THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

READING BOBS STUFF | 2012-12-31

I am useful, not for knowing what you don't know, but for noticing what you don't notice.

Most of the time commenters STILL don't notice what is original. If I point out that nobody discusses the fall of the Soviet Union, someone trots out a Golden Oldie about how bad Communism is or news bias.

Most of my articles get no comments on the most pregnant parts.

Why the USSR fell is embarrassing to every side in the 1980s. It was a total miss by all the experts. If one discusses it, he may even wonder why Sovietologists are never embarrassed about the ultimate failure of all their predictions.

None of these experts, even associated with those of us who brought down the USSR, were astonished about how quickly it happened. We knew the USSR was a house of cards and completely ridiculous, and acted on it.

But if we had concentrated on the ideological weakness of Marxism or the other crap they got paid for, the USSR would still be there.

"We can bring down the USSR if we realize it is silly and act on that reality." When I wrote that repeatedly, it was universally looked on as hick bait.

When I use enormous historical examples to show what Hearing the Silence is, no comment goes ahead and talks about ANOTHER giant boner from the Silence.

We now have a tiny number of BUGSERS who discuss expertly how to use the Mantra out in the real battle place.

Now I would like some commenters to start reading an article before reacting to it.

You can put the latest gossip about Enron someplace else -- PLEASE do.

Enron, like the USSR, means for US that experts don't interpret the realities right.

As long as they write to order, the fact that their subject did not exist is tossed into the Silence.

On September 12 I told you that no one would get punished for allowing 9/11 to happen. Being a professional, I told you then that those who allowed 9/11 would get promoted. They were the experts when it happened, so they are experts on The Crisis.

That point bounced right off readers then and now.

The lessons I worked with to get my money and incidentally destroy the USSR are lost in "Guess what I found" stuff.

This is a lesson that is almost impossible to explain, so I certainly don't expect even you to get it right off.

But it is something you should be working on mentally.

SHOUTING OUT THE TRUTH | 2004-01-31

A Supreme Court justice once said, "Freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater."

I must have heard that piece of hogwash a thousand times, and every time the person quoting it thought he was being Truly Wise.

But what if there IS a fire in a crowded theater? Am I supposed to walk quietly to the exit and let everybody else cook?

What scares me is that I am the only person who has ever brought that up.

In Britain, the question I just posed has been answered. Joseph Pierce was sentenced to a year in prison for "inciting racial hatred." The court admitted that everything Pierce said was factual, but it also declared (The Crown versus Joseph Pierce, 1986) that "The truth is no excuse."

So if there is a fire in a British theater and you see it, walk to the exit and keep your mouth shut.

America has not degenerated to that extent yet.

Another Truly Wise quote is, "Freedom means you have the right to do whatever you want to, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."

In other words, I can say anything I want to say, but only so long as not one person is offended by it.

A slave has that much freedom.

Please see March 17, 2001 - HARMLESS FREEDOM IS AN OXYMORON

INMATES | 2011-05-07

Almost fifty years ago I started working in retarded homes. Since our problem as non-medicals was behavior rather than treatment, the first thing we learned was the very practical difference between the Mildly Retarded and the Severely Retarded.

Severely Retarded were almost invariably very easy to deal with. They were children of upper income people who took good care of them but had to send them to our institution.

Theory would have screamed bloody murder at this statement, of course, but we had a day to day job to do, and it worked.

The mildly retarded were generally trash who had low IQs simply as a result of their place on the Bell Curve. They tended to be short, rude, cumbersome and all the other things that go with what is simply a bad set of genes.

Like the rules you pick up working in a prison, this one was little spoken of even then. My brother was a pediatric neurologist and I had already done plenty of research with him, so he leveled with me on this. from day one. Most workers have to learn it.

Most workers have to spend their first year or so mistreating severely retarded kids who would love to behave well and be given constant, patient instruction, and letting Mildly Retarded Trash cause mayhem.

Such is the cost of Social Progress.

By now they may separate the mildly from the severely more, so workers are no longer familiar with this particular difference. But they are surely screwing something else just as critical in the name of Marx ... oops. I mean Political Correctness.

I wonder if ALL the new prison psychologists are still a joke? My doctor brother did his two years of Federal service in the Public Health Service as a doctor in Federal prisons, and a lot of his research in State facilities.

He was so popular with the inmates that when he left Atlanta, they gave him a framed (?) certificate officially naming him a Honorary Ex-Convict.

A warden told me I got along amazingly well with the inmates, too, though I am not sure that was intended entirely as flattery. He kind of hinted I should feel at home there.

Having to learn for oneself the different behavior patterns of severely and mildly retarded children was the most obvious sign of the Marx... I mean Politically Correct doctrine at retarded homes. I don't know about now, but back then the most obvious sign when you worked in a prison was the New Psychologist.

They were the clowns of a Big House where there was very little entertainment. A New Psychologist or Psychiatrist was a private show for everybody.

Prisoners would find out a guy was recently out of school and joy would rain. They would vie for "how much sh** they could pack up his a** " -- Emily Post doesn't have a lot of readers there.

Each one would tell the new psychologist a tale that made the Count of Monte Cristo look like a villain, and after five to eight years of unbroken indoctrination from Mommy Professor, the New Psychologist believed every single word of everything they said!

It took YEARS for each New Psychologist to learn that prisoners LIE!

LIBANON, THERE IS NO WHITAKERISM | 2006-12-08

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

Your answer is that Jews can indeed be white, but they can't be trusted. That's a good answer, but I phrased my question in the wrong way.

What I'm getting at is this: how do we institutionalize genetic morality, and can this be done simply on the basis of skin color? We've already agreed that it can't. Not only must the whites be separated from the browns, but the loyal must be separated from the traitors. Then we get into the classic problems of institution-building, familiar to anybody who has ever run a business, a platoon, a religion, or a political party: credos, mission statements, founding myths, mascots, demonologies, patron saints, heresies, and (most of all) a set of terms upon whose definitions all agree, starting with "us" and "them".

I'm bringing up the institutional question because I suspect that it's either a weak point in your thinking or in mine. You seem to be an enemy of all institutional trappings (clear thinkers usually are), but I believe they're indispensable, especially to a race like ours in which the instinct of self-preservation is, as you point out, weak or absent.

Comment by LibAnon

ME:

The fundamental difference in our thinking is that my basic premise is a very, very unusual one. I believe that institutions are like work tools, that is, they are a product of the people, designed for particular uses at particular times. You see institutions as one of the determinants of the future of humanity.

The future of humanity is entirely a matter of genetics and race. It doesn't matter if a white society is libertarian or Nazi, because that will pass. For humanity's future all that matters is what COLOR they are.

Institutions bother me not in the least unless they affect race. Worrying about institutios is like building my world on a partciular method of agriculture. There is no doubt we will have to have food and there is no doubt we will have to have institutions, but I do not address methods of raising food here.

WHITE people will eat well. Dark people will starve. That's all I need to know.

I am not going to write down here what tools carpenters need to develop in building houses or what institutions each country needs to deal with its particular problems. I AM going to say that if they are WHITE, they will develop the tools and institutions that will keep humanity from turning into a miserable, stagnant brown anthill.

Institutions are a dime a billion. But the instant a person starts to build his thinking on institutions, his attention deviates from race. My aim is to destroy all traitors within our race and to preserve our race. Now comes the critical word:

PERIOD.

Any tool, be it a saw, a gun, or an institution, that keeps us white is good. Any tool, be it a saw, a gun, or an institution, that makes us nonwhite is bad.

We have our race to save. Screw homemaking tips.