THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

THE EXCUSE MASTERS | 2004-11-13

Today's cheap tricksters, like Clinton, depend on their big titles to make them not sound cheap.

I repeat, all cheap tricksters are equal.

When I say I would rather trust an old-fashioned, shabby hobo than I would a modern clergyman, I mean it. Modern clergymen all BELIEVE their cheap tricks are higher class than the same dodges by people who have no degree and no coat and tie.

If you believe that someone is not just one more cheap trickster because he wears a coat and tie or a bishop's robes, you are what the frauds call a sucker, a shill, a mark.

In other words, you're a stinkin' moron.

A cheap trickster takes and offers nothing in return.

You come to a doctor with a pain. If he deals with that pain, he is a doctor. Throughout history, people took their pain to cheap tricksters. The cheap tricksters would then tell them "pain we have always with us, suffer, my son." And the guy with the pain would pay them money. The last sentence is the important one.

A friend who comforts you is a friend. A friend who comforts you for money is not a friend.

I make one critical reservation. If a person who offers you nothing for something actually BELIEVES that what he is offering you is worthwhile, it is not fraud and he is not a cheap trickster.

But I make one critical reservation to that reservation. If a person says he is a Wise Man, he is supposed to KNOW his nonsense is nonsense. In fact, most cheap tricksters get away with it precisely because they think they are being Wise. If you sell Wisdom and you can't face the fact that you are a fool, that is fraud and you are cheap -- robes, ordinations, titles, degrees and all.

If you SELL Wisdom, you have no right to be a fool.

DAVE | 2007-12-22

McCain and Kennedy are very old men to be emblematic of the world circa 2008 and their careers since 1981 could not be more ironic.

1981 was a banner year for reasons the "body politic" of today is entirely blind. No one today even remembers or knows how deeply America was mired in the quicksand's of urban unemployment all throughout the rural to urban migrations that ran in earnest from the 1920s through the mid-1960s.

That is what makes 1981 a banner year. There was 16-year lag between 1981 and the mid-1960s but the end of 1981 finally adjusted things. It was a dividing line between societies in which jobs became chronically plentiful and one where jobs were chronically scarce.

But today this fact is entirely ignored. Lightweights such as McCain and Kennedy (and the Bushes) never could have persisted in their prominence were it not for a prosperity that they bear no responsibility for. Their reign is only fortuitous. They themselves are completely ignorant of what lightweights they really are.

Oddly, I don't think the Clinton's are ignorant of it. Maybe it is their Arkansas background.

But I think that the whole thing is changing again. 2008 will be a banner year like 1981. It is not that I think that we are headed back into the quicksands of high unemployment. It is almost more onerous.

State and local governments have nowhere to go for their financing except to higher taxes. They have played the booms for all they are worth, and now this is over. State and local governments are no different than private corporations. Their bond capacity is limited, unlike the Feds.

But all of America cannot sustain NYC or Nassau County tax levels. The white populations will rebel and this has already started. At heart, this is racial conflict because state and local taxes heavily grab white savings to redistribute to nonwhite populations in devious ways.

The state and local police and judges are not up to suppressing this rebellion. Without Federal backup, they will chicken out, if it starts in earnest. I predict Federal backup will not be forthcoming. This is not the 1960s.

Both Kennedy and McCain are in their dotage. They don't have a clue, and they certainly are not up to navigating this. This is way too "South American" for them.

THE THREE OR MORE RULE AGAIN | 2012-02-24

Both Lenin and Hitler took power ENTIRELY because of the Three or More Rule. In a multi-strong party parliament which took over after the Czar's collapse, Lenin joined his Communist Party with coalitions that expelled parties to their right from the Parliament, (I don't know whether to call it the Duma or the Soviet).

These parties in turn formed rump majority coalitions that expelled yet more parties from the rump parliament.

The last coalition, Communist and Social Revolutionary, ended when Lenin started shooting the SR's.

This is the way every single Eastern European country went Communist after World War II. In fact, the dubious distinction of being the only country to go Communist by majority vote is one most people have never heard of, but which exists today.

San Marino, about 300 square miles and 13,000 people, out in the middle of Italy, voted Communist in the 1930s. When Germany invaded the USSR, San Marino declared war on Germany, so Mussolini gave the Germans permission to send a platoon or two in to occupy San Marino, which they did.

Finally, I think in the 1960s, San Marino had a revolution which threw out the Commies that took place mostly inside one warehouse. Otherwise all states became Communist entirely by the Three or More Rule.

As we all know, the Communist and Nazi Parties together had a majority of the vote in 1933, so the only way to form a government was to make an agreement one of them. Hindenburg chose Hitler, and the Western media had paid him so little attention that they thought he was a Kaiserist!

In November of 1932 Time Magazine stated flatly that "Nothing on Heaven or Earth is surer than that the Kaiser will be returned to power in Germany."

If you don't understand the 3 or more rule, you are a fool about history.

ANTI-WHITES CAN COUNT ON PRO-WHITES TO KEEP THEIR SECRETS | 2014-05-21

As I have repeatedly pointed out, The French leader Sarkozy made a speech, which is on White Rabbit's YouTube, in which he threatens to use force if the French do not intermarry soon!

No one mentions it!

Here, in "We will use force for interracial marriage," is the kind of statement anti-whites would never let people forget.

And our side? Down the Memory Hole, where the anti-whites desperately want it.

In talking about other pro-whites, I TRY to make suggestions rather than criticisms. But a 73-year-old man may go over that line after sixty years of bare-knuckle political battle.

I have made it clear that people who have built up organizations and raised money have to have the emphasis they learned that does that.

But I did all this as a paid professional, and in thousands of hours of nose-to-nose debate, I learned to find points that took NO time to throw in.

"Chasing down white flight" is one of those phrases I would work into any discussion I was having. I have learned a feel for what works.

I get ticked at David and Jared and James when they have a twenty minute interview and doesn't use any of my powerful stuff, which takes ten seconds or less. The stuff I came up with was USED by people who were elected and who raised funds.

Anti-whites keep saying that we say that immigration is only for white countries, "but it isn't so." But just to mention that fact is poison to their side.

I work very hard at this, for free. I am used to my products being ignored, but I RESENT it.

Meanwhile keep thinking about "Chasing Down White Flight" and keep commenting on it and reading any new comments there.