THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

MAURICE BESSINGER AND THE HOLLYWOOD TEN | 2002-08-10

The State newspaper and the NAACP and all the other voices of Love and Brotherhood state loudly that they want Maurice Bessinger ruined for his political heresy. His life's work and his means of living should be destroyed because he is an outspoken rightist and flies a Confederate flag.

Which makes a column by Anna Quindlen in the July 15 issue of Newsweek especially interesting. She was talking about the McCarthy era, when Evil People ruled: "It was the height of the Red Scare in America, when the lives of those aligned with or merely flirting with the Communist Party were destroyed by paranoia, a twisted strain of uber-patriotism and machinations of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, after whom an entire vein of baseless persecution is now named."

Nobody else noticed, but she is admitting that everybody McCarthy went after was either an outright supporter of Stalin's Communist USSR or was flirting with it!

So destroying the careers and livelihoods of people who were "aligned with the Communist Party" was "baseless persecution." We are talking here about people who wanted STALIN to take over America. The "McCarthy Era" was when the Communists had just taken over a third of the world. They had stolen the A-Bomb and were stealing the H-Bomb.

Everything Hitler ever did he learned from Stalin, who did it better. Hitler killed millions in wartime. Stalin killed tens of millions in peacetime.

The official doctrine is that Bessinger, an American who fought for America in Korea during the McCarthy period, should be destroyed for his rightist political views.

The official view is that we should kick ourselves over how we treated those poor sweeties who "aligned with or merely flirted with Stalin's Communist Party."

This is exactly the kind of thing respectable conservatives get paid NOT to talk about.

YOU DONT EXIST | 2010-01-01

From the point of view of Traditional True Morality, leftist or rightist, you do not exist.

Those who call themselves Pro-Life aren't. They have not the slightest interest in future generations. Their interest is total and it is concentrated on the moment the sperm hits the egg. St Paul stated flatly that there shouldn't BE any future generations.

So if you are wondering what the early Christians thought we should do, now you know.

Our established religion today has come to a similar conclusion. Traditional Morality said we produced sin. Political Correctness says we produce carbon. But the conclusion is the same.

The official British government report which recommended childlessness for all whites added, that it was the best thing we could do for our grandchildren, which is standard rhetoric on environmentalist propaganda.

Somehow I felt that there was something oxymoronic in there.

But when it comes to what I call genetic morality, of which no present religion has any, there was the one case where I completely withdrew from any further discussion right here in our own seminar. I had quoted St. Paul's' advice to unmarried women. He said that it would be best if they, like him, never engaged in the sexual act at all.

But, said Paul, if a woman is not strong enough to do what she should and be totally sterile, marriage was the only alternative: "It is better to marry than to burn."

By "burn," no one knows whether he was referring to the flames of desire or the flames of Hell. But the Church inherited the concept of Zoroastrianism in its degenerate phase that all sex was sinful. In fact, the present Pope and John Paul have restated that doctrine.

I got a bit of a surprise when SEVERAL of our blog people stated flatly that St. Paul was simply restating Traditional Family Values. If his advice were followed, there would be as few traditional Families, or ANY families, as there would be if the British Government's environmental sterility program were carried out.

When a discussion really slips off the edge of sanity it is best to leave quietly.

AFKAN | 2007-08-14

In reply to Dave:

Good points, all. (SEE? YOU ARE MISSING THE SEMINAR IF YOU DON'T READ THE COMMENTS!!! I CAN'T REPODUCE ALL THE GOOD STUFF UP HERE).

Dave:

I actually believe Wordism developed fairly late in the Game (ME: 1200 BC ISNOT LATE, EVEN TO OLD BOB. Do you mean it is new in the AMERICAN DIALOGUE?) as the way to destroy cognition, and the use of the Mind as a tool for development.

The extreme perversion, of course, is the inversion, where a word in practice means the exact opposite of what it would mean, in theory.

Thus, "equality of opportunity" becomes perverted into "mandated equality of outcomes," and all power eventually resides in the totalitarian state, where our lives are simply capital to be allocated.

The greatest error we have made is trying to be rational with the irrational; the raw drive for Power does not need the limits of Words. It simply operates, ruthlessly, and only stops when a countervailing power forces it to stop.

Years ago, in Psych class, the topic was bullies, and the Prof - Jewish, of course - was dealing with the issue of how do we deal with them, how can we understand them, etc. He posed the question, "Why do people act like bullies?" My answer - alone, in a lecture hall of more than 200 - was simply:

"They act like bullies because they ARE bullies, and being bullies simply works for them. They will stop only when the costs outweigh the benefits. A good ass-whipping is one example."

Total silence, and the class looked straight ahead, in silence.

He literally ignored me, and went right on, Let's talk about some of the tools we can use to understand bullying behavior. Now..."

The System implicitly, and now explicitly, rewards the intellectual equivalent of impotence. It really can not hold together in its present form for much longer.

I was discussing where this MUST lead on another forum, and described what Symbol I use for motivation. It is the picture drawn by Ayn Rand near the end of "Atlas Shrugged," where the Taggart Transcontinental is stranded on the prairie, and the light at the front of the train grows dimmer, ever dimmer, as Eddie Willers cries helplessly in front to the symbol of a value system rejected by the degenerate society. In the distance, on the one hand, the Hidden Communities of people reuniting to survive, and on the other hand, the Raiders.

I have argued elsewhere that accepting White Nationalism is the functional equivalent of a religious conversion; small, step by step, beginning with finally accepting the plain evidence of the Senses, that SOMETHING is profoundly wrong, and that the foundation of all of this comes down to RACE, writ large, as the Living Bridge between Family and Culture, with Family as the microcosm of RACE, and RACE as the macrocosm of Family.

I listen to people talk about Hannity and Limbaugh as if they were men of substance, saying things of substance, and I feel a sense of pity, for their situation, mingled with contempt, for what curses they have left for their posterity...

I judge all actions, no matter how great or small, in the light of RACE - First, Foremost, Forever, and cringe in quiet horror at the future their posterity will face.

THEIR posterity, but hopefully, not mine.

The next time my nephews come to visit, I will discuss "Atlas Shrugged" with them, and ask them if they can see ALL decisions as reflections of one big decision: "New Atlantis," or helpless abandonment on the prairie, at the mercy of the kindness of strangers, who happen to be their implacable RACIAL Enemies.

The Reality we are dealing with goes beyond Words, but is shaped by Words, in this Earth.

Shaped by, but not limited to...

THE RIGHT WANTS EVERYBODY TO BE A CHILD, THE LEFT WANTS EVERYBODY TO BE A CRIMINAL | 2004-01-31

The right wants to censor the Internet. They say they are all for freedom, they are just concerned about the children.

The right says that children can get into adult movies, so there should be no adult movies.

That means that any communications medium children can get access to should be treated as a medium for children.

If you treat everybody like a child, you don't need a dictatorship.

The right wants to censor the Internet in the name of the children. The left wants to censor violence. Any citizen who owns a gun is regarded by leftists as being the same as a repeat criminal who has a gun.

When it comes to guns, the left often uses the right's excuse. They say that the National Rifle Association wants to hand out guns to kids.

There is a coalition for censoring the Internet. Leftists who want to treat everybody like a criminal are making common cause with the rightists who want to treat everybody like a child.