.

I used to get paid for observations like this. Maybe it's worth your thinking abut.

T.G.I.F. | 2005-11-16

If you go to whitakeronline.org and hit on Audio Archives you will see the shows listed below and you can hear them.

Each set of ideas connects with the others. Connected together the programs give you a world view and a practical way to plan to achieve it.

In order to understand what I really have to say, you would have to listen to each several times and THINK about them.

The first one listed here, called DICTA, means Don't Interfer Call the Authorities. It explains how we have become so helpless since the Obedient Generation, the one that calls itself The Greatest Generation, took over.

My program called The Weakest Generaton doesn't seem to be here yet. But the world before and after them was and will be utterly unrecognizable right now. I see things in younger people that they think are new, but were taken for granted in the 1930s.

Temporal Provincialism discusses the fact that what cripples our ability to predict, and this was what I made my living at, is the fact that we reside in NOW. This program could give you a lot of pointers on how to PREDICT accurately the tide of history.

And The Tide of History is related to Temporal Provincialism. It explains, from a practical political point of view -- again, I made my living this way -- the difference between practical politics and revolutionary politics. If your big thing in life is that you want the budget deficit to go up or down a few billion, practical politics is the way to go. And you can have a great time talking politics at a party.

But you better do it fast, because nothing you say will mean a thing a month from now. People remember only the tide of history.

NOBODY would remember the entire Weimar Republic if it hadn't been Hitler that overthrew it.

NOBODY would remember Kerensky if it weren't for Lenin.

Practical politics has NOTHING to do with changing the system or changing basics. To do anything important, you must position yourself in a way that nobody who deals in "real politics" will understand.

Few do understand, which is why there are so few revolutionaries. But if you are a temporal provincial, "There is a tide in the affairs of men which, when taken at the crest," is not the way you want to live to live.

The tide didn't come to the party, so who cares about it?

One of the first sacrifices a revolutionary makes is being alone and knowing that the tide may not come in his lifetime.

The people at the party will remind you that all your effort may be wasted. You will not remind them that ALL their effort is wasted. When the tide of history comes, nothing they do will mean a thing. If you don't believe this, try talking the political strategy of the last gubernatorial election.

So I deal with people who know nothing about the tide of history, temporal provincialism, the Experts they are quoting, why they are just trying to be Shrewd again.

Even if they do grasp the concepts, they can apply it to ancient history but not to the society in which they just obsessed over the latest headlines, The Holy World of Now.

They are being Shrewd and they quote Experts. I have a program on each of these subjects.

So I sit down and try to talk with somebody and they tell me "They have discovered that..." which means that particular old fad is a popular fad again. They say that "That's been tried, meaning history has not come there yet, or "Republicans are going to GET the black vote this time" or "AIDS is becoming a heterosexual disease".

And I am supposed to TALK with them?

I'd rather drink alone.

I wish some people would do what Joe is doing. You could THINK about the chain of ideas I discuss and how it affects the tide of history and why I say YOU are part of my chain of ideas.

At VERY rare intervals I find that someone has not only gotten my point, but they have see a line of logic or reality I had not seen. They are not trying to shoehorn the universe into the Old Testament or yesterday's headlines.

In other words, at rare intervals I have the kind of actual discussion other people take for granted.

In my lonely world when that happens I feel exactly the way Robinson Crosoe must have felt when he saw the footprints of another human being for the first time in twenty years:

"THANK GOD FOR FRIDAY!"

October 29, 2005 – D.I.C.T.A.

October 22, 2005 – Temporal Provincialism

October 15, 2005 – Truthseekers

October 8, 2005 – The Thread of History

October 1, 2005 – Shrewd

September 24, 2005 – I Support The United Nations

September 17, 2005 – White Survivalism

September 10, 2005 – Experts

September 3, 2005 – Wordism Revisited

August 27, 2005 – Criticism Is Not Hate

August 20, 2005 – The Silly Ideas We Live By

August 13, 2005 – Our Established Religion

August 6, 2005 – What is Truth?

July 30, 2005 – Experts

July 23, 2005 – Annotated Constitution - Preamble

July 16, 2005 – Sobsister History

July 9, 2005 – Not Bias, Silliness

July 2, 2005 – Re-Play: Bob and James Edwards:

The Political Cesspool - MAKE IT PERSONAL

June 25, 2005 – Idiocracy

June 18, 2005 – Arguments

June 11, 2005 – Routine Racism

June 4, 2005 – The Tide of History

May 28, 2005 – WORDISM: The Alternative to RACISM

May 14, 2005 – A "Living" Constitution = DICTATORSHIP

May 7, 2005 – Debut – What's the Untrained Eye

SMARMY ROMNEY | 2012-01-27

I think the word is smarmy, somebody who is always smiling and not quite saying anything.

If Romney says anything, it will be after he has assured everybody how handsome Obama is and bring out the endless string of clichés required of respectable conservatism.

Gingrich is often stupid and wrong, but he gets it OVER with. He just says the required horseshit and then goes on to the subject.

Romney is the perfect image of the Republicans who runs as a non-Democrat. He smiles and he smiles and he smiles.

There may be an undercurrent of the Internet Age here. One of the great innovations of this age is TLDR -- Too Long, Didn't Read. This attitude may be getting to politics. In the 1850's Lincoln or Douglas would have an audience that brought a couple of meals and expected a short speech to give hem at least two hours' entertainment.

Now the standard respectability ritual, which varies about as reciting the Creed does in church, causes the audience to cough and get restless.

One can see Gingrich with a wrinkle in his suit and one does not associate him with a smile. The media emphasizes this because it has always demanded smarmy conservatives who repeat the Creed carefully and in full.

I wonder what Romney would be like with a single wrinkle in his jacket or with no hint of an apologetic smile on his face?

There is nothing to choose between a Gingrich or a Romney, or an Obama as president.

So maybe, just maybe, people are getting tired of sitting through the Creed and waiting the apologetic smile.