THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

I assume everyone here knows who Edgar J. Steele is. He writes an excellent article on this. He took my assertion (which I sent him) that elections are now not just fraudulent, but fictitious and tightened it up. Presidents have been selected far in advance of electioneering for some time now, but now with Diebold, there is perfect, rather than partial, creation of results.

He also draws interesting conclusions about Obama. To summarize, since presidential elections are complete inventions now, the old political machines are obsolescent. The Ron Paul campaign has massive popular support, and ordinary people are figuring out that something smells fishy. Obama is the only candidate who can be sold as coming from outside the system ("it's time for change," they say), as opposed to Hillary and McCain.

Obama is also the obvious favorite to the genociders.

Steele also notes Obama's unexplainable success in delegate-gathering. Thus he concludes that he was pre-selected and calls the election for Obama.

This partially explains Paul's fizzle, but he wonders why Paul has not used his millions to fight the Diebold.

This should be enough...

Quotes mine.

"Presidents have been selected far in advance of electioneering for some time now, but now with Diebold, there is perfect, rather than partial, creation of results."

This quote implies to me that the so-called choice of "President" has always been subject to the influence of certain inside interests.

That being the case, what possible motive would these people have to suddenly change the rules and draw attention to themselves?

Pain, don't you think Steele has gone off the deep end somewhat with his message that all is lost, the economic collapse and government tyranny are now inevitable so you better stock up on food, guns and ammunition?

I've heard that people have been saying this stuff for fifty years and yet things continue. I've also heard that there is fraud in every election. Let's say Dr. Paul really got 5% in some states instead of 4%? So what? My guess is that a candidate should be popular enough so that fraud in favor or against him or her will balance out.

Bob, you may have noticed a thread in the Opposing Views section of Stormfront about how to deal with the 'whites stole America from the Indians' thing. I posted your elegantly simple reply - "If you receive stolen goods you have the moral and legal obligation to return it" - but that's clearly not complex enough for the average WN.

I remember many years ago talking to one of the most successful British politicians of the last 30 years, and holder of the Nobel Peace Prize. He said something that stuck in my head - "I work out a phrase that sums up what I want to say, and I repeat it over and over again, every chance I get. When I hear other people using the phrase when arguing with me, I know I've succeeded."

I said "Doesn't it get boring, saying the same thing over and over again? Don't people just switch off?" He told me that the average person remembers only about 1% of what you say to them, and the only way to get things into their heads is to hammer it in.

Bob's the only other person I've known who understands this, and he's working for OUR side.

The average WN comes is an offshoot of respectable conservatism ran by the Buckleys in a Buckleyesqe fashion of effite snobbery. A real right would research the facts, present them in plain language and then let political spinmeisters distill the message down to a sentence. Instead we get worship of Buckley as the ideal, and we get PHDs such as the Chronicles crew in search of purity where they spend as much time bashing the right as they do in basic research.

in reply to Pain:

you wrote, discussing Edgar Steele's comments:

<blockquote cite="">The Ron Paul campaign has massive popular support, and ordinary people are figuring out that something smells fishy.</blockquote>

in reply:

There's a larger issue Steele has not addressed, as yet; that's not "fishy," that's a damn fish fry.

<blockquote cite="">This partially explains Paul's fizzle, but he wonders why Paul has not used his millions to fight the Diebold.</blockquote>

in reply:

I think Someone took him aside and had The Talk.

Nixon had a variation of this, where senior statesmen of the Republican Party (including, if memory serves, Barry Goldwater) took him aside at the end of Watergate and told him it was over...

Each of us will see very few Talks in our life; these are the moments where the men who own the show send their hand-picked representative to show someone what their part in The Big Game REALLY amounts to.

Most of the time, we have been so trained that our eyes only see what we were TOLD is there, and dare not see what IS there, waiting in the shadows, hiding around the corner, waiting for us to cross some invisible line, like, say, Dr. Revilo Oliver did.

Paul was tolerated by the Party Elders; goos show for the "Conservatives," no threat to any one.

I think The Talk - usually given by someone of the status of James Baker - told him of a quiet, comfortable life that would continue to be his if he did what he was supposed to do, and unspoken sanctions were close to hand, if he decided to take all of this "democracy" stuff too seriously.

Thus, at the end of the day, Obama is THE most "Conservative" candidate.

Under Obama, nothing will change for the better, no trend lines will be even slowed, much less reversed...

Can't get more "Conservative" than no change at all...

That takes us to Yearning For Freedom's comments.

Yearning For Freedom wrote:

<blockquote cite="">Let's say Dr. Paul really got 5% in some states instead of 4%? So what? My guess is that a candidate should be popular enough so that fraud in favor or against him or her will balance out. </blockquote>

in reply:

Paul had something going that was much more substantial than a mere 4 or 5% of the vote.

Paul had built an organization that was fluid, beyond the control of Federal campaign funds, and could have been the nucleus of a coalition - a Party - that would have realized that every single one of its issues ultimately leads to a Positive Theory of Race.

Paul's formless national network could have been the ideal vehicle for a political party that would represent White interests, using the terms of "Faith, Family, and the Constitution."

I suspect this was the deeper fear of the owners of American politics, who decided to turn the lights out on this in a hurry.

My nephews still have not heard back from the local Ron Paul Meet-Up people, and, as I have just explained to them, they won't hear from them.

As I also explained to them, from now on, it's up to them...

Shari.

I understand your concern. I just wanted to say well done. I have also posted on that site under Bobs comment.

The point is we have seen all they have and its pathetic, lets find more sites and give them hell.

BTW. I forget to back up the word "GENOCIDE" in my post on the chronicles. That was a mistake that I guess cant edit.

Old habits die hard!

Thank you Lord Nelson. I'll try to help. I think that giving anti-white racists hell is definately the right and "above board" thing to do.