THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

HINT 2: THE UNITED MEDIA MESSAGE IS "ALL THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISRAEL" | 2001-09-27

For as long as I can remember, which means well over fifty years, when the term "Middle East" has been mentioned in the news it has been followed by the term "Arab-Israeli."

By a curious coincidence, our media are now united in declaring that the one thing that our present terrorist problems in the Middle East have nothing to do with is the term "Arab-Israeli."

The flagship of respectable conservatism, National Review, has a lead article assuring us that fundamentalists in the Arab camp just hate America for what WE are.

The fact that we backed a movement to take away Arab land and helped dispossess Arabs from what Islamic people chose to call THEIR land had nothing to do with it. No, the subject American media have considered almost interchangeable with the term "Middle East" now has absolutely nothing to do with all that hatred that is spewing at us from the Middle East.

So repeat after me: Whatever the cause of Arab hatred of America, it has nothing to do with Israel.

Usually the one thing that Americans agree on is the consistent falseness of the media line. In terms of their believability, the press is in the same category with used car salesman.

So what do we do when the chips are down and it is more important than ever to reject the line that the media -- for obvious reasons -- has chosen to push?

Why, we believe it of course! You'd better if you value your job and maybe even your life.

Guess what happens if you question the media line that Mideast terrorism has nothing to do with Israel? If you mention Israel as a cause of our troubles, you are anti-Semitic. That makes you anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

I have seen that label used thousands of times, and never yet has it been used for any purpose but to prevent someone from saying what we all know to be true.

In America, you can't yet jail somebody for saying something you decide to label "Nazi." You can ruin him professionally, but so far he can't be jailed for political heresy.

But you can actually imprison somebody for it in a country with Hate Laws. In Britain, the American Ambassador was asked if Middle East hatred of America was not due to our founding and support of the State of Israel. This put the American Ambassador in a bad position. If he addressed the subject, he would have to say that a great deal of that enmity has to do with Israel.

But the Ambassador found a way around that.

He stated crying. British officials apologized for letting a member of the audience ask that question, and the person who asked it may be charged under the British Hate Law.

As usual, when a propaganda line is being pushed this hard, we all know it is nonsense. Nobody is ever this desperate to suppress all opposition unless they know very well that everybody knows what they are saying is false.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE | 2013-02-27

A commenter says that Rush Limbaugh, like O'Reilly, has discovered anti-whites.

One little poster from the BNP proclaims, "Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white."

All these years, how could I explain to people that I was the only one who could formulate a usable message?

All those years I felt like a plumber who is trying to stop a house from flooding, but every time I asked the owner for some practical help he would say, "Do you know what Aristotle said about that?"

No, I really don't know what Aristotle or Solomon Greenbladt said about that and I think you're an idiot if you bring it up. But I could never SAY that.

It has begun. No one could understand how listening to my methods can get you slow, hardly noticeable national exposure. It is quite probable that the revolution in thinking will occur and no one will be aware of it.

I have proved a basic point I couldn't even theorize to most people on our side.

The truth is out there. Let's keep it up.

REPLY TO RICHARD | 2005-11-07

My religion is very, very simple. If I am religious at all, it is simply a reliance on Jesus.

What fascinates me personally is the HISTORY of the ideas that led to Christianity.

My study of history tells me that Semites invent nothing. So I do not look to the Old Testament (OT) for hte real origins of Christianity. This at least gives me some special utility. Tens of thousands of theologians make a living digging into the Old Testament to try to somehow dig everything Christ said out of it.

There should be room for one amateur to get his nose out of the OT and look around for the truth elsewhere in history.

That is what I am talking to Richard about here.

Richard,

Zoroastrianism was an Aryan religion. Historians kept trying to push Zoroaster forward to about 600BC so he would not conflict with the real dating of the OT. Because of all the earlier references that have since been found, there is no doubt now that Zoroaster was at least 1200 BC.

I am not a theologian, but I'm a pretty good historian. Roman Christians competed with the Mazdaists, who were from Persia where Zoroastrianism is from. The Mazdaists used bread and wine and talkng about how THEIR savior was born of a virgin while sherpherds watched by night. Their services consisted of bread and wine. Actually it predated them considerably.

Naturally the Christians thought all this was stolen from them, and was therefore just blasphemy. I think there is more explanation of Christianity in Mazdaism than in the totally unrelated Old Testament.

I think Elizabeth is right. The fatal flaw of Mazdaism was that it excluded women.

The Protestant Old Testament excludes everything after about 600BC, the date you refer to.

You may look at all this as anti-Christian, or you may look at it as I do, something that puts Jesus outside the realm of OT Judaism, a whole newness. To an Old Testament Christian, it is pure heresy.

When Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the light," I do not think he meant, "The OT and me are the way, the truth and the light."

The truth is not in the Old Testament, and Jesus was not just another Jewish prophet.

No, he did not tell the Jews that in so many words. But his hints were very broad indeed.

Richard, you said,

"True Christian morality was taught in the (Old Jewish) law."

Among other things, true Christian morality does not torture babies.

Referring to the OT you mention THE captivity.

WHICH captivity?

The Babylonian captivity is the one everybody knows about, and fits in with the poor, poor little Jewish bit. But the Persian captivity was where Judaism went from a pagan religion to good versus evil and the concept of a savior, which it learned from Zoroastrianism.

The only non-Jew praised in the OT is Cyrus, the only non-Jew who, without further explanation in today's version, "did the work of the Lord."

In the NT, the Zoroastrian Magi accepted Christ before the Jews rejected him.

Trying to shoehorn Christ into the Old Testament is what theologians have spent eons doing, so that they worship The Holy Land in the name of savior whose kingdom is not of this earth.

These are my own observations, and, contrary to your comment about Deutoronomy, I have read the book. If that covenant were still relevant, Jesus would have stayed in the Temple.

Ther is a lot of code in Jesus's words, as when he said render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar what is Caesar's. There is much there that the OT does not contain or predict.

Jesus was not speaking in a land of free speech.

Thus endeth all my theology.

WORDISM AND THE PROPOSITIONAL STATE | 2006-02-17

1) a nation based on race has to keep other races out;

2) a country unified only by principles or the American Ideal or Wordism has to keep other IDEAS out.

You simply cannot have free speech a country whose only unifying force is "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

When you define patriotism as a set of words, a propositional, a BELIEF, you also define TREASON as having the wrong ideas and being loyal to the wrong proposition. No matter whether the Wordism is "all men are created equal" or Marxism or Catholicism or Islam or Protestantism, you simply cannot allow anyone to say things that might damage the proposition which is the only foundation your country has.

A nation based on race, like the original United States, can afford free speech.

A country based on Wordism, or "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" must impose that proposition on everybody in the country.

That is why I said that a RACIAL state can afford plenty of variety of IDEAS. If some people want to live in a place where revellie sounds at 6 am and everybody has to turn out to do a Nazi march, they go to that community.

If someone wants anarchy, they go to the anarchy place.

Their only obligation is to stand for their race.

No free riders on RACE.

But variety of IDEAS? Variety of living styles?

Sure. Why not?

Wordism is a diversity of races and only one single "multiculture." Even its racial diversity itself has to be uniform in a propositional or Wordist state.

A race-based state offers every kind of real variety.