THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

RULE BY DEFAULT | 2005-11-20

I remember a liberal senator being asked what a law that was being considered actually MEANT. He took the deep, exasperated breath Politically Correct people take when a person does not Understand How Things Are and said,

"We have something called The Supreme Court. THEY will decided exactlywhat the law means."

To quote Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "To say that a law means what it says is PERNICIOUS oversimplification."

Constitutional Law is also referred to as "judge-made law." That is its official title. While conservatives talk endlessly about strict construction, none of them means a word of it. No conservative will EVER criticize the decision striking down all antimiscegenation laws in 1968, and the Cour openly threw all intent and any kind of construction at all out to get that one.

OPENLY.

So conservatives were stunned when Roe vs. Wade, which was far more based on original intent -- many states that ratified the Constitution had no antiabortion laws but ALL of them had antimiscegenation laws --was decided. "Where" they universally screamed, did THIS come from?

It came from YOU. You acquiesced or praised the 1968 decision.

The Constitution specifically outlaws judge made law. The first word of Article I of the United States Constitution is "ALL."

As in "ALL legislative powers are vested in the congress..."

But today all legislative power is going to the courts by default. In a multicultural, multiracial country law simply cannot be made by common consent. In a multicultural society society there is, BY DEFINITION, no common consent.

In a system as weighted down with checks and balances and separation of powers like ours, which was developed for a monoracial, monocultural country, nothing but a dictatorship can function. The only dictators who can function freely are the courts.

As the senator quoted at the outset of this piece stated, the courts will become more and more the sole lawmakers.

Until somebody takes power from THEM.

There is a point here that is so obvious that only Bob would notice it:

The courts did not TAKE power. They got power by DEFAULT. No one else can exercise it.

But rule by default NEVER lasts.

Kerensky took over Russia for a year to fill the vacuum left by the fall of the Tsar. The Weimar Republic ruled Germany to fill the vacuum left by the fall of the Kaiser.

Moussilini just mentioned in a speech that he would like to march on Rome and take power. He was so astonished by the reaction that he almost MISSED the March on Rome. This is real history. The default government was so weak that the march began without him.

In 1992 Ross Perot was actually leading in the polls for the presidency when he dropped out. He had just mentioned on Larry King that he would be willing to run for president and the movement exploded, to his astonishment, the way it did with Moussilini.

Nobody but me remembers that, and what it MEANT.

We are being governed by default. Whent he change comes, we who are doing the talking do not realize how close we are to a March on Rome by somebody.

As President Jackson demonstrated, the courts' fatal weakness is that they are not in DIRECT command of the armed forces.

In a monoracial monocultural society Jackson's telling the Supreme Court he would not enforce its decision has been largely a matter of historical detail. No one was surprised when the Republican platform of 1860 was based on the fact that the Party would not enforce the Dred Scot Decision.

In 1860 no one said the executive or legislative branches HAD to enforce Supreme Court decisions. But NO ONE would say that today.

Least of all respectable conservatives. The last one to say that was Barry Goldwater, and he backed down.

Now everybody looks first to the courts to decide ALL major matters of policy. The other branches of government openly act at the sufferance of the courts. The executive has no power that the courts do not grant it. The congress has no power unless the courts grant it. The states certainly have exactly the power the Federal courts allow them. "We the people of the United States" in referenda are routinely subject to court approval.

A call for a constitutional convention would have to be declared valid by the courts. Only a tiny oligarchy of lifetime appointees CAN make policy in a multiracial, multicultural society.

Today power is becoming less and less a matter of abstract discussion and more and more a matter of bareknuckled force. The facade is wearing thin.

And in the real world, nobody has power or money that someone else will not try to take away from them. Somebody forgot to tell those who things are settled that simple fact of life.

Someone who is not a respectable conservative, someone who sees America as a country ready to obey ANYBODY, will want that power and take it.

No, it won't call itself a dictatorship. And in the real world, ALL governments are oligarchies.

The racial coalitions will form, and it will not be a loud revolution.

They will simply tell the courgts to go to hell.

And the courts, just like the executive and the legislative branches and the states and the people have already done, will do just that.

THE OLD BLOGS ARE ALL GONE! | 2005-12-06

I just discovered that I can't find the old blogs.

All that work gone!

