THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

What year did Lawrence Brown die?

I'm guessing Pain's problem concerns religion.

This may be a good place to point out something that I have became increasingly aware of the past several months.

Reading various blogs and forums one is struck by what Must be a burning desire of many Whites to reestablish an EXTREME fundamentalist Puritanical type theocracy in the United States.

There is a high percentage of people who are convinced that a good dose of Jesus, enforced at the point of a gun if necessary, will solve ALL of our problems.

The apparent essentials of the desired doctrine appear to be no drinking, no cussing and no sex. Abstinence from these three vices, you see, are what constitutes a good Aryan man or woman.

Moreover, sexuality, and this includes admiration of sexy women, is totally JEWISH. Since I am at the moment single and occasionally seek out attractive women to bed, I am behaving as a JEW and a disgrace to the White race. In fact, any sort of arousal I might experience is not a result of me being a healthy man, no, it is rather a result of JEWISH PROPAGANDA.

Does everyone understand?

I have two comments for these people who labor these sentiments:

You are either closet homosexuals or you have a very very SERIOUS PROBLEM.

I don't like and want no part of this evidently growing mindset of "the movement."

I have said it many times and now will say it again. These people are not pro White, they are religious fanatics of the worst stripe. For these folks, saving my race is subordinate to their crusade for God and Jesus.

This is what happened to the anti communist movement, this is why it FAILED. Let's not let it happen to the far more important WAR for the survival of our race and civilization.

Bob-

Just because I am wholeheartedly loyal to you does not mean I give you permission to abuse me like a two-bit traffic cop.

I guess you may have seen red over the word "drivel," but it referred only to Dan Brown and the goofy sources he reworked. Brown and they are goofy because they get basic historical facts wrong in outlandishly humorous ways. But to be fair to Brown, he published the book as fiction.

By the way, it seems that the consensus <i>is</i> that (Dan) Brown actually did write the book, although basing it heavily on others as research. I don't think you care about that, though.

I'll explain below.

---------------------

You said <a href="http://whitakeronline.org/blog/2008/03/09/lawrence-browns-basic-point/ rel="nofollow">here</a>:

<blockquote> To ME, and maybe not to him, <b>Brown made a point</b> I cogitate about.

I read <b>the Da Vinci Code</b> and realized that accepted history still obsesses on Constantine. In the Code, he was supposed to have unilaterally changed the whole Church and made it wholly male-dominated. That reflects the usual accepted history doctrine that there was a united Church that was perverted when Constantine saw those words, not a Cross, in the sky.

But one man didn't do all that, whether in accepted history or in the Da Vinci Code. My thesis, which is open to correction, is that Constantine was practical politician of his own time.

I stressed the importance of realizing one's POINT OF VIEW. Brutus is right that <b>Brown was an engineer and a mathematician</b>, so he looked at things from that standpoint. That is an important observation. My background is power politics, so naturally I look at things that way.

What <b>Lawrence</b><b>...</b></blockquote>

Here you say "Brown made a point" and immediately talk about the Da Vinci Code, authored by Brown, Dan Brown. Why would anything think you meant a different author in a different book?

You should know that I am on your side. This is why I wrote: "This is embarrassing to me." Obviously if I weren't on your side, it wouldn't be embarrassing to me. This is also why I waited until your post was down the page before I pointed out the mistake. I thought you would appreciate the comment, but I didn't want to call attention to a mistake (or proofreading error?) at the top.

You invited such comments with: "My thesis, which is open to correction," although I don't think I doubt that particular thesis.

So why the ad hominems? You said:

<blockquote> This does not make you look too bright.

This is a matter of where you are coming from. You are very upset with my version of history. Talk about what actually is bothering you. THAT might be productive.</blockquote>

This is not like you at all. Is it?

Brutus-

You can't make a point valid by ad hominem statements and name-calling.

By that, I mean this:

<blockquote>You are either closet homosexuals or you have a very very SERIOUS PROBLEM.</blockquote>

Name-calling is always an admission of a feeling of defeat. When one can't make a point, one calls the imagined enemy a naughty name.

This is also a sign of an inability to work with others.

Put another way, by calling others whom you disagree with naughty names, you are saying that you and only you are the deciding factor of what reality is. It means you cannot admit to a reality greater than yourself.

This is self-worship.

And no self-worshipper is loyal to a race.

No self-worshipper is loyal to anything or anybody.

This is why you must resort to name-calling against someone who is loyal to the race as something greater than himself.

Why be loyal to yourself first and last?

And all know that anyone who is quick to call someone else a homosexual is always and every time a homosexual.

You can't worship yourself and be loyal.

What do you call men who have an apparent strong aversion to sex with women?

You have evidently got your underwear in a knot about something.

I also made a point that it is obvious: that a good many White people place their religion above the race. You responded by asserting that I must worship myself and am therefore not interested in OUR race. I have heard this argument used somewhere before. It smacks of what certain preachers demand of people, i.e., to abolish ALL pride in oneself. One has but to look around to see that this doctrine has taken root. I have no use for persons who have lost their manhood.

Perhaps you do.

Refute my original post here point by point and I will take YOU seriously.

Until then I will simply chalk you up as yet another religious fanatic.

By the way, I was not referring to you personally in my post, yet YOU responded to ME with an ad hominem attack( by implying I am a homosexual).