THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

REPLY TO LEMON | 2005-11-10

lemon, I would like to take you people who say you shouldn't comment on something and tear your ears off and stuff them down your throat.

Who do think these godlike people are who SHOULD comment on things?

Now to your point:

I believe that Jesus was wholly a man.

I even hope he was not perfect man, because a perfect man couldn't understand me any better than Jehovah could.

Jesus hungered, he thirsted, and, though I might be burned at the stake for saying it, he lusted, too.

Because he hungered and thirsted and he lusted, he knew how to tell us what to do about it, as you say.

The Old Testament begins by saying that God made us in his image.

The New Testament begins by telling us that God's son was begotten and that he was a man.

Jesus understood us far too well for someone who was not one of us.

CHANGING MEMORIES FASCINATE ME | 2013-08-31

comments to [email protected]

My experience came from a time leading up to the Reagan Administration, so it is often wildly out of date.

Someone commented that, considering how long it had been since I was active, I was able to predict things far better than those who are up to the minute.

I repeat a lot, being a propagandist, so I repeat my answer to this comment often:

If you are predicting the future, you must not be bogged down in the present.

The media, the internet and your next door neighbor will provide you with the Latest News and What It Means.

Every day is packed with articles and talk about What Just Happened and What It Means.

My unique contribution is that I chug along, blissfully unaware of what is in today's headlines.

The simple fact that being obsessed with what happened today is a guarantee you have no idea about the next generation.

But this leaves me by what I was raised with and what is alien to you.

For instance,when I was coming up, and in every generation before me, when you didn't finish your food, Mommy would say, "There are starving children in China and India who would love to have what you are just throwing away."

This was as routine a statement as the  old guy declaring, "When I was young, I had to Walk TEN MILES  in the snow to get to school."   I use that line on young people in the elevators today.  Invariably, all of them know about it and add interesting lines like "...uphill both ways."

Children WERE starving when I was young and when everybody else was young since the first  people.Â

Until now.

And I keep pointing out that that is a piece of news no one is aware of, or at least never mentions, but me.   They are busy with the Latest  News.

So I do wonder what Mommy, the real one not the Professor, says now when food is left on the plate.

The fact that Mother specifically mentioned India and China reflects a reality that was embedded in my youth: People starved in Asia, people had ALWAYS starved in Asia.

When Adam Smith published "Wealth of Nations" back in 1776, whole families starved to death in Europe,  But even then, Smith brought up China and India desperately poor by the European standards even of his day.  He even discussed the fact that while thousands were starving in China, India was even worse.

Commentary on these facts completely destroy everyone else's ability to put it into perspective.    Even if they read this, anti-whites will start yelling about how children are not starving but they are still hungry.

And pro-whites, even BUGSERS, are about as bad:

"See? This just proved we are DOOMED!  This is NOT good news, Bob!"

I didn't say it was.  These are more facts that need to be put in perspective about how the future looks, and you can't have perspective while your knees are jerking.

WORDISM CANNOT BE FREEDOM | 2009-11-04

A society which is based on a particular set of beliefs, no matter how much it cries "Freedom!" cannot in the long run be free. This is such a simple truth it is hard to state and even harder to deny.

Freedom is the right to believe what you will. A society which is based on a belief, no matter what that belief may be, cannot allow it to be doubted. Anyone who says "That is what America is a all ABOUT!" is an enemy of freedom, even if, in fact especially if, he declares America is all about Freedom.

That is why the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are such perfectly opposite documents. The Declaration was a propaganda document written in wartime. Those who confuse the two documents or find any continuity between them has no historical perspective at all.

That is why the Declaration was a unanimous declaration. The Constitution went into effect with two states still out. In the Declaration, slave states, which included most of them, cheerfully declared that all men were created equal and experts in British Law cheerfully declared that the King alone was responsible for almost everything Britain did.

No literate adult in 1776 would have believed either statement. But there was a WAR on.

There is not a single principle declared in the entire United States Constitution. "The people" were writing a CONTRACT. The President swore to uphold the Constitution. Today we are told this means Constitution "as interpreted by the Supreme Court." That is an oath no on who wrote or adopted the Constitution would have accepted:

"I swear to uphold and defend the latest opinion of the United States Supreme Court."

