THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

LAW: THE 15TH AMENDMENT | nationalsalvation.net

There are three Reconstruction Amendments, which were passed in the aftermath of the Civil War.

The first Reconstruction Amendment was the Thirteenth Amendment, which freed the slaves. The second was the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave black people citizenship. That one got through only by open cheating.

The last Reconstruction Amendment, and by far the hardest to shove and cheat its way through, was the Fifteenth, which gave blacks the vote.

As the presidential election went to the courts, there arose a chorus of people who say that voting "is the most basic right of every American citizen." One of the LAWYERS who is arguing the Bush case before the United States Supreme Court said that "VOTING IS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT." He said that you have as much right to vote as you do to practice your religion, or to free speech.

To repeat, the Fourteenth Amendment gave black people CITIZENSHIP. But it took a real fight to get through the Fifteenth, which gave blacks the VOTE. A lot of people who supported black citizenship did not want all non-whites to be given the vote. This was especially the case in California, with its huge Oriental minority.

In fact, a groundbreaking Federal Court decision was necessary to save the Fourteenth Amendment. It barely squeaked by, cheating and all. Before it was passed, California actually rescinded its ratification. If that had been allowed, the amendment would have failed.

What happened was that Californians suddenly noticed that there was no reference to "black people" in the new amendment. It not only gave Southern blacks citizenship, but it also gave the same rights to Orientals! California tried to pull back its ratification when it realized that the Fourteenth Amendment gave Orientals NON-VOTING citizenship.

California would never have touched the Fourteenth Amendment if they had thought from the beginning that it gave Chinese immigrants the VOTE. In other words, if the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment had thought that voting was the right of every citizen, it would never have gotten into the Constitution.

As it was, in order to save the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court had to rule that no state could back out once it had ratified an amendment.

But when the fight over giving blacks the vote came up, they were already citizens. It never occurred to anybody that they therefore had the right to vote.

Nowadays, it never occurs to anybody that, if you are a citizen, you might not have full voting rights.

Actually, what the Fourteenth Amendment gave blacks was what everybody insists cannot exist. It gave blacks citizenship, but no vote. The Fourteenth Amendment, in other words, made blacks official second-class citizens. If it hadn't, there would have been no Fifteenth Amendment.

In 1954, in Brown vs. Board of Education, the Court changed the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that it forbade any distinction at all, of any kind, being made between white and black citizenship.

Today, it is impossible to explain to anybody why the Fifteenth Amendment was necessary. In 1868, it would have been just as impossible to explain to anybody why it wasn't.

There is no overlap whatsoever between the thinking of those who wrote the Constitution (even the most radical) and the judges who claim to interpret it today.

DAVE | 2008-03-12

Brutus reminds us below that we have to step back and not get lost in the bullshit.

Dave reminds us how to deal with said bullshit:

Robert Whitaker has the ability to take them all down. The concept of Wordism can get out. Its power is immense. With knowledge of Wordism you can see how all the different tentacles of "motivated" (profit seeking, political control seeking) dereliction relate.

Academia and the professions keep knowledge in a constant state of confusion. This pacifies the whites (even better than Bud, bags of Doritos, and the Superbowl) while the nonwhites don't care because their allegiance is to nursery rhymes anyway (and a not so secret desire to be white).

Having colored leaders is just another step in the administration of a culture of motivated dereliction. This is the State of Louisiana and New Orleans, which has a harder time of hiding its shame than the State of Nevada and Las Vegas. Regardless of the gambling allusions though, the end game is a society like Communist Cuba where everything is so preposterously silly it is actually considered chic.

Instead of the billboards showing Castro in Havana, they should just be honest: NO CLEAR THINKERS ALLOWED IN CUBA!!! IT GETS IN THE WAY OF OUR DICTATORSHIP AND OUR OWNERSHIP OF YOU, YOUR FAMILY, AND YOUR ENTIRE LIFE!!!

Colored people can get behind slogans like that. So can many whites.

It's just the way things are.

BEYOND IQ | 2008-04-04

Often when one thinks about it enough, one begins to realize how obvious something is. One finally realizes he should stop being indirect and deal with the question. In other words, state the question plainly and then deal with THAT.

We had to deal with differing racial IQs for a long time because the establishment line was that there was NO racial difference. They dealt with all indications to the contrary by screaming "HITLER!" and the Greatest Generation got on their bellies.

