THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

NO SPAM

NO SPAM

I find it rather strange that there needs to be

a "Human right" called freedom of speech.

I like children because they say what they think.

The first thing that comes into their heads.

Unfortunately with adults you can't say what you think.

I am not talking about hurting someone's feelings.

I talking about staying outside of prison,

or keeping my job so i can pay my Jewish extortionists

to keep a roof over my head when it rains.

Speaking my mind on Bob's blog

is about the only freedom i have.

Bob is a very powerful man.

A powerful man does not display power.

He empowers others.

Bob knows that banning people is sign of weakness.

Bob empowers others because he is interested in what is happening.

If people are fearful of saying the wrong thing

then all communication comes to an end.

I once knew someone who always said to me:

"Peter you are absolutely right".

The key word is ALWAYS.

Eventually, him saying that me, in respect to every argument

became very tiring. I wanted to be wrong for a change.

I wanted some opposition. I wanted him to struggle with the

things i was telling him. But no way.

What was intereting about this guy was that he actually

understood me, and he proved it to me by sometimes finishing

my arguments for me exactly as i would have done.

Dr Toeben in Adelaide does that also. I will start a speach

and then half way through Toeben finshes it for me.

That can be comforting. It can also be disturbing

when it is about something the other person

should not know about.

In the end i became so infuriated by the fact

that i was always abosultely right

that i offended him big time.

After that i never heard from him again.

In a way i regained my freedom.

I don't know why i am telling you this.

It just came to my mind.

But i think that in a movement such as ours

were we are up against a formidabler enemy

we need to strengthen each other.

We should know the common ground

and we should be working on the differences

There is an interesting theory which says that life is

interesting because people disaggree and that if

we had everyone in aggreement, then life would be boring.

This is an extension of the "life is meant to be conflict" theory.

But what people fail to see is that aggreement is not about

WHAT IS, no it is about the wordations and expressions.

Actually it is impossible to have disaggreement about WHAT IS.

We have disaggreements because we all have different capacities

to see what is at different times. We are not often synchronized.

The cop out is to say "we all have different viewpionts"

and then to say "they are all equally valid".

That is rubbish!

If there is a fire in our house and we have to put it out,

there can't be different viepoints about it,

unless some people want to burn down our house.

How about discussion along these lines.

In any given practical contex there can only be one truth.

The problem is human awareness or the lack of it.

Our enemies are not really evil.

They are not aware of the problem

or they benifit from the proplem.

Also from a community standpoint we need each other's awareness

and criticism [politely and kindly expressed]to keep each other aware.

I have no problem saying that i need Bob and others

to help me see things straight

and i belive Bob and others too are dependent

on other people who are not afraid

to speak their mind.

We are up against some of the most intractible problems

our race has been dogged with.

Our enemies seem to be winning and are overconfident

and blatently showing us their teeth

They tell us, "go look at the kids of Lebanon

whom we killed, burned and maimed with immunity.

Your kids will be next unless you are nice to us

and give us what we want".

There must be solutions.

I want to work with Bob and all others

to create and implement solutions.

We don't need many members.

The quality of individuals is most important.

I will say honestly and without exaggeration

If i had only 10 people of the calibre of Bob

and who where relatively young and loyal to me,

because they undertood the challange facing all of us,

then we could change the world bejond your wildest dreams.

We don't need a huge number of activists.

We need only a sufficient number and of the highest quality.

I know it is racist and possibly divisive

to talk about people of the highest quality.

But that is what i believe.

PGB

NOT SPAM

Here's what I think: I have watched and been fasinated by William F. Buckley. There is a great deal to admire in the man. But there is also this truth: William F. Buckley sold out. Not only that, he is well aware of his crime.

I know William F. Buckley well enough to know that he would never disrespect someone like Bob Whitaker. Also, it is never difficult to intuit how other people really feel and what that secretly think. You see, Buckley is an old man and the cemetary is staring him in the face. In the end, after you are dead, there is only who you really were, not who you pretended to be.

And Buckley is a man who sold out. He had a price and he took it. Bob Whitaker never and will never do that. At this stage of Buckley's life, can you imagine how envious he is of Bob Whitaker?

You don't get into heaven by being disloyal and cutting deals.

That is why most politicians are so utterly vile. They make a virtue out of a terrible crime.

The "realists" tell you that there cannot be governance without compromise. My answer to them is that they can go to hell.

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

I think that MOST of our enemies are not really evil. But I do think that it is possible for a mere human to deliberately choose to be evil.

I think the core of the argument is to convince people that what's going on in the white world is genocide even though 1. it does not involve violence and 2. most people don't care or don't see it that way. You have to be able to answer questions like, "Why do you care about what color people are?"