THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

OFF WITH YOUR HEAD! | 2016-07-12

LL sent me a YouTube link some time ago showing some British MP demanding laws against "extremists". She was demanding measures to suppress these "extremists."

This was all there was to it: This woman kept demanding that "extremists" be suppressed. Apparently the chairman she was talking to, being a clahssy Engishman, didn't know how to ask a straight question.

So, I kid you not, it went back and forth like this:

Woman: "We must take measures against extremism."

The Clahssy Englishman aasks, "What do yyou mean?"

She replied, "Measures must be taken against extremists."

Back and forth it went, just like that:

"Take measures against extremists."

Then the repeat, "What do you mean?"

Back and forth back and forth like a ping pong game being played between total retards, ON and ON:

What she apparently meant by "extremists" was people who say things we don't want them to say."

And as this went on, right down the IQ Scale, I thought how wonderful it would be if this Uppah Clahss person were replaced, just for a minute, by a real person.

Instead of aahsking the propah question, your average guy would finally say, "Extremists compared to what?"

So I am not kidding here. No one could use plain English because, since he and she were both Uppah Claahss, he had to understand a term used by another Uppah Clahss person.

Not in a million years could he ask her "What do you mean by extremist?"

All I can figure is that everyone is supposed too know what is outside of OUR Opinion, ESTABLISHED Opinion. Anyone who asks for a definition is admitting that he does already KNOW Established.

I can't offer any other explanation.

I bring this up because LL said he had heard that this woman is up to be Britain's next Primer Minister.

When the Queen kept yelling "Off with his head!" nobody had to explain why everyone was too terrified to ask her "WHY?"

If you don't KNOW why, off with your head..

https://youtu.be/tpd-aUgx5FI

SLOW NEWS YEARS | 2010-05-09

Even the media are aware of "slow news days," but it will be a long cold day in the The Bad Place before someone who gets paid to be obsessed with the Latest News understands that there are always slow news DECADES.

When we look back on history slow news years are easy to see. Before the railroad, the bit news was internal canals. You can still those canals with historical markers on them. They were the "internal improvements" Hamilton wanted to hurry onto.

When I was studying the third world, then "underdeveloped countries," in the fifties and sixties, the big deal was building dams. The reason for this was that a dam was something that could be planned by planners as one giant project.

The PROBLEM with dams was that it could be planned by planners in one giant project. Like everything else planned by Mommy Professors Little Professors coming out from Harvard and Cambridge, they didn't do anything. If you take a mass of unskilled poverty stricken people in an economy of planned stagnation and build a dam, you get a country that has poverty stricken people with a dam.

Back then, all Mommy Professors talked about Liberation coming to Africa and how the underdeveloped countries were becoming the Developing Countries.

You simply do not hear about Africa today, and the obsession with economic statistics has totally ended. Today, with a price system and exploitation, under developing countries are developing at a rate that would have front page news if it had happened under Mommy Professor's socialist graduates back then.

Like the end of starvation, you can tell something is happening by the total silence of the media.

Back in the canal days, finished canals were treated the way dams were in socialist tracts. But with the exception of the Erie Canal, they had as much effect on the economy as the dams did. With dams and canals, the news was touted because big interests were tied up in them.

But in the real world, transportation in the early nineteenth century was a slow news time. In 1830 the same transportation system existed that had existed in the Roman Empire, though the roads weren't as good.

Likewise we are in a slow news time which is filled up by gurgling praise and pictures of wind power and earth-based solar power. It reminds me of the old science fiction stories, where astronauts traveling to Mars sat around and took notes on clipboards.

Fusion power is on its way. It will make this wind and earth-based solar crap as out-of-date as the canals when the railroad hit. Solar power from space is a likely competitor.

I used to enjoy reading back issues of the London Times. When the French Revolution came on, they had a Giant Leap Forward in communications technology. A tower was built on the French side and semaphore signals got the latest news to London in four days.

But very few people are aware of that Great Leap Forward today. Ben Franklin was the one great expert on electricity at the time, and he laughed when people said it might have practical applications someday.

Most people dedicate themselves to what is on the news. Commentators make the news sound as important as they can.

I gave up on the Mantra on Stormfront because everybody wanted to talk about Iraq. I did my programs and quit because whatever was on the news was what they wanted to talk about.

The London Times' Great Leap Forward is forgotten. No one refers to the Third World today as underdeveloped or developing.

They weren't wrong. They were worse than wrong. Everything they talked about was totally irrelevant, like those clipboards in space.

But the fact that current news is out of the ballpark has been the case for centuries, and nobody seems to notice.

I.M. STUFF | 2007-03-09

I.M. here does not mean Instant Messaging. It represents the one thing I can offer you that you cannot get for yourself: Institutional Memory.

So let's do some I.M. I used to know a lot of members of the group that would later call themselves The Greatest Generation. You would not RECOGNIZE my description of the way they were in the 50s. One professor wrote an article in Reader's Digest in the 1950s about The Silent Generation. He pointed out what I saw:

That guys who were in college on the G.I. Bill from the Korean War talked abut their experiences, but the guys from WWII never did.