But they always overreach. They could have minimized differences, but their homicidal insistence on IQs being EXACTLY the same, which was essential to "all races are the same," left them in a position even the moral cowardice of the Greatest Generation could not protect them from forever.

Some of us just wouldn't quit.

According to historians no one ever wins against the establishment. You won't read it, but the fact is that even most of the loony left now concedes that racial IQs are different. It was amazing how little storm was raised by The Bell Curve, and one of the leading mainline psychology journals had a lead article by Rushton and Jensen.

But now that the pros have chimed in on us amateurs who fought this fight when it was tiny, they want to go ahead with IQ. But IQ is not really the point. The POINT of hitting on IQ a generation ago was because that was VULNERABLE.

One factor was the increasing familiarity with blacks that would be a part of the future. Today there are very few whites, even in Europe, who are totally out of touch with real blacks as the constituents of Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, whose single-handed fanaticism on civil rights in the Senate in the 1940s led to the 1948 Democratic platform.

Humphrey wasn't appealing to a black constituency. He was appealing to fanatical civil righters who had never seen a black outside of Jackie Robinson.

The simple fact is that, except for Obedience Trained Greatest Generation and Mommy Professor's special darlings, it is impossible for someone who knows the mass of blacks to believe in equal innate intelligence. So we hammered on that.

And won.

But our quest was not to make a god out of IQ. People who make a god out of IQ find that the grants come in if they then worship the high-tested IQs of Jews and Orientals.

But if one does not take this first necessary victory as the Key to Final Truth, what is one left with?

Now, precisely in the face of this IQ bit, it is essential for us to return to the first question. How are races different? Let us ask the plain question: why is it that whites developed a Western Civilization that makes all other Great Civilizations look like abysses of slavery and animal-level technology? What we are asking now becomes obvious: Why is our HISTORY different?

In other words, the question is not something indirectly defined by IQ tests or given a mystical meaning by "Christianity." The question is the question: Now, precisely in the face of this IQ bit, it is essential for us to return to the first question. How are races different?

The question is not IQ. The question is history. So the answer is where we started: in history.

History today says that civilization is entirely a matter of books. When Political Correctness was getting started the Greatest Generation was just beginning to roll over and play dead. That was in the 1950s. So history said that there was Egypt which led to Greece which led to Rome.

Then all was darkness as the Human Mind, which was contained in writings that went from the Egyptians to the Greeks and then to the Romans, were LOST. All was darkness. If you do not believe anyone could take this seriously, read Foundation and A Canticle for Leibowitz, science fiction books which reflected this time and this view.

Yes, people took it seriously. But if you state it in plain English everybody says that nobody takes this seriously. Then, the minute they relax, they go back to Greece and Rome and the "Dark Ages." One of the major problems with analyzing what crap this is is getting anybody to recognize it when it is put into plain English.

So Politically Correct History says that with the right books all men are equal. All men, it says, have an equal right to those books and therefore to everything what the white man has done. ALL OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DEPENDS ON THIS VERSION OF HISTORY.

QUOTABILITY | 2013-03-16

I have written many, many press releases.

The first thing you have to do is forget about YOU.   There are two groups who matter.   One is the person and/or cause you are writing FOR.   The other is the person or persons who might publish it

No press release sounds at all like TOO or the usual comment here.

When it came to the person I am writing it FOR, President or wildcat striker, I really looked forward to the look on their faces as a coal miner or trucker or Southie heard the exact words, in his own language, fitting precisely into the press release terminology.

Likewise, the press lapped it up.   The reporter is there like every other working person, looking forward to quitting time when he can go home to his liquor and his divorce.     He wants it to sound as if he had been sitting right there with the subject, as I had.   And that's the way I made it sound.

Notice there is no "in other words" here.   I made it QUOTABLE.

There were over thirty replies to "Racism is a Hate word."

I finally asked if anyone could claim their in other words was as quotable as "Racism is a Hate word."

More replies, but not one addressed that.

The philosophy here is that of the Mantra.  It takes a lot of work to produce something people can't help but use.

I have said many times that I got my picture on the front page of the New York Times.   I did it because the reporter had to use my picture because I wrote his article for him.    After that many quotes in the article, my picture had to be used.

All this is practical stuff.   On the work page, they hash this out because in the heat of battle you can't be a windbag.

Attack slogans are short or the attacker is dead.