THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

THE UNION | 2006-10-22

William Fox wants me to write the book on "Wordism" I wanted to write and to write an American history from the Southern white point of view.

Sometimes a person who gives out good advice is the last to listen to what he himself says. I keep telling you that all my ideas must interrelate. I suddenly realized that both these concepts interrelate as a single subject. The Southern concept of the American Union versus that of Lincoln's is a classic example of racism versus Wordism.

We always saw America as united by RACE. The settling of the British colonies was always looked upon as an extension of the expansion of the Indo-European, Aryan RACE. The covered wagons we used to move westward even LOOKED like the ones our Aryan ancestors used as they moved, wave after wave, into Europe, Iran, and India.

We no longer find it easy to think of India or Iran as a part of that migration because they are no longer WHITE.

Our ancestors went to America by ship. But my Weissaker ancestors took over Britain by ship, too. I don't have to tell you about the Vikings.

Not a single word of the ancient ship-talk we all now about has a Middle Eastern origin. From jib to yardarm, it is all old Saxon stuff.

To get back to the interrelation of my thought, you remember that I have said repeatedly that those who hate invariably use the word "Hate" to describe their enemies, that the person who is our to destroy education poses as a champion of Education?

Lincoln talked endlessly about Freedom and put America under martial law to win the 1864 election.

And, above all, Lincoln talked about Saving the Union.

So by now it is routine to the point of a yawn for you and me to look for the person who destroyed the Union to look for the person who shouted "Union" loudest.

Today we have the fruits of Lincoln's labors. The idea of single united America is going down the tubes, and everybody knows it.

The Union was a result of the Aryan movement into America. In the Dred Scot Decision, the Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that America was a WHITE country, and that was the basis of our Union. Southern states owned slaves, but Northern states benefited from that more than the South did.

But in 1863 Lincoln ended THAT Union once and for all. He threw away the Preamble to our Constitution, on which the Union was based, and declared that America is based on the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, that ALL men were created equal, that ALL men made up America.

Lincoln talked about a house divided against itself cannot stand. But that is precisely what we have today, a house divided against itself. And every day it is MORE divided.

When Yankees took the side of the blacks and the Indians against us, their fellow whites, they destroyed the contract that had taken America all the way to the Pacific Ocean. The Fourteenth Amendment was the final nail in that coffin.

So I propose that the two books be one book.

What say ye?

COMMENTS (15)

#1 Alan B | 2006-10-22 14:26

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

I like the idea of writing just one book Bob. Wordism and the Southern view point on American history do interrelate, so here we can kill two birds with oge stone. This presents an opportunity to explain the interrelationship of race, racism, politics and propaganda. Like today, race and racism was used to divide the people and a people divided is a house divided, the possibilities this book could present are endless, do it Bob.

#2 Dave | 2006-10-22 16:15

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

I am all for concise books that provide effective education in the reasons for our troubles. That is BWs strength: effective writing and inventing effective phrases.

The triumph of Lincoln was the triumph of a certain brand of defamation that has morphed into the "political correctness" of today. Defamation is the "wordist" component of the bare-knuckled politics that rests ultimately on force and intimidation.

The bullies that rule us use defamation as a technique because it is so effective. It is effective because people in general have low coping ability with being attacked.

However, the South did not loose the War because Southerners had low coping abilities. Instead, our people were butchered and slaughtered wholesale. After the slaughter, an endless effort of defamation and intimidation ensued that is currently in force.

We have no arguments to win. We need to focus on the development of virility and personal bearing in our white nationalist convictions. I know that BWs writings will be supportive the development of virility and personal bearing on the part of our people.

His genius lies with the invention of words that convey conviction and virility: Words like "Mommy Professor"; "Respectable Conservative"; "Religion of Political Correctness".

David Duke takes the time to concede that he is not a "hater" of nonwhites in an attempt to ward off vicious attacks. I appreciate that BW does not do this. It is strength not to do this. Tyrants endlessly work on convincing the public that their emotions are not to be trusted.

There is a huge industry devoted to the control of emotions. Jews pretending to be Christians are particularly drawn to this industry. FDR's phrase "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" is endlessly repeated in the media.

Who out there is telling us that fear, no matter how irrational, always has as its object something fully valid in reality? Who out there is telling us that we have a right to our hatred?

That is why I like BW. He comes out and says it: Your fear is real and your hatred is to be honored. What a relief!

#3 Mark | 2006-10-22 17:44

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

Outstanding idea, but then history has always been fun for me, so I can't speak for everyone.

At least it would be more fun to read than Joe Sobran's necro-love-affair with the late William Shakespeare.

#4 Simmons | 2006-10-22 19:35

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

Better than going to Iran especially since we are near breaking the dhimminitude of PC.

#5 Shari | 2006-10-22 19:59

Not Spam

It sounds as if the two could dovetail together very well. I would love to see a lot more people see and be able to say,just how jerked around we are, by words. Words that might be true in context,but they have been moved and changed somewhere. Love your neighbor has been changed to, forget about your neighbor,even your own children, and invite the world into your home. It's perverse.

