THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

PARTIES: IF THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK, "BOTH SIDES GETTING TOGETHER" WON'T HELP | nationalsalvation.net

Back to basics: colored countries are never democratic. The people won't make decisions that are rational.

We are watching that today, with the "debt crisis." It's not "a" crisis. It's part of the transition to a colored country.

I pointed out repeatedly that the only indicator of real per capita income is the color of the skin. Now if you think about this, but nobody outside of BUGS will, it does not mean that at a given moment, 3 am on March 12, 2012, the country crosses from white to colored and we go from obesity to the streets of Calcutta in 1950.

In fact, very few people realize what should be obvious to someone of my age: We used to talk about and compare economic growth around the world. Today the model is stagnation. Tomorrow it will be a debate between liberals and respectable conservatives, not about whether the decline is necessary, but on how much of the liberal proposals to slow it should be adopted.

That is the how the transition from white to colored obviously will proceed.

Our real problem today is not intransigence or which side wins. A colored society invariably has different insane sides. They may simply give up the whole pretense of government, as in Somalia, or they may have a dictatorship with democratic trappings, like Mexico, but there will be many versions of the same pretense vying for power.

But when you go nuts, both sides will be two versions of basket cases. If both sides are fairly represented and both sides compromise, the compromise will be a basket case.

In our case the trappings are still democratic, a lot of the reality shows the kind of restraint white countries have. But we have two absurd sides.

Our two sides were not developed to solve problems. They were developed to represent two points of view that can be SOLD. "Both" sides in America today consist of the Mommy Professors and those they allow to exist as their token opposition. To say that "Both sides are represented is one thing." To say that "both sides" can come to sane conclusion is entirely another.

A Multiculture, by definition, is not going to put the "common good" above "parochial interests." Almost by definition, a Multiculture has no common interest.

What I have presented above is really a set of single short statements that only relate if you get the logic of the reality they have in common. You see people getting paid to puzzle over each reality every night on television.

Everything has been playing out every year for over fifty years in exactly the way I said it would. It is a little like someone running in the door and saying, "Poppa is whipping the horse," and then running in five minutes later and saying "The horse is mad at Poppa."

Can you imagine PAYING a child to run in with reports like that? To be a highly paid anchorman you have to shout it, I suppose, in a particularly sophisticated-sounding way.

GENOCIDE BY ASSIMILATION | 2010-07-25

BGlass used this term, and it is a humdinger.

Put it in your arsenal.

A few years back I would have been the only person on BUGS who would have leapt on this point.

But now Ole Coach is dealing with a college team instead of high school. Let's get some good GC 4 feedback on how "genocide by assimilation" works.

From now on nobody will be able to used the term "assimilation" around me without my saying, "genocide by assimilation."

"Every white country on earth is supposed to become multicultural and multiracial. EVERY white country is expected to end its own race and end its own culture. No one asks that of ANY non-white country."

When most people begin to write about politics they are talking to themselves. They think of a chain of logic and then follow it. But they assume the person reading it has a mind like theirs and, once they read a sentence in the logical chain the new writer is building, each point will weld itself into their minds.

A new writer produces a set of quick statements that the reader cannot follow and is mystified that the reader gets lost fast. Young people tend to be impatient, which makes slow writing even more alien to them.

I finally got the fact that people wouldn't understand point two until I had slowed down and repeated point one. My writing at that point was actually funny. I said the same thing over, then said it and the next point over, and then three, and then four.

The point is, of course, that you have to repeat your original point, but not make it too clear you are repeating it. Repeating your basic point also gives the reader different possibilities of understanding it.

You use examples to repeat a theme. You make it as entertaining as possible. I had done all that on thousands of pages before I finally understood the teacher's constant use of the word "theme."

So if you see a church sign about the week's Bible quotation you do not expect to hear it repeated verbatim for half an hour. Every kid saw those all the time but the teacher, trained by Mommy Professor, would never connect THOSE dots. That would have explained to me what a "theme" was long before I ever started my own writing.

Teaching the word "theme" is what school teachers do. Making a theme part of your writing or speaking is what a professional does.

Then you get to our level. After working your dingus off learning to say things in long form, our political specialty requires us to get BACK to short punches to get their attention.

This is VERY hard work. This is ADVANCED work. It is like learning to use a left jab in boxing.

In a professional bout, you'll get killed if you don't know how to jab.

And in our political arguments, we watch our side getting killed. They have a knockout blow, a book that if memorized might put the enemy down, but they have no jabs.

BUGS includes complete explanations, but it is also studying jabs. The other side is WINNING on jabs, using the word "racist" as soon as they see every conservative wet his pants when they use it, talking about "mixing the races" as if it were an equal opportunity morality for all peoples while aiming it ONLY at white countries.

We know what we are talking about. But we won't be able to deal with their jabs until we learn to use our own.

WE NEED A MEDAL FOR SUFFERING | 2001-03-03

A lot of right wingers have been arguing that John McCain was not a hero in Vietnam. He did not claim to be.

I looked up his interview with "US News and World Report" from the seventies, and he admits that his first words when he was captured were an offer to give information in return for medical care. McCain himself has said repeatedly that anyone who did not cooperate with the Cong in the Hanoi Hilton did not come out alive. He's named the real heroes, and they are dead.

His medals have been denounced as "boiler plate," because they are awarded to everyone in his category. Normally, such a medal is only awarded to those who are seen by witnesses to show courage "above and beyond the call of duty.'

But there were no witnesses when McCain was questioned by the Cong, and the other survivors, all of them American airmen doing their duty, went through the Hanoi Hilton and came out alive, just as he did.

But none of us, I think, would say that he and his comrades do not DESERVE medals. They went through hell for this country, when America's media and a major portion of our population were condemning them, and the Fondas were giving aid and comfort, in America and even in North Vietnam itself, to their tormentors.

On the other hand, this is a disservice to those who, in the sight of witnesses, did more than their duty to their country, and often died doing it.

We should separate courage above and beyond the call of duty from having put a duty upon a group of fairly typical American servicemen that no human being should have to bear. We should be proud of how high a duty Americans can perform as part of their call.

We all have a right to be proud of the Hanoi Hilton survivors precisely because all of them did all that in the name of duty. No one should deny them medals for their suffering above and beyond what should be the call of duty.

BIBLE-THUMPERS AND BROWNIE-POINTS | 2004-06-28

I just got back from a reunion with the mountaineer half of my family, the Snyders.

The Bible-thumpers have taken it over.

When I was at the Council of Conservative Citizens, I watched the dedicated and inarticulate people who had founded the CCC being steadily replaced by the preachers. The attendance at the conference was, of course, way down.

In both Pigeon Forge and at the Snyder family reunion, I rode around the Tennessee and North Carolina mountain area and watched the handiwork of these self-styled "Christians." There is a big building in Hendersonville, North Carolina, set up by these "Christians" and dedicated to interracial adoptions.

The anti-white left could not penetrate those mountains, but these "Christians" can, so the Christians are pushing third world adoptions to penetrate white enclaves. I saw many a white woman pushing her little black or Oriental child around. This gives the Bible-thumpers big brownie points with the liberals who control the media.

I was talking to one of the South Carolina Bible-thumpers who have taken over the Snyder reunions and asked him about Beasley's blasphemy and the Baptist lack of reaction to it. He got a look on his face that I have seen before many, many times on the faces of Communist Party members and Catholic and Presbyterian theologues. It said, "This man has stepped over the Party Line."

He acted like I hadn't said it.