THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

ORWELLS SHEEP AND WOLVES | 2011-03-01

George Orwell wrote two books of true prophecy: 1984 and Animal Farm.

In Animal Farm the pig Napoleon, Stalin's prototype, used two sets of mindless animals a his trump cards. While his Trotsky rival was preaching his opposition message, Napoleon quietly took some puppies and raised them on his own.

The dogs, as dogs will, had nothing in their minds but absolute loyalty to Napoleon because they saw no one else. One day when his opponent was speaking, Napoleon simply released his dogs and his opponent barely escaped with his life, and was never seen again on Animal Farm.

I have said Mommy Professor treats blacks as animals. To drive off any opposition in his bailiwicks, Mommy Professor raises his army of screaming blacks and other dogs and releases them on any real dissenter. He then says he can't help it since they're just animals and he must ban any real opposition because the animals will make trouble.

We have just had a good example of the animal strategy here. While the dogs were being raised, Napoleon used the sheep to put down opposition. The sheep were the dumbest animals on the farm. They could barely repeat a single phrase.

The motto of Animal Farm's anti-human philosophy was "Two legs bad, four legs good!"

So Napoleon taught the sheep, who couldn't think of anything else, to shriek, "Two legs bad, four legs good!" whenever he gave them the signal. That totally drowned out his opposition while the puppies grew into his wolves.

We saw a good example of the sheep strategy in Vox, who just shouted and roamed around. He couldn't read BUGS and that was not is job. He did what Minority Spokesmen did for so long, he simply repeated his own slogans and filibustered.

Even on Animal Farm, the dogs and sheep were looked upon as mere animals. The sheep simply bleated loudly and the dogs became mindless obedient wolves.

Which is exactly what Mommy Professor does with minorities. No one expects them to reason. They are wolves and bleating sheep, and no one is allowed to say so, because that would indicate some sort of inferiority, which the bleats and animal attackers will not allow.

HOW ANTIS ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG | 2006-07-25

You will never hear a liberal or a respectable conservative admit that the old liberals were

just plain WRONG. That is why respectable conservatism has embraced neoconservatism.

Neoconservatism says that liberals were never just plain wrong. Neoconservatism says that

those of us who warned where liberalism was heading before 1970 were wrong.

Neoconservatism says that liberalism was perfectly right until on or about January 1, 1970.

On that date, leftism suddenly went nuts. National Review today says that the founders of

National Review were wrong and evil when, in 1955, they founded that publication on the idea

that leftism would lead stright to all the disasters we have today. National Review insists

that it is all for every liberal program until 1970.

On the other hand, if you look at the intellectual basis of liberalism in the 1950s, it is

laughable. They insisted that anone who hinted that the average IQ or even the running

speed of different races was innately different was anaziwhowantedtokillsixmillionjews.

They would FIRE any professor who insisted on the importance of genes. They made it law

that anyone who said animals had the kind of discrimination that capitalist society has

produced was a Hitlerite.

And that was just one of their absurdities. Today we know that every social animals has a

rigid caste structure.

So how can liberals/respectable cosnervatives/neoconservatives insist they were right?

First, by strategic forgetfulness. No one at National Review will admit that liberals said

what they said back then.

Second, there is code for saying they were just plain wrong. Now that all the crap about

how there was no such thing as heredity is known by everybody not only to be crap, but to be

OBVIOUS crap, they use the code term, "Does not exist." So today, instead of admitting they

were just plain WRONG that there was, practically speaking, no such thing as heredity and

everything was environment, liberals/respectable conservatives/neoconservaties/libertarians

all agree that there is no such thing as heredity and environment.

So they used to say that environment was everything. But now that that is obvious nonsense,

they say they were never WRONG, it was just simplistic. You see, there is now no such thing

as heredity or environment.

On race, it is pretty obvious that different races run at different speeds. Ask whites in

the Boston Marathon if they think they can beat East Africans. Well, since that argument

was ridiculous from the get-go, they say there is no such thing as race.

Just as the code term for anti-white is "anti-racist" the code term for "We were ridicuous"

is "Us real Intellectuals know that whatever it is we were wrong about never existed."

COLOR THINGS UP! | 2004-06-15

I often compliment large black women on the bright colors they are wearing.

This makes them feel good, which is gives me pleasure, but that is not why I do it. I am constitutionally incapable of lying to someone to make them feel good.