#6 Mark | 2006-10-22 21:07

not SPAM

NOT spam

"David Duke takes the time to concede that he is not a "hater" of nonwhites in an attempt to ward off vicious attacks."

I don't think Duke does this to ward off attacks; I believe he does it because he's telling the truth. I, on the other hand, make no bones about my lack of love for the darker races. I readily admit to having a hatred for our enemies and when I talk about race to people I'm the first to label myself a raist bigot. It takes the wind out of my opponents sails and it stalls them into listening to Bob's Mantra at least once.

#7 Mark | 2006-10-22 21:11

NOT SPAM NOT SPAM

Bob, a side note here:

Just posted your blog in 3 seperate places on an internet news item's "Discuss This" section. The news article was all about the 300,000,000th. "American" citizen. After posting the Mantra it was funny to find Yahoo pulling the piece from a large front page headline story to a tiny, tiny print - tossed to the side and out of sight - article.

I may be patting myself and the Mantra on the back w/o reason, but it was coincidentally humorous.

#8 Mark | 2006-10-22 21:13

not spam

not spam

Make that: "Just posted your Mantra in 3 seperate places..." TAlk about needing a proof reader!

#9 joe odin | 2006-10-22 21:40

NOT SPAM

TOTALLY NOT SPAM

LOVE IS HATE. PEACE IS WAR. WHITE IS BLACK.

Lies work extrememly well on our people. We expect the truth because we are generally truthful. When Lincoln told us that he wanted to preserve the union, we listened. When Bush told us whatever Bush told us, we listened. We always expect the truth. When we dont get it, we are surprised.

I think it is ingrained in our race. We are suseptible to fast talking liars hence the power of jews in our nations. Millions of books can be written about the subject but until we start thinking as a race, more books would be a waste of trees that need to be hugged.

#10 Pain | 2006-10-22 23:16

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

Bob, when in the past I have said you write what I am thinking, I didn't mean you verbalize my hidden beliefs. I meant that you actually write in the very words I was using that day at the same time. Do I have an implant in my neck recording what I say and think? ;-)

For example, about the time you would have been writing the above, I was reading page 111 in The Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver in regard to the debates between Webster (who was on the Rothschild's payroll) and Hayne. To be honest, I just opened my book to this page, and it was so good, I knew it was important. Then I saw it in your blog:

"Hayne reminded Webster first of how he had shifted his position on the tariff between 1824 and 1828 and then of New England had failed to support the Union during the War of 1812, citing especially the Hartford Convention.

In the conclusion Hayne returned to the chief issue by stating the doctrine of reserved power.

The worst enemies of the Union were the promoters of consolidation.

The "Carolina doctrine" was merely a re-affirmation of the Kentucky-Virginia resolutions of '98. It was republican doctrine:

<blockquote>Sir, as to the doctrine that the Federal Government is the exclusive judge of the extent as well as the limitations of its power, it seems to me to be utterly subversive of the sovereignty and independence of the States. It makes little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power.</blockquote>

South Carolina had tried to preserve the Union by the only means through which it could be preserved -- resistance to usurpation.

He closed with a quotation from Burke: "You must pardon something to the spirit of liberty."

By this time the conflict of interests was clear... (Hayne) had managed to touch upon several of the chief topics... and he injected into the exchange one word about which the whole argument may revolve logically -- the word "liberty."

By now Bob is falling asleep, but my comment is that the South carried the day with rhetoric. Webster and company were failing over and over again in their speeches, but they used them as a delay to give them time to wrap up the financial deals they needed and to arrange that the elections soon to come would be divided four-ways. The consolidationists would need that four-way split, since they could never win the popular vote.

Rule of thumb: The powerful use debate to buy themselves time and take the good off guard.

The good use heroism and self-sacrifice, such as in the Alamo, to buy the good time and take the powerful off guard.

To buy time, each uses its own weakness. The powerful use debate (lies always lose to truth in open debate), the good use power (the Alamo was a tiny outpost and Santana headed an empire).

#11 IFA | 2006-10-23 01:33

Hi,

You might find my blog of interest.

IFA

#12 IFA | 2006-10-23 01:33

Oops, here it is: iranianforaryans.blogspot.com

#13 Shari | 2006-10-23 10:07

Not Spam

Don't lies work extremely well with other races as well? They seem to be convinced that if it weren't for white racism everything would be EQUAL and working wonderfully. Something the world can't stand is a servant made king.

#14 Pain | 2006-10-24 02:16

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

I remember that the Shah looked white, so I took a look at that iranianforaryans in hopes it was written by an Aryan throwback. The page is funny but it's written by just another crybaby insisting All is Lost.

#15 Pain | 2006-10-24 18:12

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

Now that I have thought about this proposal more, the more I realize it is right on the mark.

What you are uncovering are two contrary definitions of <b>nation</b>:

(1) Is a People;

(2) The other is a consolidated empire.

One is based on love of others, the other on controlling others. Love wants what is best for the nation, knowing that through mutual cooperation the man can have what is best for himself. Control is based on hate, which wants the worst for others, believing that the man who controls can only get what he wants by denying it to others.