THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

GUN CRIME DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON WHO HAS THE GUNS | 2003-07-12

The case of Switzerland and our years of experience with concealed weapons permits demonstrate that the misuse of guns only occurs when bad people have them.

Does anybody really believe that any criminal who wants a gun can't get one because of a gun law?

Come on, world! The reason a person is a criminal is because he doesn't OBEY laws.

So the experience of permit holders and Switzerland just confirms what any person who is not actually mentally retarded would expect: if good people have guns, crime goes down, not up.

Nobody is going to march into a store in Switzerland and start shooting. Somebody there probably has a gun and will kill the terrorist with it.

Terrorists do their shooting in gun-free zones, where honest people obey the anti-gun laws and terrorists - surprise, surprise!! - don't.

The leftist stand for taking guns away from honest people shows once again that leftism is not "the other side" in a rational debate. Leftism is mentally retarded.

Respectable conservatism respects liberal intelligence. It is retarded, too.

WORDISM: WORDISM IS PROVINCIAL AND OBSOLETE | nationalsalvation.net

Wordism makes it impossible to understand any REAL history. Real history begins with animal societies with their invariably rigid caste distinctions and willingness to die to hold their group's territory, regardless of whether they themselves have a high rank or a rank which prohibits them from adding any genes to the gene pool.

Only a Mantra Thinker would even NOTICE this. Every Wordist begins with the idea that the Words he worships will make the world in their own image. Marxist or Libertarian or "Christian," all of them see mankind as having no motivations of its own, in its own genes.

The revolution in biological thinking of the last half-century has passed by all the Wordists without the slightest notice. To them, there are still no territorial animals. To them, all the members of every herd are precisely equal.

One of the funniest claims of Wordists is that their form of Wordism will UNITE Mankind. But when mankind is divided into Wordist camps, he is at his most vicious. The only people who said "Better Red than Dead" were Reds themselves. They never asked the Soviets to follow the same logic.

The Constitution has a set of strict limitations on Wordism, precisely it was written when the experience of Europe's Religious Wars was still fresh. But only a Mantra Thinker would NOTICE that.

There are a million Wordisms and a thousand more every day, and every single one of them declares that it has risen above mere factions and races and is Universal. It doesn't take an advanced degree in math to realize that a million different groups can't each be Universal.

But nobody but a Mantra Thinker could see the humor in someone who has converted to one of a million Wordisms declaring that he has abandoned division and become Universal.

Just as anti-whites are not yet laughed at when they proclaim they are anti-racists, those who espouse one of a million forms of Wordism as not laughed at when they claim to b become Universal.

YET.

There is a massive structure that will be shaken to its foundations when a general admission begins that a white person who brags that he doesn't give a damn about his race is, to say the least, immoral.

The whole structure of Wordism rest on a foundation that became obsolete fifty years ago. And we are chopping at that foundation.

SIEGECRAFT: HUMAN NATURE | nationalsalvation.net

Here I respond to April Gaede at alt-right on her use of the phrase "anti-racist."

She and her husband faced off with the terrorist fringe of the "anti-racist" movement, but then again in today's America who is against "anti-racism?"

So like in the USSR, who was against communism? (Even if the gulags were a bit extreme.)

Lesson: when the phrase "anti-racist" is used you sideline millions of people much as millions of people in the USSR were sidelined because "everyone was a communist."

Mantra logic is the dissection and destruction of the "assumption" that exists in all ideology and theology.

I've long asked myself for a short succinct definition of Mantra logic. I think I have it now.

Eg; The ASSUMPTION that there is no human nature.

The ASSUMPTION that anti-racism is exactly that and not just anti-white.

Notice how our N&Jers and Crime and IQ professors never attack their counterparts' assumptions? Wonder why their effectiveness is basically zip?

On another thread one of our professors lectured me about Stephen Pinker's Blank Slate with the assumption that Pinker is a nice man who means well. Pinker is guilty of promoting our genocide therefor I assume he is not a nice person. You decide folks is Prof. HP right or little ol' me?

Simmons

HISTORY: THE WHOLE SHOOTING MATCH HAS BEEN WHITE RULE | nationalsalvation.net

Shakazulu gave me the usual song and dance about how the minority vote was increasing. I explained to him that that the growing diversity of the electorate is the reason the courts are taking over real decisions from a public that can no longer form a consensus.

But the courts are just stepping in. Something else will replace them as the old representative democracy dies.

There never has been and never will be a multiracial democracy.

I say "the same old song and dance" because Republicans have been talking about this for fifty years as a reason to go after "The Negro vote" and then the black votes and now the African-American vote.

No one but me ever MENTIONS that the history of the last decades has been exactly the opposite. I worked on Capitol Hill when Republicans kept trying to placate the minority vote and never got it. They were a minority and expected to STAY that way.

