ARCHIVE ARTICLES

 

CONSERVATIVES GET READY FOR A SELLOUT "TO SAVE THE CHILDREN"


Conservatives want new laws against child pornography. Liberals want Hate Laws so that they can put right-wing political heretics in prison the way they do in Europe. See March 16, 2002 - GOING TO PRISON FOR HATE IN EUROPE.

Here is how liberals are going to get their Hate Laws. Conservatives will pass special censorship laws for the Internet, and liberals will add on Hate provisions. To prove they are as much against Hate as liberals are, conservatives will support them.

Law enforcement doesn't enforce the child pornography laws we have. Today, the law is too busy putting the criminals back into the prison that Social Progress keeps letting them out of.

Conservatives talk about the wonderful past, when child pornography and drugs were not in the schools. But they have not the slightest idea how that was accomplished. You can't be a modern conservative if you know any real history.

The reason we did not have child pornography and drugs in the schools in the old days was not because we passed more laws. We had a very direct and effective way of dealing with such "hideously complex, intricate, and almost insoluble problems."

It had nothing to do with passing laws.

When I was in school. if a Dentsville School parent heard of a child predator going after his children, he would kill the bastard. The sheriff and the local prosecutor would look the other way or pat him on the back.

In other words, the people did what every respectable conservative and every liberal condemns more loudly than any exploitation of children:

We took the law into our hands.

You see, it was OUR country. They were OUR children. We were responsible for them.

This is heresy to both liberals and conservatives today. "America" to them is an abstract set of principles, not a group of people. Least of all is America US. America is Freedom or Equality or the Statue of Liberty, not a collection of mere human beings ( See May 15, 1999 - WORDISM).

Today's mantra is "Leave it to the Authorities." You pass a law and your job is over. The result is that we get lots and lots of new laws that are enforced ONLY if they do what the liberal bureaucrats want done.

So the conservatives will push through new child porno laws. In return, conservatives will help liberals pass Hate Laws.

Guess which laws will be enforced?


ANOTHER WHITAKER HERESY


In American society today nothing is purer heresy than saying people should "take the law into their own hands."

We have a Constitution whose only claim to authority is "We the People of the United States of America..." But liberals and conservatives agree that the only real purpose of that document is to allow judges to overrule the people's will.

For the people's own good, of course.

And here I am demanding that the people take the law back into their own hands.

I'll never be an Intellectual.

 

SILK PANTS ARISTOCRACY


Conservatives always talk about Tradition but they know nothing about real history.

The National Review conservative, for example, thinks French and aristocracy go together. If you know any history, this is hilarious.

French (the Franks were Germans) became the international language in imitation of Louis XIV and Versailles. Louis' purpose in building Versailles was to destroy the French aristocracy. He succeeded.

When Louis XIV was a boy, the French aristocracy became so powerful Louis' home was invaded by rebellious aristocrats and he was displayed to them. He hated them, and he determined to build a total despotism in France. As part of this, he built Versailles.

The Versailles Palace was so huge almost the entire French aristocracy moved there. All preferment under Louis XIV was on the basis of whom he saw at Versailles. His most damning remark was, "He is a man I do not see."

As a result, the entire French "aristocracy" spent all its time playing personal servants to the Sun King. In order to stay where Louis XIV was they had to cut all their roots with their people in the countryside. They gave up all real power and put on silk pants and the latest fashions and said witty things while packed together at the Palace.

All the smaller kingdoms tried to imitate Versailles. French and the latest French fashions in every area became the rage with those who wanted to ape aristocracy.

But the real aristocrats in England and Germany and other places stayed with their power-bases. The real aristocrats stayed with their own people in the countryside.

The pretend aristocrats today are as pitiful as the ones they imitate under Louis XIV.

The ones today tell each other how sophisticated they are and they use untranslated French phrases and look down on the "masses." They think that makes them upper class.

 

THE LAST ARISTOCRATS


In a book called "Who Killed Society?," Cleveland Amory wanted to see if there were any aristocrats left in America. Amory, who was a Northern liberal, found that all the old Northern "upper crusts" no longer had any clout or even much self-respect.

Looking at today's sham aristocrats, Amory laughed at the series of books called "The Four Hundred." The "Four Hundred" series had started in New York and listed the top four hundred families there. Soon there was a "Four Hundred" book in every major Northern city.

So the "Four Hundred" publisher sent a representative to Charleston. He called on an old lady on the Battery. He told her about his project, to list the top four hundred families in Charleston.

"Why?" She asked.

"So people will know who they are," he replied.

She looked surprised and answered, "We already know who they are."

With this and numerous other examples, Amory said that the only aristocracy left in America was in Charleston.

National Review and the Four Hundred types identify with Europe and with "sophistication." Charleston's aristocrats are very much Charlestonians. Unlike Northern Four Hundreds who try to keep their views "hip," our real aristocrats look at the world as other South Carolinians do.

Unlike the pitiful French "aristocracy" under Louis XIV, the best of the Charleston upper crust maintained its ties with, and therefore the respect of, the people of their own land.

 

SOUTHERN ARISTOCRATS VERSUS PSEUDO-ARISTOCRATS


After Dale Earnhardt's death, a writer for National Review made fun of the people who mourned him so openly. She used her column to show how they didn't know the high-class music she knew and how that made her a true aristocrat.

Pretty standard silk pants aristocracy stuff, fitting perfectly with modern conservatism.

Can you imagine Southern working people following that sort of person into the Yankee guns the way they followed the Southern generals in the Civil War?

As Lake High points out, the first thing a Yankee asks you is what you do. The first thing a Southerner asks you is where you're from.

The Southern aristocracy is my model. I am not from Paris, I am from Pontiac, South Carolina.

The first rule with the real aristocracy was that it was FROM somewhere. The silk pants types keep spouting French, but they never notice that words like the French "de" or the German "von" meant FROM, as in the Marquee OF Salisbury.

The poor clowns don't even really understand basic French.

When I formed the Populist Forum, National Review types thought I was putting on some kind of hillbilly act (to New Yorkers, everybody in the South is a "hillbilly"). They simply could not believe that we had genuine respect for the people we were helping out.

We were in Kentucky, the West Virginia coal mines, South Boston, and riding with the striking independent truckers. But we were there as people with the education and experience these people, OUR people, needed.

That's what real aristocrats do.

One of my proudest moments was when a leader of the textbook protest in West Virginia said, "Whitaker speaks for us and he's not even a hick."

We did their writing and put on their press conferences, but every word was checked with them, and THEY were at the press conferences, not some self-styled "intellectuals".

Not surprisingly, respectable conservatives like National Review and the Marxists have very similar ideas of "aristocracy." Marxists call it "the dictatorship OF the proletariat." It means that the self-styled "intellectuals" like Marx and Trotsky and Lenin have absolute power and say they are kicking the masses around for their own good.

The reason working Americans trusted us was because they were right to do so. Even in Boston, they could sense the ideal of the Southern aristocracy.

 

Home | Current Articles | Article Archive | About Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links | Privacy Policy

MENU

Home

Current Articles

Article Archive

Whitaker's World View

World View Archives

About Bob Whitaker

Contact Bob

Links

Privacy Policy


Current Issue
Issue: Mar. 30, 2002
Editor: Virgil H. Huston, Jr.
© 2001 WhitakerOnLine.org


Email List
Sign up for our email list to be notified of site updates:
E-Mail:

© Copyright 2001, 2002. All rights reserved. Contact: bob@whitakeronline.org