THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

CHRISTIAN HISTORY AND MARXIST SCIENTIFIC HISTORY | 2011-05-05

It is hard to find any genuine facts about the time of St.Paul, because Christian, Jewish, Moslem and Marxist theologians have all built their separate edifices on their own version of history a hundred years each way from when Paul lived.

For anyone to point out that St. Paul and the earlier Philistines of Israel were repeating doctrines from a degenerate version of the Zoroastrian faith would get you executed in Medieval Europe.

It would also get you executed in Stalin's Russia.

The whole basis of Marxism (political correctness) is what Marxists call Marx's Science of History. Marx's Science of History is rooted in history as it was in the Victorian Age in which he lived. Any discussion of real history, like that of Zoroastrianism, questions not only the Old Testament, but history according to Marxism as well.

Any discussion of the actual influence on the actual religion of Iran which was critical over a two thousand year period is punished as heresy by all four religious sects.

I was watching a documentary where it was declared that the Jews were the ONLY people who banned graven images. Actually, Zoroastrians banned images of God (Ahura Mazda) and burned Greek temples for their idols while Jews were still a multi-theistic desert tribe.

Why is this information produced?

Why is the fact, that is well known, that Persians burned Greek Temples in the time when Athens was new because they had images of their gods in them, never mentioned in this documentary made by professional historians?

The fact is that many, many historical facts are OPENLY ignored when they are not convenient. The gray buildings portrayed in the historical "Gladiators" film, which was praised for its "realism" by historians, is one obvious example.

In another series much lauded by historians, "I, Claudius" showed the Emperor Augustus in a garden filled with gray statues that would have looked to anyone in his time like a yard full of broken-down cars in white trash areas.

There is nothing subtle about this.

This could all be dismissed as detail, if it were not that the whole basis of politically correct, Marxist, history is seriously called scientific because it is based on this view of the past. We are outlawing people who dare to discuss any realistic discoveries about the basis of our society!

HISTORY IN YOUR POCKET | 2005-05-09

This may only interest an old economics professor, but indulge me.

When you see an Old West movie, you see them giving coins to the bartender. In the old movies, a cowboy would walk in and throw a silver dollar down on the bar and say, "A drink for everybody in the place!"

It was fun scene, because the silver dollar made a resounding clang on the bar.

And it could buy a full round of drinks.

Obviously a dollar was a different thing then. You could get a free drink in many bars if you bought a nickle beer.

The dime, quarter and half-dollar you might have in your pocket are still the same size as the pure silver coin that used to buy so much.

If you walk into a bar today, throw two fifty-cent coins on the table, and say "A drink for everybody," you will still get a free lunch, but it will be at the psychiatric ward.

But if you want to know what size the coins were in the Old West, the answer is right there in your pocket.

What about gold coins?

It happens that gold weighs almost exactly twice as much as silver, 1407 pounds per cubic foot for gold while silver weighs 705 pounds per cubic foot. Gold was worth sixteen times as much per ounce back in the Old West.

A gold coin the size of today's dime was twice as heavy as a silver dime and was therefore worth 32 times as much.

Do the arithmetic and you will find that a gold coin the size of a dime was worth $3.20.

It is always a shock to someone who sees an old gold dollar for the first time to notice how SMALL it is. A gold dollar was less than a third the size of the dime in your pocket.

The British pound, called a "sovereign" back then, was the size of one and a half dimes.

Big name, small coin.

So when you see the pitifully tiny amount of gold a miner panned out in a day back then, be impressed. A tiny bag of gold dust was a lot of money.

JASON REPLIES ON SUBJECT | 2013-01-02

Here is the problem I have. It's hard to think your way out of a mental box when you don't understand

the box you are in. This response is thinking on paper and very verbose. Feel free to beat me like a rented mule, anyone. Bob's trying to make an important point that some of us aren't getting. So, break out the two by four.

We use experts all the time. If I need plumbing work done, I call a plumber. Now, what if the plumber screws up and my kitchen floods? I still call a plumber (maybe another) to fix it. Yes, they have made all the mistakes, and yes, an expert flooded my kitchen, but I still call on an expert to fix it.

So, I have a hard time with a blanket denunciation of all experts (maybe that is not what's being suggested, but it almost sounds like it).

BUT, I most certainly know that some experts are totally wrong in their fields, and that all experts have been wrong at some point. Obviously, I doubt the "experts" on race, the environment, guns and a whole bunch of issues. None of us would be here if we were slaves to experts. Now, is the point that when I realize the experts in question are loopy, I should start treating them differently? No longer treating with the public respect they are used to?

Laughing at them as a strategy?

Because sometimes that does work.

In the case of the USSR, I think most real conservatives realized the system sucked and that it couldn't stand on its own without Western aid.

But, I think they feared it would survive due to sheer ruthlessness and military power. There is

also a certain pessimistic view of Man that says, in the long run tyranny wins, making people think the USSR would survive BECAUSE of its evil.

