THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

LORD NELSON | 2007-09-01

Lord Nelson says, "Coach, I like the new look!"

I do too, LN. It was a pleasure for me to wake up each morning and look with surprise at what Pain and BoardAd and SysOps did last.

Let me REPEAT:

This NOT modesty on my part. It is a BRAG.

SysOps says listen to me on management, and I happen to know she is an expert in that area. REAL management means having the guts to find good people and trust your judgement on those people. Let them go at it!

Delegating involves, first of all, COURAGE.

MORAL courage.

That's why, after being president of giant union and then Governor of California for eight years, Reagan settled into a forty-hour-a-week presidency.

I didn't have a damned thing to do with the new look. And I'm proud to say it.

WHAT IS TRUTH? | 2005-08-06

That is the question I discuss in this week's Saturday Internet radio program that can be linked at: Townhall

The reason Pontius Pilate asked this rhetorical question was because he wanted to get Jesus off His obsession with what Pilate thought was an impractical, theoretical, unimportant point. Jesus was talking about truth, and he was forcing Pontius Pilate to crucify him for it.

And here we can begin with a truth.

Who crucified Christ?

Christ used the bigotry of Jews and the Roman obsession with law and order, but in the end He knew precisely what He was doing.

People like to say that WE crucified Christ with our sins. That is a nice Politically Correct, Christian-sounding phrase that leaves the Jews out of it. But we could not force Jesus to go onto the Cross for our sins.

We were the REASON Christ died on the Cross. Jewish bigotry and Roman Law were the MEANS by which Christ was put on the Cross. But until the last minute Pontius Pilate asked that question, the TRUTH of the matter is that Pilate was trying desperately to keep Jesus off the Cross.

The truth of the matter is that only one person was capable of crucifying Jesus Christ.

We were the reason, Jews and Romans were the means.

But in the end it was Christ who crucified Christ. We were the cause, but we never had that kind of power.

BASICS: CONSERVATIVE RESPECTABLES | nationalsalvation.net

A commenter discussed how a pro-white organization that tries to be mainstream discussed white traitors. They looked down from their heights and said calmly that those whites were only hurting themselves.

Damn if I look at them that way. In all of western culture there is nothing lower than a traitor. It is entertaining to look at the lengthy explanations of Dante's Tenth Circle, the worst part of Hell which is frozen. They use all kinds of explanations like "a person who betrayed his benefactor."

But the Tenth Circle is very simple.

It is for traitors.

Our Germanic legends tell of men who fought to the death around their dead leader's body. If Infidel is the curse word of the Levantine world, traitor is the ultimate denunciation of ours.

In fact, the words are very similar. Levantine society is divided into religions rather than territorial nations. Every Moslem people adopts Arabic script. Yiddish is old German, but it is written in Hebrew letters.

An infidel is not just a wrong believer. The actual word means one who betrayed God.

Treason is the greatest crime any social animal can commit.

But there is a tremendous distinction to be made here that any Wordist would think of. It is a big one to us.

You see, a person maybe loyal to respectability. National Review and liberals, to my mind, have only one real loyalty, and that is to their consensus. Please listen to me carefully here:

The correct term is not respectable conservative, but conservative respectable. If you truly THING about that, you will get my point. The person is not conservative first, he is respectable first. He is not only part of the "mainstream," the mainstream is his only real loyalty.

It is not a condemnation but a definition you need when you are offended by a pro-white taking a lackadaisical attitude toward traitors. He has a sort of Buckley attitude, that nothing is important enough top get a truly sophisticated person excited.

Bt this is not an act, it is true attitude, because Buckley kept insisting that he was part of the establishment, that his loyalty was with the consensus, a bit politically to the right of the consensus, but when the consensus moved so would he.

These people are respectables first. Buckley was in the conservative part of the consensus, but the moment any opinion was judged to be too far out, or too far back in time, he followed his real loyalty and not only went to the new consensus, but went to it more militantly if it were suddenly a "right-wing" extremist attitude.

So what you see here are the pro-white respectables, respectable first, pro-white as a modifier. They will only get excited when they are denouncing the Klan or some other offense to the consensus where their real loyalty lies.

To all respectables, we are infidels.

MARK | 2006-08-09

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

"But she worried about "minor matters" too."

This answers a lot of questions about why a woman will nitpick a man's driving habits.

Every year on vacation my wife gives me grief about my driving. She watches the minor

matters — like when I cut someone off or if I miss my turn or I pass up the hotel or

restaurant for the fourth time... At some point I ask if she wants to drive instead

of me and she f i n a l l y quiets down.

But it's those minor points that drive her nuts.

Comment by Mark

********** Women are awful about criticizing our driving habits.

********* I mean, a long drive is boring, so why can't we have a little fun along the way

like playing a couple of games of head-on, high-speed chicken during the trip to break the

monotony?

*********They're so damned PICKY!