Archive for category History

Freedom Screamers

Written By Bob Whitaker

George Orwell explained in his novel 1984 that a rational society must include “the right to say that two plus two equals four.” In The Crown Versus Joseph Pierce, 1987, the British court ruled to send a man to prison under the Hate Laws by declaring that “The truth is no defense.”

This phrase, “The truth is no defense,” has a long and disreputable history. In 1796, due to the support of George Washington, John Adams became the last president elected on the Federalist Party ticket by a hair’s breadth, beating Jefferson by three electoral votes.

In 1798, the Federalist Party won its last national victory. Due to the XYZ Affair, it carried a huge majority of both Houses of Congress. It passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1799, which largely outlawed criticism of government policy. It saw the first amendment as gun controllers see the second amendment today, as something that wasn’t really there.

After 1798 Jefferson did his critiquing anonymously. Publishers and editors went to prison in droves. One of their major demands was to get rid of the British-derived doctrine that, when it came to the King and His policies, “The truth is no defense.”

In 1800, the Federalist Party was defeated at every level. It began its steady slide into nonexistence. The PEOPLE, not the courts, got rid of that whorish doctrine, “The truth is no defense” in America.

Now we accept the idea that the truth is no defense in fact, if not in words. I lived with that for decades as scholar after scholar was ruined for telling the truth about innate racial differences. When one was fired, the screaming New York Jews and those who learned from them cowed the Weakest Generation by screaming, “Six Million Jews!!!!”

We won, now that even the New York Times says that, “the hereditarian view of racial differences is far more acceptable today than it was” (previously). But the cost was staggering and the heroes forgotten.

And the LESSON is forgotten.

In the 1960s I listened quizzically as libertarians went into great detail about how Ayn Rand or LeFevre or some other Libertarian Truth had justified freedom in a tome. I thought how EUROPEAN this was. Screamers had crushed the old American idea that I have freedom because I will do what I damned well please.

The AMERICAN version of freedom is Grandma sitting on the front porch with a shotgun waiting for the government to run over her house to build a road. The AMERICAN version of freedom of speech is not a tome and a Wordist doctrine justifying freedom, but “two plus two equals four.”

Like everything in life, freedom is not a doctrine, it is a matter of sense. I will do anything I damned well please. If you say my money should go to “something worthwhile” instead of what, IN YOUR OPINION, is a “trivial” thing, I don’t give a damn, no matter how loud you shriek.

So the Objectivists tried to shout ME down at the University of Virginia for my racism. It didn’t work, by a long shot. So they stopped speaking to me. Since all they would have had to say to me was already in a book, that was no sacrifice.

I keep begging you to drop all that Wordism. ALWAYS INSERT “IN YOUR OPINION” when the shriekers shriek. We don’t need a Russian Jewess, bless her heart, to tell us THAT. Ayn Rand was just the only one who had to guts to shriek down the New York shriekers in the age of the Weakest Generation.

When they shriek “racism” no one dares ask, “What, IN YOUR OPINION, IS Racism?” No respectable conservative EVER presses that question, or even ASKS it.

The anti-racists (anti-whites) were shouting, and for the obedience-trained Weakest Generation, that was enough. They learned In World War II that the highest honor was to obey a sergeant who screamed in your face. Their children learned from them, and their libertarian children needed a BOOK to deal with the shouters.

Once it takes a BOOK to justify freedom, it doesn’t EXIST any more.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

Dr Joseph Goebbels, Constructive Social Critic?

Written by Bob Whitaker

Dr. Joseph Goebbels was the head of Adolf Hitler’s Ministry of Propaganda.

Though he did not openly advocate genocide, Dr. Goebbels said Germany should somehow get rid of Jews and other minority groups. Before World War II, the Nazis discussed many ways of dealing with “the Jewish race.”

Dr. Goebbels’ goal was that of abolishing the Jewish race’s presence in all the countries he saw as “Aryan” countries. One way to do this was to send the Jews to Africa or Asia and mix them in with the populations there.