Can you IMAGINE that? Back then, the WWII crowd was the Silent Generation!!!!! Now THAT'S Institutional Memory NOBODY else will tell you about.

In the last piece, I mentioned we pro-whites today are ahead of the curve of conservatism in the 1950s. You see, as Twin Rule will explain to you, Hitler LOST World War II, and the only absolutely consistent War Crime is LOSING. No one on the winning side has ever been accused of a War Crime, much less convicted. So in the 1950s everything that came from the right was Hitlerism. In the first Knesset in 1948, no one would sit on the Right... Any mention of racial IQ difference was grounds for a lynching, and I do NOT mean that figuratively. Ask Professor Osbourne of the University of Georgia.

As I said, William Buckley's appearance on the Jack Paar show in January of 1961 was as shocking as Dr. Duke's being on a major show ten years ago. Paar made fun of him, while O'Reilly shrieked at Duke, but it's the same game. But I have been here before. To you this is a whole new game; to me this is where I came in.

Today, Dr. Duke's being on national television is unusual but not unheard of, as Buckley's was then.

While the Fanatical Losers TODAY tell us that we get no hearing, I am amazed at every time we DO get a hearing.

Or a chance to go around the System, like this blog.

Let's look at the 80s:

Oh, yes, I remember the "Oh, God, ALL IS LOST!" fanatics. "Liberals rule all things, and will forever." They turn out to have been right, but that is largely because of THEIR efforts. We won, so, while we concentrated on the GGS , the neoconservative strategy was being used to outflank us.

While we were trying to talk the "Reagan is not what we thought he would be idiots (no adult ever thought Reagan would be the single-minded anti-abortion fanatic they expected)" down off the ledge, neoconservatives whomadd the best of liberalism made the best of conservatism.

You see, while Gloomy Gus and Gloomy Gloria were whining about how Yesterday Will Never Come Again, those who had ruled policy previously simply adapted to the new world and ruled again. While most of us were trying to deal with the perpetual losers, the winners got into reality and won again.

In the end, I won AND I lost. As long as you accept the hypothesis of the Losers that bringing down the whole Soviet Empire was meaningless, I did NOTHING

All the Gloomy Gusses and Gloomy Glorias are saying that the enemy did not disappear; they just abandoned the Soviet Union.

Of course they did. It was a sinking ship.

But that is where GG's interest in the whole thing ends. They want to prove it is all hopeless, that Conspiracy is All Wise and God-Like and cannot lose.

Which is exactly what enemy propaganda is all about.

So I KEEP pointing out that the biggest brag of National Review and other neoconservatives is that they stand by that liberal philosophy of John Kennedy's crowd, "The Best and the Brightest." So, I say, THEY got us into Vietnam and neos got us into Iraq. That is forty years of Institutional memory that could work for you.

What do I get back?

"Neos are JEWS! Read this book about JEWS!" "JEWS are all-powerful and loyal to each other and wise beyond our mere goy perception."

Which is the propaganda your enemy ALWAYS has to PAY to put out.

I am SO sick of this! This is where I came in half a century ago.. But I am still on OUR side. I know all about selling out. I know all about it PROFESSIONALLY. I just won't do it. I am NOT a sociopath.

But note this: Those of us who put out THEIR message will get the attention. One thing Allied Propaganda used to do was to repeat the worst things Nazis said about the Mongoloid race to the Japanese. And if you can be quoted as saying that the Jews are unbeatable, where do you think THAT quote will go?

And surrender always sells.

I have been this way before. I have been part of a group that fought its way to public and I told them what they were doing wrong and they did it.

I have been this way before.

And the fork is just ahead.

WORDISM: SOCIAL MESSAGES | nationalsalvation.net

In an age when information POURS in, a PRACTICAL Achilles' heel of Wordism is that it is BORING. History, the story of the entire experience of our species, is just a recitation of dates and names. Instead of being at his computer, a freshman must spend his time in the basic course in History of Civilization memorizing whether Asurbanipal was a Babylonian or an Assyrian, and WHEN.

I watch the old Dan Rather types sit around and gripe about the Good Old Days when news was the province of Professionals like them. They make a few hidden references to Good Old Soviet television where Professionals like them would limit television to ballets and other Uplifting stuff.

In short, the masses are entirely out of hand. Someone should give them what they OUGHT to watch and nothing else. The code term for this is "being obsessed with ratings."

In our seminar, the first thing we should think of when this sort of phrase is used is "watching the ratings COMPARED TO WHAT?"

Compared to the Wordists' dictation of what everybody should have.

All this fits into the unquestioned Sixties mantra of Social Messages which the Greatest generation never questioned. So they were grateful when someone said, "Pollution is bad" and followed it up with the standard bureaucratic solution. That was considered to be a FAVOR.

This whole concept of Social Messages fit into an old saying, "A lot of what he says is new. A lot of what he says is true. But nothing he says that is new is true." This is a perfect description of 60s Social Messages.

The fact that pollution was bad was not new. The standard prescription for it was not true. But the good old Obedience Trained Greatest generation never thought of that. And no one in the controlled media was allowed to say it if they did.

For the lost monopoly called "professional journalism" those were indeed the Good Old Days.