THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

BACKBAYGROUCH | 2008-08-29

I boiled the Mantra down to fit into comment sections that limit posts to 500 characters some time back. That is a very restrictive standard. Yet I managed to increase the scope, maybe unwisely. Perhaps someone can get it back on tract and yet add no more characters than are removed. Here it is, cut to bone.Anti-racists say Asians & Africans must have their lands but white lands must have open borders. Crowded Asia can exclude. more crowded Eurpoe is racist to exclude..Anti-racists say white blood must be mixed while Black, Yellow & Jewish blood must be pure. This is genocide against Christain Whites. Anti-racist is code for anti-White

-- backbaygrouch

My problem with Stormfront is that I am dealing with people who have not succeeded in convincing people. That can only be learned by DOING.

Every time I try to get a point about CONVINCING people across, I get tangled up with someone who says, "Well, what I say is TRUE."

Of course what we are saying is TRUE. We are in the weird position of trying to find ways to convince people of simple reality. But our PROBLEM is not to learn simple realities, those we have by the bushel. Our problem is with the CONVINCING part.

As above. backbaygrouch was faced with the problem of a five hundred unit limit on what he posted. You can't put the International Jewish Conspiracy into five hundred spaces. I gave backbaygrouch the Mantra, and he used it to fit into the spaces.

But ALL of us face the same limitation backbaygrouch faced here. If practice makes perfect, I SHOULD be almost perfect after fifty years of doing this, including professionally. But as one commentator pointed out, I flunked the test in the Peter Shank interview. I lost his attention reciting the full Mantra.

No, I am not being hard on myself. The average Stormfronter, not having had to DO what backbaygrouch and I have DONE, would be insulted if I said he had flunked a test.

That is because he is not aware of how HARD these tests are, how ADVANCED these tests are. This is right out there in the heat of battle, and if you think you are perfect you are badly misled. I need commentators to tell me when I don't come up to snuff.

My point is that this is the most serious business there is AND that it is HARD WORK.

Stormfronters are satisfied when what they say is true and they have SAID it. The last thing on their minds is whether they GOT THE POINT ACROSS. But what the hell good is a weapon that fires beautifully but never HITS anything?

I think that is a major key to failure on our side: People are anxious; to tell the truth but they don't have [practice in DRIVING THE TRUTH HOME.

How can you tell people this outside of BUGS? I would have to say, "I've been there. I've DONE that." I sound like a supercilious bully.

But now that YOU'VE been there and members of BUGS have done that, maybe we can work out a way to make this point clear without people getting insulted by it.

EVIL THEN AND NOW | 2004-06-15

The only similarity between me and Jesus Christ is that I will probably end up getting lynched too.

But I try to be good Christian, and one reason I think I am succeeding is because I am the exact opposite of professional preachers.

I don't think there is anybody anymore who thinks liberal professional preachers regard their religious pretense as anything more than a useful pose for pushing their political agenda.

But a lot of people think professional conservative preachers actually believe what they say.

When conservative preachers find something their congregations want to believe, or when they need to say something to pacify liberals, they drag a quote out of the Old Testament to back up whatever they need to say.

If a conservative preacher is desperate enough, he will even quote Jesus, though they hate to do that and almost never do.

My situation is entirely different. I will work something out, boil my belief down to its essence, and then suddenly remember that Jesus said the same thing better two thousand years ago.

For example, I denounce the professors, who are almost universally evil people.

And yes, Virginia, I DO know the difference between "evil" and "honestly mistaken." I meant evil.

Then I realize that Jesus said the same thing, but better, about the Learned Doctors of His own time, the priests and scribes and Pharisees. They were almost all evil men. I meant evil, and Jesus called them that.

IN UNION THERE IS DANGER | 1999-08-14

I recently came across a year old article by George Will. In it, Will discusses the growing secessionist movements around the world. Will is a Lincoln worshipper, so he demands that the Union be enforced, no matter what anybody wants. He concludes, "In the light of the worldwide waxing of centrifugal forces, America's unique combination of vast size and equitably distributed prosperity makes American pre-eminence seem even more likely to be prolonged."

Sounds good. But does it mean anything?

How will America be "pre-eminent?" Does Will think Americans will be richer because we are under the rigid regulatory controls of Washington from coast to coast? That is what our present "vast size" means. Does Will think we will be better off because Federal judges in Washington dictate all our important social policy decisions from coast to coast? That is what his glorious Union means.

In terms of ECONOMICS, an America broken down into smaller POLITICAL units would be at least as big as the United States is now. We would have free trade agreements with countries outside the present United States, which would give us an even larger trade area. We could have free trade with practically the entire world. Our free trade area would be much bigger than the United States.

What we would NOT have would be the choking micromanagement congress and regulatory agencies impose in the name of "interstate commerce."

So would an America broken down into smaller POLITICAL parts be less productive than one run by Washington bureaucrats? Will says so, and he says so flatly and absolutely. Every liberal, and therefore every respectable conservative, assumes this. Their thinking is totally out of date, as always.

Must a political unit be big to be part of a big free trade area? Is it true that Belgium and Luxembourg can't have free trade because they don't have the same government?

The fact is that, in the real world, Belgium and Luxembourg DO have free trade with each other. But George Will just ignores that. No Lincoln worshipper can let reality intrude on his politics.

So Will's idea that the Union is still good for economics is not only incorrect, it's silly. But Will is a respectable conservative, and respectable conservatives are always silly.

Will is always desperate to say something, no matter how absurd, that will get liberals to think he is too sophisticated to stick with reality. In the 1980s, when Reagan was fighting for tax cuts, Will said that, "America is the most undertaxed country on earth."

But is economics all that Will had in mind? Remember that we are dealing here with a real Lincoln fanatic. When Lincoln used words like "pre-eminence," he didn't have economic well being in mind. When Lincoln used words like "pre-eminence," he didn't have anybody's well being in mind.

He meant power. And power is all that respectable conservatives like Will have left of a conservative philosophy.

Respectable conservatives spend their entire political lives selling out in a desperate, hopeless attempt to get liberal approval. To gain liberal approval, they have abandoned every conservative principle.

During the Cold War, conservatives wanted a big military. We thought that was to fight the Cold War. But the Cold War is over, and professional conservatives still want more troops. During the Cold War, we paid most of the cost of Europe's defense. Today, conservatives want to keep on paying the cost of Europe's defense.

Against WHAT? What is the PURPOSE of this giant military conservatives are always demanding? No conservative asks that question. Conservatives want a big military because they want a big military.

Professional conservatives want a big military because the military lobbies give them big bucks. Professional conservatives don't care what the troops or military money is used for, all they care about is serving their lobbies.

Yes, Virginia, the military-industrial complex is real. And yes, the American political right serves it blindly.

So all that is left of the old conservative philosophy is two words

MORE TROOPS!

But there is also a psychological reason respectable conservatives love to make loud demands for a big military.

Respectable conservatives know they are wimps. They call it "being reasonable," but some part of their brain registers what they are really doing. I think the constant demands for MORE TROOPS helps a little by making them feel macho. They may be wimps by profession, but they are war heroes by proxy.

In Kosovo, George Will is right there with Senator McCain (Respectable-Arizona). The liberals want war, so he wants it even more. Like McCain, Will has no idea why we got into that war, but he knows what liberals want. So Will's policy on Kosovo was

MORE TROOPS!

When Will talks about "pre-eminence", he means what his idol Lincoln would have meant. He means more troops! He means enforced Union. He means a big, powerful America that can kick anybody around that liberals want kicked.

I want none of this. I said what I thought of this kind of imperial thinking in my January 9 article, "The Way To Ruin: Being 'The World's Last Remaining Superpower."

BUSINESS AS USUAL | 2005-08-27

The United States is the only country on earth which has a first amendment protecting freedom of speech. The very concept of freedom of speech is alien to every culture outside the West, so multiculturalism is a good way to wipe out the whole idea.

But even in the West, Europeans have always taken it for granted that everything must be regulated, including speech. As I pointed out in "Two Europes, One America" the red (corrected) liberal states in the United States and Canada think exactly like Europeans. If Teddy Kennedy or the average American liberal sat down with the average European, they would not have a single point of serious disagreement.

Liberals and Europeans want to suppress diversity of opinion and they want to do it in the name of fighting racism and nationalism.

Of course.

This is as surprising to anyone who has the slightest grasp of political history as the sun coming up in the morning.

It is well known that generals are always fighting the last war. So France hunkered down in 1940 for another trench war like World War I behind its Maginot Line.

It is also true that civil libertarians are always fighting the last fight. When a "civil libertarian" talks about "dictatorship" he is looking for a German with a moustache talking about racism, nationalism and anti-Semitism. If we can just stop racism, nationalism and anti-Semitism, he says, we can be free.

And he is willing to go to any lengths in the name of freedom. So the state must use all of its power to suppress any mention of race or nationalism. In order to stop racism and nationalism and to preserve freedom, some freedoms will have to be sacrificed.