Genocide or not, I think we all recognize that what Dr. Goebbels was pushing was Hate.

If you want to rid the world of minorities, you are a Hater.

If you want to rid the world of white gentiles, you are a Constructive Social Critic.

If you want to rid the world of minorities the way Dr. Goebbels did, you get executed as a Hater.

If you want to rid the world of white gentiles, you are paid well as a Constructive Social Critic.

Dr. Noel Ignatiev is a paid Constructive Social Critic. Dr. Ignatiev is a professor at Harvard University in a chair fully financed by big business money. This Constructive Social Critic says:

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”

So Professor Ignatiev is a Constructive Social Critic and I am now under suspicion of being a racist.

If you want to prove this to yourself, ask yourself a quick question. Is anybody going to get mad at Ignatiev for getting paid to push the abolition of the white race, or are conservatives who read this going to suspect that I am “a committed white racist?”

All respectable conservatives have to agree to abolishing the white race. They don’t say it the way Ignatiev does, but every conservative and every liberal agrees 1) that the Third World must be encouraged to immigrate and integrate into EVERY white majority country; and 2) The Third World must be encouraged to immigrate and integrate ONLY into white majority countries. No one brings up Third World immigration into Japan (which is less crowded than the Netherlands), or into Taiwan or into the huge undeveloped regions of Africa.

Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians.

When liberals and professional conservatives get relaxed, they agree that intermarriage is the “solution to the RACE problem.” But nobody talks about a “solution to the race problem” in Asia or Africa. The “solution to the race problem” means “the solution to the white problem,” and we all know it.

So when Goebbels advocated the “solution to the Jewish problem” he was engaging in Hate. To prove you have no hate in you, you have to favor the “solution to the RACE problem.”

This is too subtle for the average college graduate, but it’s pretty easy to see through if you have normal intelligence. And once again, the only person who will be accused of Hate for mentioning this will be me.

Today, Constructive Criticism says that anyone in Europe who says that the white race deserves credit for anything, from wiping out smallpox to going to the Moon, is a racist.

Anything good is done by the Progress of Humanity. Good things are done by All Humanity, not by whites.

To quote directly from the script, “This is a small step for Man and a Giant Leap for Mankind.”

But you are required to say that whites did everything evil, from the death of American Indians to African slavery to capitalist greed and beyond.

Dr. Goebbels admitted that Jews were shrewd, but he said all the advances Jews were credited with were stolen from others. Dr. Goebbels said the Jews were responsible for every evil thing that was done.

Every student is taught that whites do the world’s evil and Mankind does all the good.

Dr. Ignatiev points out that this leads straight to the Final Solution to the White problem. To be a conservative spokesman, you have to agree with this, though they seldom come right out and say it the way Ignatiev does.

They use terms like “a multiracial Europe” or “a melting pot America.” But the bottom line is that whites have to go.

Dr. Goebbels said that the bottom line was that the Jews had to go.

The Final Solution has not changed. The only question is which people you want the solution applied to.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 Comments

Starting Point

Written by Bob Whitaker

Finding out about reality comes from almost any starting point. Mine has been racial. But soon one cannot really look at enemies of our race without learning about the hatred that comes from jealousy.

One notes very quickly that the people who shout “Hate!” the most are the ones who hate the most. You begin to notice the basis of hatred. You begin to notice its symptoms. So you understand leftist economics. You see that leftists TALK about the poor, but their real focus, their real goal, is hatred of the rich.

You see the undercurrent of the left. They do not REALLY mind so much if people are desperately poor. They are livid about some people being rich. In other words, they talk about loving the poor, but their real motivation is that they hate the rich. By the same token, anti-whites don’t care if people are ugly. Their motivation is that they hate those who are beautiful.

The Germans have a word for this. It is called Schadenfreude, the joy a person takes when someone who is better off than he is suffers horribly. There is no English word for it, but it is an explanation for most of the sickest things in our society. If we realize THAT, maybe our society wouldn’t look this way. As one whose life has been devoted to racial survival, this has been obvious to me from the get-go. Others NEVER discover it.

