THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF OBAMA THE MAN | 2009-11-23

People ask me what I think of Obama.

I reply, "He's black."

They then wait for more. I add nothing. You know me well enough to realize that I often consider the period the most important part of a sentence. I was asked what I think of Obama and that period indicates that the reply is complete.

The new administration began exactly the same way Clinton's first term did. Clinton had Hillary set up a committee to reform health care. He tried to sell this reform and his popularity dropped from its honeymoon high. Obama started off the same way.

But when Clinton did things you knew it was CLINTON who did them. Clinton is a political genius. There are a thousand things you can say about Clinton, but his initiatives were HIS initiatives.

No one can point to one single thing that is Obama's idea or Obama's initiative. His election has put the old Ivy League liberal crowd back into control of the White House. You know, "the best and the brightest" who got us into Vietnam.

There is nothing Obama says or does that any particularly puppet-like Democratic president wouldn't do. He says nothing that comes from HIM.

All this one can deduce from my answer.

IF you stop looking for some kind of respectable conservative respect, you see that the period is the most important part of the sentence.

MARK | 2006-11-01

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

"I noticed they and my answers seemed to have disappeared, but my initial Mantra post remained."

Peter, would it be possible for you to show how you answer the, "I don't know anyone advocating non-white immigration/assimilation..." objection? If we could put that alongside the Mantra for a fast cut and paste it would speed things up and make it harder for our posters to get "off message."

I've asked Bob a time or two to put the Heresy piece below the Mantra on his Mantra page but so far he hasn't had time — or else I haven't found it. If we had the 1.)Mantra, 2.) Who's advocating this?, and the 3.) Heresy Response within reach it may make things more efficient and get more of us posting.

BTW, good work!

ME:

Mark is doing it right. If I don't answer a pit you need answering, REMIND me. If you don't feel I am addressing somebody adquately or or rightly, bite your pack leader on the tail.

I am getting CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions from you. You are necouraging EACH OTHER and leaving it all to me. I haven't seen this sort of thing in fifty years of trying.

Mean, moan, there has GOT to be something WRONG here. My first thought is htat you are all agents snert by the Secret Service of the Planet Xenon.

You came BACK with something critical. How else would I KNOW that so many people in Europe may not have heard the exact words "race problem?"

Mark, the Mantra nad HERESY! did not spring out of my typewriter fully grown, as you well know. They are so good htat nobody NOTICES it outside our little circle.

But now I am going to try grind out what you ask for with the hundred rewrites to cut it down, cut it down, cut it down, and to make it unanswerable.

THE NEXT STEP? | 2013-09-18

Note the question mark.

The reason for the question mark is to make you hesitate.

By our efforts, and God knows our efforts alone, confidence in their main and often most used weapon, "anti-racism," has been badly shaken.

We have won a major engagement.

It is time for me to begin to think in terms of a next step, after twenty years on this one.

But first, you have to read over the last article again, hammering on the difference between newbies and vets.

Our tiny force is, like all grassroot guerrilla forces after a while, divided into the vets and the newbies.   When you mention "Next Step" to such a group, it is the newbies who adopt it as the Law of Moses.

They want to destroy the enemy tomorrow and have their Torchlight Parade the next day.

The vets will not willingly change tactics that work and with which they have been learned to work successfully over years in thousands of direct battles with the enemy.

If we are to try a next step, it is strictly for the vets.

Newbies must stick with the Mantra until they begin to learn what winning is -- like it is NOT winning an argument -- and eventually constructing minis enough times to SEE which ones REALLY work  versus the ones that give them a satisfactory shock and awe.

HISTORY'S HOSTAGES | 2003-10-18

President Bush just announced that we are not in Iraq for our own security. He got us into Iraq by saying it was for our own national interests. Now he says the Iraqi War had nothing to do with American interests.

Lyndon Johnson made the same switch about justifying the Vietnam War when that War got out of hand.

Bush's switch from arguing the war in Iraq is in our national interest to saying it for foreigners is routine. It happened with Lyndon Johnson and it happened with Franklin Roosevelt.

You can't criticize Roosevelt for getting us into World War II because so many fine young Americans died in World War II. If you attack Roosevelt, you are insulting those young Americans.

The young Americans who died in World War II are the hostages who justify Roosevelt's getting us into World War II. If you dare to criticize World War II liberals say, "Do you want Hitler back?"

Bush is trying the Hostage Strategy and Johnson tried the Hostage Strategy because Roosevelt succeeded with the Hostage Strategy.

When we first went into World War II, President Roosevelt said it was for America's national interests. Then a lot of Americans got killed. Those Americans who died became President Roosevelt's hostages.

Once all those young Americans had died for Roosevelt's war policy, you were not allowed to argue that Roosevelt was wrong to get us into World War II. Any American today who questions Roosevelt's foreign policy is called a traitor.

Those young Americans who died in World War II have become Franklin Roosevelt's hostages. So Johnson used those hostages to get tens of thousands of young Americans killed in Vietnam.

Lyndon Johnson got us into Vietnam by saying American forces were attacked by North Vietnam in Tonkin Bay. Then the Tonkin Bay Incident was shown to be a fake. But by then Johnson had gotten thousands of young Americans killed in Vietnam.

So after his original justification was discredited, President Johnson said that all those fine young American men had died for the sake of Vietnam and he would keep fighting for their sakes and for the sake of Vietnam.

Bush got us into Iraq by arguing that that war was necessary for America's security against terrorism. Now he says the war was all for the sake of Iraq and Israel and "America's allies." Apparently he thinks enough fine young Americans have now died to let him fall back on the good old hostage strategy.

And Bush's punch line is, "Do you want Saddam back?"