We al know that, if we give it the slightest thought.

But we do not give it the slightest thought.

We BELIEVE.

We believe in something that "America is all about," multiracialism, multiculturalism, Religious Truth, Freedom. And on each of these subject we read tomes which explain how only the set of beliefs set forward in the tome represent goodness and truth, the ONLY goodness and truth.

Documents like the Declaration are a dime a dozen. The Declaration of Rights in France a few years later led to a terror and tyranny worst than the Bourbon one, which was really awful. The Soviet Declarations led to a uniquely awful tyranny.

In fact, the Soviets not only had their Liberation Declaration, they adopted a Constitution in 1936 which announced FAR more freedom than the American one did. It even allowed secession.

But, just as our Constitution now has that little rider, "as interpreted by the Supreme Court," the 1936 Soviet Constitution took on a little rider which was not included in its words: "as interpreted by Comrade Stalin."

And, of course, the Soviet was "all about" Communism."

In fact, the National Socialists acted under the Weimar Constitution, which officially ruled Germany until May 8, 1945. It contained an Emergency Provision which gave the government the right to take ANY emergency measure, ACCORDING TO ITS OWN INTERPRETATION.

So both Hitler and Stalin demanded loyalty to the Constitution, subject to interpretation. Both Hitler and Stalin just said what Germany or the USSR was All About.

No one at the US Constitutional Convention would have allowed any one branch of level of government to say what America was all about. If you look at the Federalist Papers, the idea that any one branch, least of all the "least powerful of them," the Judiciary, would INTERPRET it.

What America was about from the get-go is not allowing anyone to say what America is all about. They had Stalin and Hitler figured out a century before they were born.

O'REILLY THE RETARD | 2005-08-13

I was fighting what is called the secularist agenda thirty years ago. I was marching, organizing marches, and doing press conferences against anti-religious textbooks the NEA was pushing. That was a generation ago, and all the conservatives thought I was being unrespectable.

As usual, decades later everybody is now discovering what I was doing a generation ago, and declaring it is good.

Even that poor little retard Bill O'Reilly is now denouncing the "secularist agenda," which he discovered after everybody else had long since seen it.

But I didn't fight the education establishment's agenda because it was non-religious. I attacked it because I had infinitely more respect for the deep wisdom of the Bible Belt, with all its faults, than I did for the hair-brained kooks who called themselves "intellectuals."

When Bill O'Reilly says that Political Correctness is secular, he is handing the professor-priesthood the first amendment on a silver platter. No matter how you try to talk around it the first amendment does NOT ban the government establishment of any form of secularism. It bans RELIGION.

Religion is not a bunch of people sitting in a church or synagogue or mosque. Scientology has the status of a religion, but it has no god. When Catholic priests first reached Asia they were astounded to discover that Buddhism was a religion with out a god.

Religion is a set of beliefs based on faith.

Political Correctness is a set of beliefs based entirely on faith. Every university requires you to do homage to "diversity," though there is no evidence whatsoever that this "diversity" has any value at all. That is a belief enforced on the basis of faith, but the professor-priesthood is able to enforce its faith because conservatives insist that the religion of the professor-priesthood is some kind of science, not religion.

Tens of millions of young people spend their entire lives paying for the professor-priesthood. Right now tens of millions of young people are paying off the back-breaking student loans they had to take out to pay to go to college.

I do not know a single one of them who doesn't know he was cheated.

But that is just the beginning.

After wasting four years of their lives in college taking courses they scarcely remember and ten years paying off their student loans, some of them are in their mid-thirties hoping to have families. But every child they have is going to require their putting aside huge piles of money, not for a home or for retirement, but for tuition.

All this is backed by government. College degrees are required by government. Government enforces accreditation, which is the life-blood our professor-priesthood lives on.

A generation of young people will spend their entire lives in vassalage to the professor-priesthood.

A whole generation of young people is ripe for rebellion.

They are not interested in O'Reilly's drivelings about secularism versus religion.

They want their FREEDOM.