THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

BLACK HISTORY | 2010-10-15

History is a description of what happened. How a game of Monopoly is as much history as the life of a Pharaoh or the SevenYears War. But a history teacher who only taught about monopoly games he had heard about might be criticized.

Why is this information produced? History was produced because it told the story leading up to the present. It was supposed to tell us mistakes we may have made, how today's society was built.

History has changed as its "why" has changed. The idea now is to be fair. But if there is one thing history teaches us, it is that fairness is NOT what history is made up of. A history that tried to give Equal Opportunity to all things that happened in the past would by hard to fit into the universe.

Black studies are of little use to person who needs basics in how the society he actually lives in works. He may learn more about the Jabuda practiced in Central Africa than he does about branches of the Unites States Government, but what has he learned?

He has learned about something irrelevant. All Black History can be useful for is telling the old tale of why one group lost and another one defeated it. It could illustrate the fact that the world is unfair.

Marxism teaches that the world is only unfair because of a purely human trait called exploitation. It further teaches that exploitation is a purely human characteristic because human beings are the only animals who have territorial divisions, where one animal has more than another animal does, where a class system exists, all for the purpose of economic exploitation.

Every single one of these superstitions disappeared like smoke in the last half century.

Marxism says that all societies are alike, all are there to exploit the poor and hold them down. We have discovered that no animal society exists which does not exploit the poor and hold them down. In fact, our custom of letting each male have a female is less natural than that of Islam where the alpha owns all the females and any sex the other males have is likely to be with each other.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx declared the ultimate heresy of his time for Communism: "Women in common!" Even a conservative today would find that wording a bit sexist. Clearly women were part of the property that was being taken from the proletariat.

For Karl Marx, History is the Alpha and the Omega. His entire theory was that history goes in one direction, and is based on one imperative: human exploitation. Unlike any philosophy, Marxism HAS an Alpha and an Omega, a Beginning and an End. To a Marxist, "communism" has the same holiness about it that Heaven has to Christians or Paradise to the Jews who believe in it.

For a Communist to refer to anything existing today as "Communist" is exactly like the Pope referring to a place as, LITERALLY, Heaven. A Marxist always refers to a country ruled by Communists as a "socialist" country. It is on the way to a heaven, communism, but when it fails it gives the same excuse any other religion does, it was Imperfect.

Neither a Christian nor a Moslem nor a Marxist is discouraged by the millions of heresies that have failed.

History is a helpless field of study. Black History exists, not to explain anything anybody needs to know today, but to hire blacks and give blacks courses they can pass. The information is invented, sorry, produced, because there is a demand for it.

This is again what everybody knows but no one can say without being professionally ruined.

Everybody knows that, too.

RIDING THE PALEFACES' BACKS | 2004-08-14

Ah, the Noble Indian! He and his Great Culture were driven from their land by the Evil White Man. So they want land and reparations. Now what are the reparations they want? Do they want more feathered bonnets that were part of the culture they were robbed of?

No? Well then perhaps the Noble Native Americans want stone axes of the type their ancestors used before the Evil Palefaces made them live this horrible modern life.

We all know that the Noble Native American lived WITH nature while sinful whites FOUGHT nature. The Native American loved Brother Buffalo, sobbing, when he had to kill one of them and using every bit of that noble animal before he would kill another for his family. He had to kill Brother Buffalo to feed his family, but he himself ate nothing but lettuce, you know.

Since no Native American would touch a hair of Beloved Nature's head, we could resettle them in the national parks. Surely if all we tell ourselves is true, the Noble Indian would be ecstatic to be back in his native habitat. And since he respects nature and the only thing he desires is to live with nature, he would not present a problem for the park.

If all we tell ourselves about these innocent idealistic people is true, putting them in the national parks would just be restoring what they were deprived of in the first place.

Meanwhile, back in reality, nobody wants what the Indians had before the white man got here, least of all the Indians. Real Indians just want to join the stack of people riding around on whitey's back with all the other minority groups. They want casinos and other goodies. They want to join the professors who ride around on whitey's back and peddle anything they choose to call Education. Indians want to join the two and a half million lawyers who ride around on whitey's back in the name of whatever they choose to call Justice. The blacks call their ticket to ride affirmative action. And, as in the Middle Ages, there are still the bishops, the tycoons and the tax gatherers in that stack.

With modern technology the stack on the producer's back is much higher, but it's still the same old racket.

WHAT NEO MEANS | 2010-08-27

In the 2008 election, a leftist strategy was leaked which said "Find an opponent and call him a racist."

Conservatives quoted this but it still worked beautifully. It worked because it is correct.

Conservatives base their American history upon the views of a man who knew his STATED historical view was absurd, Abraham Lincoln.

Everyone else knows it, too. You have to choose between the RACIAL views of our Founding Fathers or anything any of the Rousseau-Marxist Mommy Professors come up with.

Leftism is still based on the early twentieth century view that animals have no class system, no wars -- "Only Man Has Wars" was a leftist hippie slogan, and no territory.

That nonsense is SHOT. But conservatives are even sillier. They posit a theory that everything liberals did until on or about January 1, 1970 was dead right, but at that moment it all went unaccountably wrong.

That's insane.

National Review is full of praise for every liberal before 1970. It praises Lyndon Johnson's policies rather than him personally because the people they follow, the liberals, can't bring themselves to praise Lyndon.

This, by the way, is the true definition of neo-conservatism. The term has gotten a meaning of being Jewish or all for war, but the actual definition is neo, which means that it condemns the old conservatism National Review was founded on, and its conservatism, that is, its opposition to liberal proposals, is new, or neo-.

A writer in National Review was complaining that all the alternative histories end up showing how awful history would be if it were different. But that is the theme of National Review today. If Lincoln and Roosevelt and Johnson had not succeeded, the world would have been lost.

Only National Review would have a cover picture of Franklin Roosevelt and Churchill, saying They Saved the World. They did the same thing with Lincoln.

Would the world have ended if Britain had not declared war on Germany in 1939?

To question that is "racist," according to National Review.

REAL neo-conservatism begins by conceding history to the Left. Its main voices are Jewish, but EVERYBODY'S main voices are Jewish. Everybody's main voices used to be in New England.

So we can either feed our obsession or deal in reality. The reality is that neo-conservatism concedes history to the political left. That is the DEFINITION of NEO-conservatism.

Both of today's official sides declare that all history was good until on or about January 1, 1970. So naturally all alternative histories that are PUBLISHED declare that any deviation from real history before January 1, 1970 would have been a disaster.

But can a person who concedes history to the left be a conservative?

TRANSLATING THE MANTRA | 2011-12-08

As a very cynical old man, I am not as impressed by translations of the Mantra as I'm supposed to be.

I AM impressed when a Norwegian gets ten thousand on a youtube he made in Norwegian.

I put the Mantra into English many, many years ago and no one USED it. So putting it into Lapp or Basque, by itself, is no great gain.

In professional advertising, translation involves tens of millions of dollars. The American motto for Coca-Cola, which cost millions, was "The pause that refreshes." No one in our leadership seems to notice that a book is one hell of a lot cheaper than an advertising slogan.

Several tens of millions of dollars later, in the giant German Coke market, they came up with "Mach mal Pause" for Coca-Cola. "The pause that refreshes" doesn't translate.

Those of you who complain that translation is not easy would be the object of screaming ridicule if you whined that to seven-figure professional advertisers.

Or if you went to the other side to talk to a professional propagandist.

I don't think we have any.

But we WILL have some pros:

YOU.