There are many examples of experts being wrong. I heard for decades that we are juusssttt about to run out of oil. Except we always have more. And now we have cracking. And no one ever calls those clowns out for what they've said. There were the population bomb guys who said we'd all be eating each other by 1999 (soylent green). They also pushed the value of big centrally planned projects for people to live in, here in the US and the world. These places ALL became dangerous, dehumanizing s***holes. I write it off as pro-

government guys spinning a story to justify bigger government. They were Central Planners who came to the conclusion Central Planners should run everything.

Feminists assured me that women (wymen) would all become hairy no-makeup lumberjacks. Yet, they seem

pretty girlie today. More eager to be a princess than an auto mechanic. Freud gave tens of millions of mothers guilt over how their kids turned out, based on a un-scientific theory that was promoted as Deep Thought for generations, destroying God knows how many lives. Freud has faded, it's considered incorrect, but the whole thing gets swept under the rug. In both cases, it seems like Cultural Marxists trying to impose their vision on the world. Academics don't humiliate them as they deserve, because they still have too much power.

Regular folks seem to just not think about it. But there is a strange blindness to it all.

I suspect Bob thinks we are more impressed by the arguments of anti-Whites than we should be. And

maybe some of us are. This can be the TOO syndrome of trying to conjure up a Deep System to oppose the

Ultimate Evil we face. Spending years going through every nook and cranny of the anti-White philosophers. Over at Counter Currents, they reprint deep somber texts on Ebola and verge off into some kind of weird mysticism. They take the anti-Whites too seriously.

A lot of thought and mental effort went into this essay and, above all, it was ON SUBJECT.

The floor is open.

RACE-BASED EDUCATION | 2006-05-01

I talk about the heredity industry below.

There is another one developing which will provide us with an invaluable source of support.

Right now, sex-based education is gaining a great deal of ground. Sex-basd education calls for the segregation of male and female children in school.

One of the articles essential for salvation in the faith of Political Correctness since the 1970s has been that what we call "girls" are just children who were forced to play with dolls as children and what we call "boys" were the children who were forced to play with toy guns.

I wish this were an overstatement, but it isn't.

They BELIEVED that crap!

But sex-based education isn't just a theory, it's a BUSINESS. Like education and welfare, it is becoming an INDUSTRY. Those in this industry, whether it is professors writing articles advocating it or teacherws specializing in it, constitute a major and increasing force for heresy inside Political Correctness.

Premise Checker, who knows all this, introduced me to a new potential industry: RACE-based education.

The reason "There is no such as race" is statement required of all professors is because the old idea that everybody is the same under the skin is just plain GONE.

Lately reviewers have noticed that Jensen and Rushton are published in major journals and not a peep of protest is made. The fundamental innate differences between races has ceased to be a matter of debate.

So the innate differences are now at least tacitly admitted, so all that is left is to say that it isn't really RACIAL because race doesn't exist.

By the way, since they lost the battle over the importance of heredity versus the important of environment, Politically Correct people today also insist that there is no scuh thing as heredity or environment.

When they had a case, they debated the relative importance of heredity and environment. Now that they've lost the debate, they say that the idea of heredity and enviroment is "simplistic."

Normally when the Poliically Correct establishment admits it has lost a debate by saying that the debate never existed, everyody just lets that sleeping dog lie.

But race is now understood to be real. This would not matter so much if there were not articles to be written on it. This would not matter if there was not MONEY to be spent on it.

Buit blacks learn differently from whites, and there is now room for specialists to address that reality.

For one thing, as anybody who has heard Rap "Music" knows, blacks learn by ear, whereas whites tend to learn more by eye.

This has been pointed out repeatedly by Evil Racists, but now educators who want a job and a speciality are beginning to notice its importance.

Race-based education is not really segregation by a different name. The fact is that we segregated blacks because we assumed that "black education" was an oxymoron and any money spent on educating blacks was a waste of the miniscule amount of money the South had to educated whites.

To give them credit, those who want race-based education are really interested in black education.

But in my world this is not important. Now that we are richer, I don't mind if blacks get education money as long as "black education" is not used the way the NAACP used it, as an excuse to destroy the white race.

If I were black and I thought that blacks were actually equal, I would think that anyone who was using them merely as a weapon against white gentiles would be about the nastiest insult anybody could come up with.

But it never surprised me in the slightest that blacks never thought of this, because it never occurred to me that blacks were CAPABLE of thinking that way.

Their leaders obviously agree with me. And blacks worship their leaders.

If you think black education is important, race-based education makes sense.

And here we have a whole industry dedicated to the proposition that race is important. Here we have an whole industry dedicated to the proposition that blacks are not just a weapon to use against the white race, but a group with its own characteristics.

In fact, race-based education says that blakcs are not only NOT just little white people whose job is to Harry Belafonte the white race out of existence, but a group with its own contribution to make.

Which makes race-based the enemy of the enemies of our existence.

Which makes them, though they wouldn't want me to say so, makes them my friends.