THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

POLITICAL WARFARE IS IMPOSING YOUR OWN TERMINOLOGY | 2006-11-10

Yes, when people think of genocide they see heaps of corpses.

Let me explain something about political warfare. Alan B had the insight that Papilon has changed the nature of debate by posting the Mantra on BNP.

Here is where Alan's insight is so critical. He did NOT say that the entire British population had begun torchlight parades in favor of THE TRUTH. He noted a minor but critial sea change.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what power politics is all about.

If genocide has a stereotype, ad we have a definition which even the critics have to admit is valid, we can either try to justify ourselves -- which is ALWAYS fatal -- or we can just go on and use the real definition over and over and over and over until THAT is the accepted definition because it is TRUE.

We are inthe process of appropriating THEIR word. If Jews had kept the word genocide as a defensive measure they could still have it. But they chose to use it to describe any method by whiich whites tried to preserve their own kind. In the UN Resolutions they expanded the definition to include anything that whites could conceivably use to save white gentiles.

So the policy they are now pursuing is, by their own definition, genocide.

So now we are supposed to redefine the word to suit THEM?

No way, Jose!

They stumbled into an exact definition of the genocide THEY are practicing. They expanded it so they could vent their hatred of white gentiles.

Hate is self-destructive.

Even Stevenp quotes chapter and verse to say that I am right, what I describe inthe Mantra IS genocide. But we are supposed to let them get away with doing away with OUR race on a technicality.

No way, Jose.

As Noah Webster said, language is USAGE. We are going to USE that definition. In the meantime, it will go throuhg the standard stages of being called absurd, being attacked,and being accepted.

I've been here before.

A LOT.

They are trying to do away with my race. That is genocide. Stop quibbling.

EVIL, WRONG, AND TEMPORARY | 2007-03-26

None of the self-styled Realists understood why Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech caused such an uproar. Something that is less noted is the titanic boost it gave to opponents of the regime in the Soviet Empire.

Let me first talk about the Realist Uncle. Those who worked in the samizdat movement would often say that their worst enemy was not the regime, but their Realist Uncle. On television you would often see a Soviet family sitting around the dinner table talking. We used to do that. We would sit at the dinner table for an hour or two and talk before going tot he other rooms.

What we did not know was that in Russia, there WERE no other rooms. You sat at the table until you moved it and went to bed. So here you were, risking imprisonment with a tiny illegal publication. If you were caught, your Realist Uncle would, at best, lose his permit to live in Moscow. His not reporting you was a felony.

And your Realist Uncle was an old man, who thought he represented Wisdom and, of course, Realism. You listened to him attack you as a day-dreamer for the entire evening around the table, pointing out Soviet Power.

Reagan was exactly what your Realist Uncle was NOT. He proclaimed the Soviet Empire was Evil, which meant that it was not a natural thing, but a blot on the face of the earth. The term "Evil Empire" made the USSR mortal. It was no longer one of the two natural superpowers that EVERY, and I mean EVERY "Realist" said would coexist forever with the West. Countries that routinely killed people trying to escape from them were Evil. Reagan had to put "Mr. Gorbeczev, tear down this Wall!" into his Berlin speech THREE TIMES when his staff marked it out.

The Realists on his staff took it out.

Where in the hell have these "realists" BEEN the last forty years?

DR. JENNER AND MANTRA THINKING | 2012-07-21

I have trouble instantly coming up with examples. But a very good example of "Why is this information produced?" occurred to me.

We used to say that the fashion industry was run by queers. This was one of those Lowah Clahss remarks that was not true. Then came AIDS. The fashion makers were nearly wiped out.

Then, about twenty years ago, Barbara Walters started talking about "Why is it that gay men especially have such talent when it comes to designing?" If she had said that twenty years before, she would have been a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. But after the AIDS epidemic, it was no longer a question about who were designers.

So the information manufactured had to be "Yes, gays ARE the fashion industry. So why are they so GIFTED?"

If you find white men dominating, the required discussion is how they are discriminating to keep out non-whites.

We all KNOW that. But I can't even get BUGS people to THINK that way.

Ok, what would a consistently well-paid have said on the same subject in the 1960s, before AIDS?

I can tell you exactly. He would give a smirk and say "I know what the Lowah Class says about how it's all queers in the fashion industry."

Then he would announce that "They did a study and found that fashion has the lowest percentage of homosexuals of almost anything>"

I heard them say it!

Repeatedly!

But it is very frustrating that YOU don't think that way. Instead of Mantra type insights I get too many lectures about how society works and names and stuff.

Another example. In the story of Doctor Jenner and vaccination, it always begins with "Everybody had long seen that cow milking maids didn't get smallpox."

Let me repeat that: "Everybody had long seen that cow milking maids didn't get smallpox."

Let me repeat that: "Everybody had long seen that cow milking maids didn't get smallpox."

George Washington was stricken sterile by the same smallpox that killed his brother. Academic medicine bled him to death when he got pneumonia.

A major portion of each generation was hideously marked by smallpox. Millions died of it.

And everybody knew that "Cow milking maids didn't get smallpox."

The did not know that people who read Galen could cure it. They didn't know that a person who read Greek and could cast your astrological chart could cure it.

"Everybody had long seen that cow milking maids didn't get smallpox."

Could somebody PLEASE get off explaining The State of the World to me and tell me what is wrong in the sentences above?

TO BE RESPECTABLE, YOU MUST MAINTAIN LIBERAL DENIAL | 2001-05-05

No one remembers today that almost every "intellectual" in the 50s and 60s said that the only way to economic EFFICIENCY was to have all industry owned and run directly by the government. Back then, "socialism," which represented the Inevitable Future of Social Progress, was defined as "government ownership of the means of production."

This idea is so stupid it is hilarious, so no conservative is allowed to remind anyone of what was once Inevitable and Efficient. You will never see that anywhere but here.

Likewise, the fact that integration was supposed to lead to improvements in the statistics on illegitimacy, drug use, crime, and so forth has been flushed down the Memory Hole of every respectable conservative.

O'Reilly on the Fox Cable News Network gives the justification for busing that is popular today. The purpose of busing, liberals say, is to take hostages: If you have white students forced into ghetto schools, their parents will be forced to vote for more ghetto school money.

Liberals never put it this way, of course. But their ORIGINAL argument for busing was that it improved education, and nobody will dare remind them of THAT nonsense!

The other argument liberals NOW use for integration is Holy Diversity.

The 1960s justification for integration was the exact OPPOSITE of Diversity. With integration, "Negroes" would be just like whites, "except for the color of the skin."

On one program, O'Reilly was discussing home schooling with William Bennett. Bennett said that home schooling worked great, but he guiltily admitted that it does not provide Holy Diversity.

Bennett is one of our leading respectable conservatives. To be a good one of those, you have to be genuinely too stupid to see reality. So Bennett is honestly puzzled that Holy Diversity doesn't seem to be necessary to a good education.

It would never occur to Bennett or Jack Kemp or other respectables that the exact opposite is always the case.

So when Bennett said this, O'Reilly dutifully jumped in and said, "That is what I like about public education. Diversity is good." But he did not stop there. His next sentence, without a break, was, "I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE KEEP PUMPING MORE MONEY INTO PUBLIC EDUCATION AND IT KEEPS GETTING WORSE."

Well, DUHH!

A routine respectable conservative could say that and believe it, but O'Reilly is no fool. Surely he can see that his second sentence answered the first!