THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

BISHOP PIKE'S LEGACY | 2007-07-27

Back in the 60s Episcopal Bishop Pike was a hard-core leftist, even lefter than the Marxist consensus among bishops of established Protestant churches. But he got into trouble when he OPENLY said the Trinity and other doctrines were nonsense. He was there to preach Social Progress, not some Afterlife rot.

Now here is the problem. If the government does not sponsor porn like "Piss Christ," it is declared to be censorship. "Piss Moses" or "Piss Mohammed," of course, would be off limits.

Any artist has the right to produce anything he wishes, all we ask is that WE not pay for it or take responsibility for it. The same rule came up with Bishop Pike and the Episcopal Church. Any American has the right to any religious belief he wishes so long as it does not go against interracial dating and marriage, but he has no right to get PAID for doing it.

Bishop Pike denied the doctrine, but he still insisted on getting paid and wearing his Episcopal regalia and preaching Social Progress at his congregation's expense. So the Episcopal Church had its last heresy trial to determine whether someone who denounced the doctrines he was paid to preach could still get paid.

Needless to say, the media portrayed Bishop Pike as a hero of Free Speech, and the Episcopal Church backed down.

Now one black female bishop has declared that she is a Moslem. Another, I haven't seen her picture, had become a Buddhist.

Well, hell, unlike Pike, at least they're RELIGIOUS!

So the Anglican Communion is in a state of collapse. Whole dioceses are seceding. Notice that that is reported in the media, but very, very seldom. It is an example of the complete collapse of a fundamental historical institution by following the dictates of our KGB defector:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaoX_SgNO70

The Anglican Church in Britain is negotiating to join with Rome again. I doubt that Rome, even today, will accept crap like that. That is why I got baptized by the Melkites, who are related to Rome, though the Pope's picture is not in their churches and they teach strict Orthodox except for the filioque. The Roman Church, for all its acceptance of fashionable crap, is still a CHURCH.

I am now a relapsed Catholic. But it beats the hell out of having any relationship whatsoever with mainline Protestants or Old Testament evangelicals. But the OT evangelicals are still, for now, a CHURCH.

A couple of years back, the Archbishop of Canterbury announced that, if you have trouble with this Resurrection stuff, he recommended you become a Jew. Everything is in the Old Testament anyway.

The old Calvinist Puritan Church at Plymouth is now Unitarian. Once you get fixated on the OT, this Jesus stuff goes.

But the Anglican Church bureaucracy, bishops, priests and all, is HUGE. They have to drop the faith, but they need their the checks. Rome would be a HARD row to hoe. The only problem is that there are no Unitarian bishops.

UNDERSTANDING POGROMS | 2010-04-29

Unlike the Republic of California, with the bear flag the state still has, the Republic of Texas was not a short-term stopgap. It existed for over eight years and three men were elected President of the Republic, two serving out their full terms.

The United States recognized the Republic of Texas in 1836, after they had defeated Mexico. The US did not send a full ambassador but a Charge d'Affaires. That is a rank below ambassador, but that has nothing to do with the extent of recognition. The United States sends no ambassador at all to Liechtenstein, whose foreign affairs are handled by Switzerland, but it has full recognition of its sovereignty.

The Texas Navy actually drove the Mexican Navy completely out of the Gulf of Mexico.

One President of Texas did not want Texas to become part of the United States. He wanted it to take the whole West from Mexico and set up a Republic that consisted of everything from the east border of the Lone Star Republic to the Pacific.

None of this happened in New England, so it is not part of American History.

One special thing about the Republic of Texas is that, for its entire history, it outlawed banks.

Not just a National Bank, which Alexander Hamilton proposed and Jefferson and Jackson opposed, but ALL banks.

Banks were very different then. A bank lent people money when THEY needed it, but they also took the money or the farm when THEY needed it. This was usually at the worst possible time, because if the bank was in financial trouble, it was in bad economic times. The practice of making loans for a set period was for rich people, and it did not become common until fairly recently.

The old banks also set the rate of interest very high for those who were less liable to be able to pay it back when the time came. The value of a farm on the market moved very, very fast, as did the value of its crops. When things were bad, the Cruel Banker was there to take everything.