In 1980 Reagan went after the old Wallace vote and won a landslide and took the SENATE for the first time since 1955. In 1994, as the minority vote grew steadily and could be seen, Republicans won control of BOTH Houses of Congress in 1995 by rejecting moderation.

YES, minorities are growing. But why is it that Republicans TODAY control still more House seats than they did from 1959 to 1995?

While the old song-and-dance about growing minorities is true, the real trend has been the other way around. NO ONE NOTICED.

Now Bush is an old style moderate, i.e., neoconservative.

As Paul Harvey says, HERE is the REST of the story:

In 1848, the Whig Party won the presidency for the last time. SERIOUS opponents of slavery expansion like Lincoln were Whigs. By 1855 the Whigs disappeared without a trace. They could not address slavery. The existence of a huge black population made civil war inevitable.

Even Grant voted Democratic in 1856 because he knew a Republican victory would mean a war.

Republicans are a shadow of the old Whigs.

Do the ARITHMETIC. HOW could Republicans WIN more and more as the solidly Democratic minority vote GREW? Only if the voter gap no one DARES discuss was growing steadily. WHITES went Republican FASTER than the minority vote grew.

Nobody wants to look at the elephant in the living room. So it's Iraq and right to life. The Whigs were mostly about tariffs. They were a stopgap as the slavery issue grew. That's OK to elect the Bushes and keep respectable conservatives in jobs, but it has a definite time limit.

The lesson Shakazulu is teaching is correct, but he does not THINK about what he is saying. Recent history gives us the OPPOSITE lesson of the facts that he and compassionate conservatives are trying to draw from it.

In 1860 Lincoln won with forty percent of the popular vote. The South rebelled and lost. So Republicans ruled American politics until 1933. Every Southern nightmare about Republican rule came true.

Back to the present. My point is that the very statistics Shakazulu and respectable conservatives keep quoting, if you grasp HISTORY, is that the present system is unstable, to say the LEAST.

There never has been and will never be a representative democracy which is multiracial. The minority vote has been a "Yes, Massah" vote, first for the Radical Republicans and then of liberal Democrats. There was nothing multiracial about it.

The whole shooting match has been white rule.

But the old left is beginning to split, as the Democrats did in 1860. The liberals' Faithful Colored Companions have been overridden by brown Hispanics, who are beginning to demand their OWN voice, unlike blacks. The gay vote bloc and the feminists are not so slave-like as blacks are.

White anti-whites are going to be shocked that their nice safe boat, with brown folks obediently rowing it, will stop being safe. This is happening now, but no one wants to talk about that, either.

When the Republicans emerged in 1854 and took over the House of Representatives in 1855, the Whig Party was simply FORGOTTEN.

In 1857, the Supreme Court stepped in with the Dred Scot Decision. A divided electorate could not find a consensus on the question of the expansion of slavery, so the Court stepped in and opened ALL territories to slavery.

That was the last straw.

Those who opposed the expansion of slavery openly were still a minority, but they won in 1860 because they were a UNITED minority. Within ten years, every nightmare of the old Democrats became a reality.

Anti-white whites, your nightmare may be closer than you think, but you, like the old Southern Slavocracy, will be BLINDSIDED by where it REALLY comes from.

Historical comparisons are useless if they are followed too literally. ALL I am saying is that no anti-white white can imagine his comfortable brown-rowed boat being unstable.

Let me REPEAT:

HISTORICAL COMPARISONS ARE USELESS IF THEY ARE TAKEN TOO LITERALLY.

But my point is that this system is cracking apart. It's just that no one wants to see it, least of all those who want to ignore race or who think the present system is doing something inevitable.

Which is the anti-white theme.

In concentrating on his big ears and his nuthood everybody today ignores THE PEROT LESSON. Perot announced he would be willing to be president on the least-watched mainline cable show in America, and was soon leading BOTH major candidates in the polls. The Soviet Empire had collapsed with a whimper in 1990.

We had Clinton and a Republican Congress and the Bush stop gap, so it is easy to overlook the reality if your attention is riveted on Perot's ears or the latest headlines.

Then Perot showed that he was a nut, dropped out, and everybody in the media forgot him with a sigh of relief.

Mir was sent into space by the Soviet Empire. While it was up there, the entire seemingly terrific power that sent it up ceased to exist. Things happen THAT fast, as they did in 1855.

If he would THINK about his own numbers, Shakazulu has shown that this system is on its way OUT. If he would THINK about what he said, and if white nationalists would stop whining abut immigration and look at REALITY, they would see the same thing.

If a bullfrog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt every time it jumps.

Get some WINGS!

Don't just QUOTE.

THINK!