Well-chosen bright colors look great against a background of very, very dark and especially black skin. The women I compliment have carefully chosen the bright color best suited for them and others to enjoy.

I appreciate that, and I say so.

Yuppies and Women's Libbers would consider those bright colors large black women wear as a sign that those women are "veddy, veddy lower clahss" or " violating of the Dignity of Black Women" or whatever the latest bitch is that they got from the Yuppie Independent Thought Factory this week.

So where bright colors are most needed, they are absent.

Working in an office is boring enough. Some bright colors would help a LOT there. But women there wear the uniform prescribed by the Yuppie Independent Thought Factory. They all wear the same dark, severely cut business outfits that make them look like monks doing penance.

SIEGECRAFT: POPULIST FORUM HISTORY | nationalsalvation.net

The UK Defense Ministry's Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre recently issued a new report:

"The middle classes could become a revolutionary class. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat... Faced by these twin challenges, the world's middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest."

The report argues that the era of major wars between nation states is over, but that cooperation among nation states on policies that produce ever greater disparities of wealth will usher in an era of class warfare between classes of citizens across national boarders.

Substitute the word "white race" for "middle classes" and "class interest" and the Concepts and Doctrine Centre may have it right.

Comment by Dave

ME:

Dave is describing something very close to the Middle American Radicals (MARs) talked about below.

In Argentina, it was the independent truckers who put down the Communist Allende who had been elected in a three-way race and installed Pinochet. The independent truckers owned their own trucks, and were the "petit Bourgeois" described by Marxists as the basis is fascism.

They are also the "kulaks" that Stalin destroyed in his Ukrainian slaughter. They are working people who have earned something of their own. They are what WE call "the middle class." They are the Americans I worked with.

And this is what Donald I. Warren saw. The problem with any form of Wordism, including "progressivism" and Marxism, is that it is a STATIC answer to the Inevitable Future of Man. These last two are based on the Ex Oriente Lux view, which cannot escape its Middle Eastern roots. It sees society as pyramid shaped, with the rich on top and the exploited, illiterate, hopeless masses on the bottom.

And, as always, this means no form of Wordism WORKS. Marx predicted that, as industry grew, the masses would become more and more helpless and their income would go down to subsistence level.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, there has been a growing petit bourgeois, kulak, middle class in the West. But to explain this, I must first get by what every whiner loves to whine, "The rich get richer the poor get poorer." Just please keep that whine back a bit.

Dave highlighted the growing class tension that ACTUALLY exists. It goes back to a quote from Charles Issawi, an Egyptian-American professor. It said that America is NOT pyramid-shaped, it is EGG-shaped. Instead of a pyramid where the huge bottom is at odds with the peak, we and every other Western country have a situating where the MIDDLE is big and the poor on the bottom and the rich make common cause in a war on the middle majority.

This violates everything on which progressivism and Marxism base their Middle Eastern World View. The revolutionary class is normally very conservative. Nothing is more conservative than a man who has worked his tail off and now owns his own truck or a woman who has worked her tail off and owns a beauty shop.

So the armchair whiner said I caused no revolution in my key role of helping Wallace become a major force and then making Wallace Democrats into Reagan Democrats. But, FOR THEM, the most conservative element of society, it was a revolution. They will never be the same again, though they lapse back into the Silent Majority Mode regularly. That is GENERIC conservatism. It was an inertia that took ME two decades to break, though the armchair strategist thought he could have done it with a limp wave of his hand.

He didn't. I did.

But the realization is coming once again upon our kulaks that the very rich, of whom the Hollywood Elite is only the tip of the iceberg, are their ENEMY, and the welfare class is also their enemy. To radicalize the most naturally conservative element in society can only be done by a titanic effort, one that the forces of Political Correctness are putting forth by making our petit bourgeoisie, the hated "white guy in front of the TV in a sweatshirt with a beer in his hand" the nigger and kike of our society.

As Dave shrewdly notes, revolutions always BEGIN by using the terminology of the society they are beginning to overthrow. So this has always been put in terms of a CLASS struggle, the language of Political Correctness, progressivism, and Marxism.

Since Donald I. Warren's day, it is harder and harder for people under the radar to suppress the obvious fact that now, since the in pouring of the third world into EVERY white country, a RACE struggle.