In other words bankers could not afford to be nice guys.

In the Middle Ages, the rates at which even kings borrowed money would make a street loan-shark today green with envy. You can only imagine what they charged regular people.

People know these simple facts but they never THINK about them. That was the introduction our ancestors had to Jews.

If you want to know how Jews were viewed before the Greatest generation, there is one story in the Raffles, the Gentleman Burglar series that shows Raffles dealing with a Jewish moneylender. It's worth reading because it is genuinely pre-PC thought.

This Jew was not a cringing, tiny, peace-loving type hated by the Authorities. He was tough and he was MEAN. He was a big-time loan shark, all of whose activities were then legal, and the cops liked him a lot more than they liked Raffles.

Our people didn't like Jews and they didn't like banks. For bankers and Jews, cruelty and ruthlessness was a way of life. They could not have survived otherwise.

It is always said that the Church allowed Jews to lend money because there was no Jewish law against usury. Actually there was one. They weren't supposed to charge OTHER JEWS interest. I've never seen that mentioned, but the laws against usury come from the JEWISH Old Testament.

When your business requires cruelty, you HAVE to develop an attitude towards the people in general that you can see in the attitude of one New Yorker towards humanity in general. The fact that there is a reason for a person to become brutal does not change he fact that he IS brutal.

Our ancestors did not understand banking, but they did understand ruthless, vicious people without mercy. That, too, is normal human behavior.

But then again, Political Correctness says that white goyim don't have reasons.

LEFTIST MCCARTHYISM IS ALIVE AND WELL AND LOVED BY ALL | 2001-06-16

What the Evil Senator McCarthy did was called "guilt by association." He would ask witnesses if they were or ever had been members of the Communist Party. This question brings out gasps of horror today.

McCarthy would quote people's many pro-Communist statements. He would list their Communist associates who were Party members. He would point out their memberships in Communist Front organizations.

This sort of "guilt by association" is now condemned, BUT ONLY IF IT IS USED BY THE RIGHT AGAINST COMMUNISTS.

On the other hand, it is always open season on anybody who ever said anything Politically Incorrect.

Nixon nominee Judge Haynesworth was denied Supreme Court confirmation in the early 1970s. His crime was that he had made a segregationist speech thirty years before in his native Florida.

Actually, a lot of the senators who voted against him had made the same kind of speech in the late 1940's. But, like all conservatives, they were more anxious to lynch Haynesworth than the liberals were.

We are all familiar with leftist McCarthyism today.

Anything Politically Incorrect you did fifty years ago years is the latest news. In the case of Thomas Jefferson, the passage of two centuries is no excuse.

And nobody supports leftist McCarthyism more fanatically than do respectable conservatives. Anything leftists declare "racist" brings out the respectable lynch mob.

And each year, the term "extremist" is applied to people who are less and less far right. If you oppose open borders today, both "neoconservatives" and liberals join together to call you a racist. That label is now applied to opponents of affirmative action and busing. It applies to English Only advocates.

What is happening is exactly what any person who knows political strategy would expect. The respectable right has given the "extremist" weapon to the left, and the left is using it more every day.

Today the term "extremist" is applied to Bush's Federal Court nominees. They never uttered a Politically Incorrect word in their whole careers, but the label now sticks.

DAVE | 2006-09-15

It frightened me the other day to hear Bush refer to the "psychological distress" of the American people. Presidents have referred to the public's distress before, but in this context it is as ominous as anything could be.

You know that such a statement coming from the mouth of a President is a sign of political doom.

Comment by Dave

ME:

Dave, President Carter already talked about the "malaise of the American people."

Oops! I just reminded myself that Carter is not hte President anymore, the man who hols all the Power and whose every word is critical.

I always DID get Carter mixed up with the other Democrat with the Southern accent.

When that Monika Lewinsky thing hits the papers ..

Oops! I just remembered that Vlincton isn't president any more either.

The best bet is one of the Bushes.

I am merely jesting with you, of course.

I KNOW that every word that issues from the White House is critical in understanding the Great Conspiracies that put people at the center of power in the White House. I pay strict attention to every word that President Ford utters.