So please bear with me. I am going to have to repeat much of what I said before. Please bear with me on this.

Long-term readers will have seen much of what I must now write before. But new readers will have to be introduced to concepts you are very familar with.

Maybe I can give it some packaging that won't make it too boring for you. It is a real pain to me.

But rewrites are usualy better anyway. The concepts I was painfully developing as we hashed them out here will be more complete. I hope the pain will less yours, from boredom, than mine, from the work involved.

But I put things here for you to read and pass on, and maybe even for people to read in the future. So I need what I have said before to be here.

I now have to find a way to KEEP what I write. I am making copies now and sending them to myself.

MARK, NOT PETER | 2006-04-24

Mark quotes me and hits on the real point:

"Get your fingers out of your ears. We must HARNESS the volcano."

Ok Bob, I might be simplistic in my thinking, but HOW do we harness the volcano? Do we organize marches, do we start yet another 3rd. political party, do we go knocking on doors inviting neighbors to boycott select businesses, do we create a massive mail campaign to our congressman???

What exactly do we do?

Comment by Mark

A Bob's Blog commenter is asking the exact question, hitting hte BASICS.

Mark, Papa Bob is so proud of you he even got your name right this time!

This is the exact thing htat puzzles most of our people.

They've seen revolutions on TV. Revolutions are huge marches, torchlight parades. Their non-TV contact with acrtivists consists of getting up from their computer and TV screen to answer a knock onthe door.

Practical Men keep urgig us to get out from "hiding" behind our computer screens and go out in the streets.

They're tough, macho, and silly.

The other side can get half a million Hispanics, blacks, and Mommy Professor's pet "revolutionaries" out on the street in a heartbeat.

If you will read this Blog and THINK about it, I have told you what we must do. Hit on the points I make that WORK, wherever you can.

There are HUNDREDS of relevant Newsgroups out there, but only a handful have been exposed to Bob's Mantra:

" Liberals and respectable cosnervatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says

this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and

ONLY into white countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or

Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote

assimilating unquote with them."

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY

white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if

hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black

countries?"

"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am

talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black

man wouldn't object to this?"

"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the

white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a

naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

On the media you hear more and more bitches about something "that's making hte rounds in the Internet."

They do NOT bitch about this because the Internet is harmless.

If you have never done a Newsgroup before, it might take you an hour to find out how through Google.

Then the cut-and-paste involved in putting Bob's Mantra on each one takes about two minutes each.

In one day's work, less thant he time it takes to get to a march in another city, you could hit hundreds of newsgroups and tens of thousands of readers with this message.

How many doors would you have to knock on to accomplish THAT?

If several commenters did that, it would begin to really irritate our opponents.

It would be "making the rounds on the Internet."

They won't mention it on the media, though, because they'd have to REPEAT it.

Every time a person is exposed to the fact that all this "anti-racism" is only aimed at one race, it changes the whole question.

You can DO that.

You can do it anonymously.

And you can do it NOW.

OOPS! | 2006-08-08

I just cut a comment from, I believe, Dave, that is to the point.

Dave, I believe, expressed a complaint most of us males have. He says he talks to girls, listens to girls, and girls like to talk to him but he is sick and tired of their treating him like a talking buddy instead of a red-blooded guy who, like any straight man, has more hopes than a conversation.

I have talked about how inept we males are, because I have lived with that. But this is a case where WOMEN are just plain stupid.

It is the exact reverse of our mistake of being Macho Men with THEM. Us straight guys want to know that we are attractive to women. Women consider it a victory if we do NOT bed them, but it goes further than that. Women like to insist that none of us are good enough for them.

This is not a new problem. Many types of male BIRDS offer the female a little present when they are courting hem, like a fish or a piece of seaweed. The female bird usually refuses to accept it the first time. I have a strong feeling that this behavior was not invented yesterday.

In fact I think it goes back, literally, to the time birds had teeth and dinosaurs were at their peak.

So women are always bitching to each other that men don't talk to them or listen to them. Then they treat a man who DOES like a eunuch.

But on the plus side, if you are on a first date, the best way to get a real relationship going is to just listen and listen and listen.

EVERY conversation with an attractive girl should include an invitation to meet for cup of coffee or a beer. Take the first refusals routinely.

One of them will eventually accept that bit of seaweed, or there wouldn't be any birds left.