The same respectable conservative who says over and over that leftists hate the rich and don’t care about the poor cannot see that he has the same attitude about race. As an extension of what Trager Smith says, it is the right, the “Pro-Lifers” and the National review types, who are the ones who are dedicated to the end of the white race today.

If you look at race, you begin to see that somehow suicide has become an ideal in our society. And you find out why, IF YOU LOOK UP.

I started by looking DOWN. I had the childish torchlight parade view of history. I blamed everything on Jewish influence. That was back in my white hat black hat days of cowboy movies. But there was one saving grace. I was also not interested entirely in the Middle East or in Jews. I came to understand that the Jews, despite what Jews and anti-Semites agree on, did not make our world. They did not make HALF our world, the purely evil half.

In fact you cannot find the Aryan suicide disease anywhere in the Middle East, though you spend eighteen hours a day poring over the Talmud for hidden codes. You find it in all OUR religions. No one but me has ever commented on the fact that the suicide impulse of St. Paul had no basis at all, whatsoever, in the Old Testament. Jesus could have said that thinking of SEX when one saw a beautiful woman was a sin, but he did NOT say that. He said “adultery.”

It took millions of words of Biblical Commentary to get everyone’s mind off the realization that Jesus knew the difference between simple sex and adultery. If a supernatural influence got our minds off that, I doubt it came from Heaven. No, you can’t find a condemnation of survival itself anywhere in the Old Testament or in the words of Jesus. It came from St. Paul, and St. Paul got it from the overwhelming alternative religion of his day and place: degenerate Zoroastrianism, which before it became degenerate, specifically excluded all but Aryans.

Hence “Iran.”

You can start in one point and deduce the world from it. Or you can start with race and look DOWN. Your world becomes Jews or blacks or some other obsession. You know more and more about less and less until your entire world consists of justifying your obsessive world view. It is a tiny world view. And it is a DELICATE world view.

It is delicate the way anti-evolutionary fundamentalism is delicate. Any proof of any aspect of evolution or any animal that lived before 4004 BC can destroy your entire lifetime of faith. When these people read what I say, they couldn’t care less about where I am going. They are looking for some statement of mine that is contrary to their delicate faith.

”Give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the world.”

Give me a place to begin and I will unravel mysteries.

But no lever can move the world if your one favorite cloud has to stay in the same exact spot.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments

Our Border Is No Longer A Game

Written by Bob Whitaker – Originally posted on NationalSalvation.net – http://www.nationalsalvation.net/ourborderisnolongera.html

Lester Maddox was a staunch segregationist who was elected governor of Georgia in the 1960s. Black riots were occurring all over the country. When a black riot took place in Augusta, Georgia, Lester Maddox stated that if any policeman did not SHOOT looters on sight, he personally would take away that officer’s badge.

The riot ended suddenly. Only one looter was shot. He was in a liquor store he had broken into, laying on the floor. That picture appeared in outraged publications all over America, especially Time Magazine. But though Time tried to make the case that the poor man was only getting liquor to take home to his starving family, it wasn’t very successful.

While I was on Capitol Hill there was a hurricane in Florida followed by massive looting. My boss, John Ashbrook, shared his senior staffer’s gift for subtlety, so he made a speech on the House Floor called, “Shoot Looters!” The main newspaper in his district attacked him violently, saying this was an irrational statement to make. After a flood of letters backing Ashbook came in, they decided it must be some kind of organized protest by Ashbrook supporters, so they did a scientific poll of the district.

They pointed out, with some embarrassment, that Eighty-One Percent (81%) of district residents backed Ashbrook: “Shoot Looters!” More than one letter to the paper said that this was the first time the writer had EVER agreed with Ashbrook on ANYTHING.

I first broached the idea of a Platform Party to Jamie Kelso as we were riding back from the DC convention. He LOVED the concept, but we had one strong disagreement. As you will see in an article below, I believe in SHOOTING anyone who comes across our border illegally. Jamie said Americans would not STAND for such a thing.

