Archive for March 10th, 2006
Now that I have exposed Libanon, I have had a revelation that goes even deeper.
In the 1980s I had a piece in the New York Times Review of Books.
Writers’ egos being what they are, the front page of the Review listed the names of authors writing in that issue.
Of about ten names, nine of them were not merely Jewish, but obviously Jewish, like Goldberg or Finkelstein.
And right in the middle of that parade of Jewish names was:
“Robert Walker Whitaker,” with even my middle name spelled out to emphasize the triple-barreled Anglo-Saxon name.
Now you know and I know EXACTLY what every single person who saw that front page was thinking:
“Yea. Right. I’ll just bet that’s his REAL name.”
So here I am, exposed to the world as an obvious ADL plant.
But, as a good Jew, another question occurs to me.
I have been in this movement for fifty years. I have just discovered that all that time I was an ADL plant.
So where the HELL is my back pay?
In case you think I can’t come up with as wild a theory as anybody else in this movemnt, and that is one hell of a competition, let me tell you of one I just came up with.
Here is my case that LibAnon is an ADL plant.
First of all, he changed his name from Anonymous to LibAnon.
Which group is famous for changing names?
Secondly, and dead giveaway, is that name LibAnon.
There is a country with almost that exact same name.
And here is the final proof:
That country lies on the borders of, of all places, ISRAEL!
And, to complete the evidence, this is probably the first time in history that “Anonymous” ever used a pseudonym!
Comment by LibAnon:
“Bob, here’s an idea that’s been bothering me as a result of several recent incidents in the WN movement and I’d appreciate any thoughts you might have. Getting right to the point, isn’t it Wordism to use ANY scientific theory, valid or not, to justify a political position? In other words, isn’t “racial realism” capable of turning White nationalism itself into an anti-White weapon, just as Boasian anthropology did with liberalism?
Nationalism works precisely because it needs neither explanation nor justification. It works for the same reason that Baywatch was the world’s most-watched show. There’s nothing to understand. Life is a matter of taste. Try to make it “scientific”, however, and soon you’ll have thought police, taboo subjects, forbidden symbols, and demands that certain “elements” be purged. It doesn’t matter what the words are. Whether the words are “dictatorship of the proletariat” or “group evolutionary strategy”, Wordism is Wordism and always leads to the same result.
“I hope I won’t be misunderstood here. I certainly believe that Rushton, MacDonald, etc. do good science and that Boas did not. What I’m saying is that no theory is ever rich enough to support a polity, and that all previous attempts to force politics onto the Procrustes bed of theory have led to despotism. ”
Not only CAN it happen that racism degenerates into Wordism, it DOES that all the time.
Zoroastrianism was an Aryan-only religion, but the last emperor of Z Persia was a MULATTO!
That is why it bothers me when someone starts throwing in National Socialist theory or the Bible or any other verbal justification for identity. It worries me when they get into detailed definitions of race. If you don’t know who your kin are, definitions aren’t going to do anything but get your nose right back into the books we all desperately need to get OUT of.
You do not JUSTIFY survival.
You do not JUSTIFY the whole basis of evolution or for that matter of Creation.
Once again, that is why Bob’s Mantra is so critical.
Its only justification is not white supremacy or some theory. It is YOU, personally, saying that you will fight fight for your own genetic survival:
” Liberals and respectable cosnervatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says
this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and
ONLY into white countries.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or
Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote
assimilating unquote with them.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY
white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if
hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am
talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black
man wouldn’t object to this?”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the
white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
Wordism is the idea that there is some Book by Karl Marx or Ayn Rand or somebody that will
make a successful nation out of any random collection of people.
Wordism, including Communism, religious wars, and the rest, has killed more people than
racism ever could have.
Also you cannot have both Wordism and freedom of speech. If you define loyalty as
attachment to a set of words, then you must define treason as any other set of words. We
can see that in action today as a “diverse” society becomes a state ruled by the politically
Correct Thought Police.
I believe in identity, that a people can only be unbited by a common bond of kinship. Where
a person belongs as a matter of kinship, widely different ideas can be tolerated.
There has never been a free society that was racially diverse.
There never will be.
There never can be.
Another form of government which destroys identity is Classism.
As the flood of third world immigration began in Britain, the Queen put herself solidly on
the side of the third world against her own people. She said that anyone who held a
British passsport, which huge numbers od people in the colonies did, had as much right in
Britain as someone whose family had been there a thousand years.
The Queen said all of them were HER loyal subects, and loyalty to HER was the only criterion
of whether one was British or not. The only thing that mattered was her own right of birth
as Queen. The fact that some of her subjects felt that their own birth on the island for
thousands of years gave them some special rights to be there was irrelevant.
One of the immediate causes of the American Revolution was the fact that the King banned all
white settlement by whites from Appalachia to the Misissippi River. That land, said the
king, belonged to the Indians, who were as much his subjects as the whites east of that
Since there was about one Indian every two square miles on that land, the king was granting
each Indian more land than the average large land holder had in Britain.
But to the King, who thought in terms of class, there was no difference between an Indian
subject and a white subject.
To right-wingers, my objection to classism is heresy.
I have no illusions about the Natural Equality of Man. But when a person starts building his world around his class in society, he is doing the same thing a Wordist does. His loyalty becomes fixed to his class rather than to his identity.
I very much object to calling classism “aristocracy.” Aristocracy means rule by the best. Classism is naciocracy, wule by birth. It has no relation to aristocracy.
A naciocrat EARNS the trust of his own people by his loyalty to them. A classist DEMANDS his right to rule because of his birth. If the people won’t give it to him, he will not hwsitate to ally with enemies in order to get the power he demands.
So when the colonists rebelled against the English Crown, the King used Indians to attack them.
To a classist, all peasants are created equal.