THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

BLAST FROM THE PAST: LIBERALS CELEBRATE THE LITTLETON MASSACRE | 2013-01-09

Original run May 7th, 2000.

People in Littleton, Colorado say they are very upset about the release of tapes showing the shootings there. I saw one person after another in Littleton expressing disbelief about how their tragedy was being "used."

But I didn't hear any such complaints about the blatant use of the tragedy by liberals.

Like vultures, liberals swoop in on every tragedy that involves a gun, and everybody seems to think they have a right to. Nobody argues that the same old gun control measures would have had any effect at all in preventing the Colorado tragedy. But those who act so outraged about the tape seem to agree that anything the left wants to use as grist for its mill is just fine.

So I am less than impressed by Littleton's supposed outrage at those who made the tape. And the liberal media are right in their showing wild resentment at anyone ELSE who uses their tragedy for their own purposes.

Recently I read an editorial where a liberal was quoting a law enforcement veteran who opposed gun control. Then he said, "In fairness to him, he expressed these views before the Littleton incident." In other words, one was to assume that everybody's mind was changed on gun control by the fact that two kids went on a killing rampage in Littleton, Colorado.

Now let me ask you, is there anyone who can take the liberal crocodile tears about the incident at Littleton seriously? Are any liberals really concerned about the people killed there?

As the anniversary of the tragedy was marked by intense media attention, some people in Littleton were asking why. Why, they ask, don't we put the tragedy behind us?

The reason is that liberals consider Littleton one of the finest occurrences of the decade, and they want to savor it.

THE KING OF TTGHS | 2014-12-18

From January to December, 1936, Edward VIII was King of England.

He was openly and totally pro-Hitler.

His ambition was to get Germany a means to attack the USSR directly.

Edward VIII gave up his crown to marry Mrs. Simpson, a divorced woman who was working on her second divorce. As head of the Church of England, he had to give up his crown.

Hitler said that, if he had been warned and could get to the King, he might have prevented the abdication.

Edward VIII went to Germany to celebrate his marriage! He was that openly pro-Hitler!

In his demoted position as Royal Duke, Edward was sent to work in Paris, but removed because he was so pro-German! During the Blitz, he wrote letters to Berlin supporting the Blitz, because, as is true, Britain started open civilian bombing.

The King still had enormous powers. Staying out of politics is entirely voluntary. No declaration of war could have been effected without the monarch's signature. The House of Lords gave us its right to block legislation, like war, because the King had announced in the early 1830's that, if they tried it, the King would appoint peers to give the democratic ones the majority.

And in 1939, the peers were overwhelmingly opposed to war.

Pat Buchanan wrote a book about how insane the British September of 1939 declaration of war against Germany was.

Without that declaration, Germany would have expended its energies against Russia. Germany would have won, but their dumbass Napoleonic strategy would have taken war out of fashion and the Lebensraum would have been won.

Britain would have returned a long way toward monarchy and the European Empires would have remained. The United States would still be largely isolationist outside of the Monroe Doctrine, and Britain and Germany would jointly rule the world.

We would have gone after our Communists here and in South America.

But King Edward wanted his way. He wanted to defy all those who would limit him.

In the end, his decision was TTGH. If he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted, he would Take His Toys and Go Home in the name of Romance.

TTGH: As a Matter of Principle – or Romance – we will have our own way and the cause be damned.

HOLOCAUST DENIER | 2005-11-23

As a freeborn American, I do not believe ANYTHING that ANY government requires me to believe.

That is one of the basic principles my country was founded on.

That is one of the basic reasons we came here in the first place.

I'll die for it.

WORDISM: A GOOD WORDIST NEVER LETS REALITY SLOW HIM DOWN | nationalsalvation.net

Those who talk about Change cannot deal with real, honest-to-God change, just as the last people who know love are those who shout Love incessantly. No one is a better hater than a person who insists he is fighting Hate.

Marxism believed it was obvious that the best economy would be a PLANNED one. Instead of all that inefficient competition everyone would just pull together in an organized fashion. The term Social Progress has been laughed out of existence. Now they call it Change, though I haven't even heard that term in a while.

But Social Progress or Change, it means that Political Correctness knows exactly where society is going, that it is going in his direction, so Change is on his side. Which is the exact set of assumptions that got Social Progress laughed off the map.

Wordists all claim to know exactly where the world is headed. Every Wordist also knows that if he could consistently predict the stock market that way, he could BUY the world in a few years. When pea brains like that actually take over an economy, anybody who should be trusted with sharp objects should know what would happen. But the experts and intellectuals declared it a success until it literally collapsed before their eyes.

The fatal weakness of Change is that it cannot deal with the slightest bit of real change. Marx assumed that what he thought were the trends of his day would continue unchanged. The proletariat would get poorer and more desperate. Even as he wrote, the first we of the city proletariat was becoming management and beginning to buy property and workers were being given the vote.

None of this concerned Marx in the least. A good Wordist never lets reality slow him down.

Everything here RELATES. To an extent a present reader finds it impossible to conceive, the Middle East was the absolute basis of ALL thinking that thought itself civilized In Marx's day. There was no real change. Every Great Civilization progressed through rigid phases. The High Culture was the pyramid-building and scribe phase Egypt had reached and we had fallen from.

You don't need a free market to tell you how to build a pyramid. In fact you don't need a market economy to do ANYTHING that twentieth century history says High Cultures did. All you need is scribes to plan and organize it.

Meanwhile out in the real world slamming an Egypt-style planned economy into the modern world was like taking the Wright Brothers' plane up against a modern jet fighter.

And that is why what I say sounds so confusing. After a lifetime of being given exact plans and specifications for building an endless number of Wordist pyramids, I am trying to get you back to a system that visibly takes Wordism apart when it goes for a test flight. I do not NEED a mass movement. I need to push certain basics to keep the movement in a rational direction.

But, as with the economy, the apparent winner is the equivalent of planning, the torchlight parade approach. Just as a Great Civilization was based on building pyramids, a great movement is based on getting millions of people out on the street. That is why someone like me spends WEEKS arranging that "spontaneous" crowd when The Candidate shows up. That's the way Harry Truman did it and, by gum, that's the way it's done NOW!

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, mass meetings are strictly for show. The real campaign is one-on-one or the despised "campaign slogan," which is really an attempt to express the public mood, however crude. It is not "good" in the sense Marx would define a "good" economy. A campaign slogan is as hit-or-miss, when judged on its "goodness" as the latest trend in consumer spending. But have you ever LISTENED to the total, changeless crap that is shouted at mass meetings. They are mobs, with the IQ of mobs.

The age of TV moved from the mass meeting to the slogan. Has anybody noticed that we are no longer in the age where television is the Latest Thing? In our age, an idea very rapidly becomes either outdated or a challenge that must be met. This is the first time in history when the ordinary person has the POWER to DEMAND an answer. It is very, VERY hard to do so, but one of my favorite things is watching the old "professional journalists" get together and moan about this modern age when "professionals" no longer control every outlet.

Thirty years ago everyone knew who the Anchor Man on CBS was. I don't. IS there one?

People always want me to present a more "solid" set of ANSWERS. Everyone you know can present you with a solid list of what constitutes Change. Everyone but me. I deal in a world that changes from year to year. Rule One: No kind of Change can deal with real changes.