I would give a months warning in every publication in Mexico, Canada, and elsewhere. I would put up huge signs in English, Spanish, French and various Indian languages to make it clear that the US border is a DEADLINE, complete with skull and crossbones for the illiterate.

My point is this: Any other form of enforcement would be subject to debate. 

We must make it absolutely clear that the US border is not a game of hide-and-seek.

We can say that America is the world’s last superpower, but it is the only superpower in history that wants nothing but to protect its OWN borders and its own people’s interests. 

But the Preamble Party says that, on THAT point, there is no room for compromise.

Kelso says that is too violent. I say that any other approach makes the border a game of hide-and-seek.

Shoot looters. Shoot border violators. Our border is no longer a game.

There is a major side benefit to this. The United States will no longer speak in George Bush whine. We will speak little and MEAN it:

“Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

A country that shoots anyone who violates its borders can tell OPEC to cut the crap and OPEC will cut the crap.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments

Our Enemy’s Mistakes

By Bob Whitaker – Originally posted 

“Bob. I’m heartened by the fact that while our “printing press” is causing the “word” to be spread to more and more people, it seems the powers that be are in a mad dash to force the dark races into historically white lands. It’s almost as if they fear our “Thesis” and are hell-bent to force their desired outcome onto us before we get a chance to scotch the wheels of their damnable actions.”

Mark, that last paragraph explains exactly what is going on. But it also demonstrates how everything they do blows up in their face.  Image may contain: one or more people and text

1) The Mantra would not have been such a bomb in their faces if they had stayed with the old gradual integration and propaganda approach. No one believed me when I said it in the 1960s, but everybody can see it now that we are being overrun.

2) Everybody else on our side looks at the other side as a giant, Hypergenius Conspiracy that makes no mistakes. I am a professional looking for the mistakes other professionals make.

I see a bunch of idiots who are so blinded by hate that they are filling Europe up with people who hate them more than Hitler did. I see a bunch of imbeciles writing laws that puts doubts about the Holocaust out in a way none of our meager powers of persuasion could have done.

In a real war, overestimating your enemy is every bit a fatal as underestimating him.

3) A recent book called “Importing Revolution” goes into the fact that the 60s radicals, who never met any working Americans, were repeating all that crap from Marx — who also never did a day’s work in his life — about “working class revolution” in America.

Meanwhile the Communist World magazine was raising hell about how MY tiny group was “part of a heavily financed right-wing conspiracy” because we routinely became spokesmen for grassroots workers’ protests that would LYNCH a Commie who showed up.

Our heavily financed little Populist Forum never even had a back account. There were three of us and we paid our own way.

We got out in the streets and we were part of making working people into Reagan Democrats. Respectable conservatives didn’t know any working people either, which is why William Rusher, publisher of National Review, came to ME after I proved we not only knew working people, they let us speak for them.

I can talk with a hardhat for hours, but an “intellectual” bores my tail off in five minutes.

4) Their strategy is, as you say, desperate. It rests on two assumptions:

a) That if they get enough of their Faithful Colored Companions in here, they will be VOTED into power;

AND:

b) A country into which they get enough of their Faithful Colored Companions will remain a DEMOCRACY. Every Communist country used to brag that over 99.5% of their population voted in every election.

Only North Korea ever declared that one hundred percent, every last one of its people, voted in one election.

Well, hell, if dead people can vote in Chicago, why can’t North Koreans who are in a hospital with a coma vote there?

c) Another problem with this strategy is the old joke about the Original Faithful Colored Companion, the Lone Ranger’s Indian Tonto. The Lone Ranger says, “Well, Tonto, those Indians have us surrounded. It looks like we’re doomed.”

And Tonto replies, “What you mean ‘We,’ Paleface?

When America breaks up into racial divisions, each representing its OWN interests, we’ll make them an offer they won’t refuse. Those who DO refuse will be left out in the cold, like the white traitors who will have no one to turn to.

This is a war. If the other side NEVER does anything stupid, you might as well start drawing up the best Unconditional Surrender document you can think of.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments