THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

STORMFRONT AND DRUGS | 2007-07-18

On Stormfront, there is a big argument over whether Stormfront should ever allow anyone to even joke about "drug use." The last entry so far is someone who thunderingly announces "we" are against condoning drug use.

As Kelso keeps reminding me, there is no such thing as a "we" here. Stormfront, as Kelso points out, does not EXIST in that sense. SF is for pro-whites to talk to each other.

That is Stormfront's ONLY position, which is why we have vociferous members from Puritans to societal rebels with metal in their tongues and tatoos on their arms. We try to practice moderating, but not censorship, which those who wrote the first amendment expected any rational American to try to do.

WE, i.e., Stormfronters, even have a separate but equal section for antis, which is more than they will ever do for us.

I seriously doubt that in the four million posts we have now had on SF that more than ten writers would have denied me the use of drugs when I was injured or undergoing brain and heart surgery.

At this point one of Mommy Professor's trainees would say, "Well, what we mean is ILLICIT drug use."

But that is why my blog is called Bob's Underground GRADUATE Seminar, BUGS. We call it GRADUATE because "This blog is for people who have outgrown their college education, whether they had one or not."

So, while the rest of the world stops with that word "illicit," BUGS thinking BEGINS where Mommy Professor leaves off. I would scold one of our team if he or she left it at that, and they jump right back on me when I get intellectually lazy like that.

What is "illicit?" It means something that has not been approved by someone in a doctor's costume. There is a place to find the REAL backgrounds of doctors. It is shocking what they get away with. And every year doctors declare that what they said last year is wrong in some cases, which is GOOD. They are not Mommy Professors, if it doesn't WORK, doctors often just throw it out, unlike social programs.

As for addiction, AA has a motto, "Recovery is not for people who NEED it, it is for people who WANT it." Be it porn or drugs, society can TRY to protect the young from it. But you cannot practice multiculturalism by mixing cultures who take drugs as a matter of course and races whose only adjectives are "s..." and "f...ing" and THEN try to protect your children.

In other words, WE pro-whites are on the REAL issue here already. Before integration, drug abuse was largely restricted to blacks and Puerto Ricans. White Americans did not HAVE a drug problem outside of alcohol until the 1960s. And no country ever made as titanic an effort as Americans did to protect everybody from alcohol.

Alcohol is a DRUG, according to AA and NA. America, in fifty states and two hundred years and Prohibition, not to mention local option, has TRIED every method imaginable to restrict alcohol for generations, we have learned a lot of lessons, and we, being Americans, differ wildly about words like "illicit" and "abuse" that others simply make into law and no longer debate.

So is the answer simply to ban everybody who does not agree that all drugs are subject to the whim of a guy in a doctor suit? I'd be the first one out.

We, i.e. Americans, live in the ONLY country on this planet where our own pro-white point of view can be LEGALLY expressed, and here we are saying that no pro-white here should be allowed to SPEAK his opinion on drug use for fear of offending the Puritans or ruining the kiddies. If we go that way, SF would be put out of business tomorrow. Hell, this is the day of satellite communications, TODAY.

In Britain they ban any access to BUGS on library computers because it is "illicit." I refuse to go down THAT road.

Let me save you the trouble: "What about NAMBLA? Do we have to allow people to push man-boy sex here, too?"

This is not a criticism of what I just said. I started out by saying that we have to have moderation, not censorship, and that is why being an active moderator, something I don't have the guts to do, is so terribly difficult. No thundering generality will substitute for thought IF WE (ANY "we) ARE TO BE A FREE PEOPLE. That's why a black country can never really be free.

I do not want to exclude people from Stormfront who do not agree with the medical establishment on drug use. It is their racial views that matter. When a people cannot distinguish between banning and decent distinctions, they are already slaves.

SOME COMMENTS ON COMMENTERS | 2010-03-15

When someone uses some version of "You are hiding racism" or "You are being a racist," you should have come up with the answer:

"You are faced with a truth you cannot deal with, white genocide. Your answer is to say that those who disagree with you are Evil, in this case, Evil Racists. That tactic was used against people bringing up a legitimate point by the intellectually exhausted before Socrates was born."

"It is cowardly and mindless."

I won't be here forever, gang, and I need for YOU to learn to put this standard stuff in historical context for YOURSELVES.

Simmons, it seems to me that once you have figured out why information is produced you will naturally know for whom it is produced. Did I miss your point?

The Occidental Digest article was good, but it seems to me that, by using the word "victimization" instead of genocide, the writer sounded like the same old thing. It is like the old crime statistics. Sounding like the same old thing, even when you bring out the decimation of whites, allows the other side to debate THEIR "victimization."

We need a straight line, not a circle of accusations.

Words are critical. Any time you use terms your readers are familiar and comfortable with, you make the other side comfortable as well. Once you argue a long, long time, you will find there is no such thing as a "good twist on the Mantra."

It is good to let us know when something hits on the subject of genocide, but don't fall for it.

Don't break ranks. Stay on message.

NO REVOLUTION, NO INSTITUTIONS, NO POLICY DEMANDS | 2011-02-01

Looking at a an exchange of comments, I agree with your conclusion that we should not use the word "revolution."

As usual this conclusion comes from going back to the basics. What we are after seems simple, but it is taking on the entire establishment and about every government on earth: we want the disappearance of our race from the face of the earth to be seen as a legitimate topic of discussion.

Pro-whites should learrn from their mistakes. Stormfront put them out there for all to see.

So far, as we lost ground, we always mixed up our legitimate complaints with a demand for some policy. From swastikas to being unwelcome joiners of the anti-immigration movement, we have hitched out wagon to the star of the moment.

The result is that anti-whites have been able to get us off the subject of our legitimate concern by arguing about immigration or whether Hitler was better than Stalin. The actual point, our concern about he obvious disappearance of our race, is buried in standard arguments.

Take it from me, detaching our right to be concerned has been an uphill struggle. The mass audience wants the latest news about some immigration outrage or a Revisionist View of History.

But we now have BUGS and we MUST maintain the discipline BUGS is based on. No one else has it.

That discipline is demanding to DISCUSS our problem without being bullied or outlawed. Screaming fascist or Communists is what fascists and Communists do.

Now, we all know that all the respectable people insist that the only way to deal with a concern is to TALK about it. The fact is that the Mantra is so water-tight that all they can do is get off the subject by arguing specific policies or by rioting and screaming at us and outlawing us.

You have seen what the Mantra can do. They know very well that if whites look at the situation rationally, as any other race would be expected to do, the anti-whites are lost.

We are NOT advocating a policy yet. You have to be able to talk and think rationally before a policy is worked out. That is what they are openly denying us the right to do. They are doing it the same way all tyrannies do, by screaming that any discussion is subversive and dangerous and screaming labels at us.

Every time they are unfair it gives us another example. You have to get over your anger, which I have never been able to do quickly, and copy and paste it for future use.

You must READ the Mantra over and over to prepare to argue INSIDE its context. If you stick to the subject, it is all there.

SADDAMITES | 1998-12-26

We are being told that this Iraq attack had nothing to do with the impeachment.

We were also being told the impeachment ought to be delayed or canceled because of the attack on Iraq. We were also told that impeachment should have been dropped because Saddam doesn't understand it. We were also being told impeachment should be dropped because our "Allies" -- by this term is meant those who sit there and complain about our military action -- would not understand it.

The respectable conservative response to all this is the same as always: "DUHH!"

When liberals said they only wanted a brief delay, respectable conservatives did not make fun of them. When they demand delays, the obvious thing for conservatives to do is to remind them of last year, when Senator Thompson gave them a delay. As soon as they got it, they called Thompson names and blocked everything until the cutoff date.

Any person with a memory would mention that. But if you have a memory, you don't stay respectable for long.

So when liberals demanded a delay, conservatives sat there with that look of constipated earnestness they always assume when liberals speak. In other words, respectable conservatives did their usual respectful routine.

So let's take a real, hard look at the dumbass things the liberals were saying this time.

First of all -- I kid you not -- they were openly arguing that impeachment should be abandoned because Saddam Hussein might misunderstand it. He might think we were being weak. So we had to think like a thug, too, you see.

We should only do what Saddam Hussein can identify with. I call this new political theory Saddamism, and those who propose it are obviously Saddamites. Saddamism would be quite a change for us. We never paid any attention before about what some dictator thought of our system, even in a state of all-out war.

There was a presidential election in the United States in 1944, at the height of World War II. In that election, President Franklin Roosevelt could have been removed. As a matter of fact, Roosevelt got a lower percentage of the vote in 1944 than he had in any previous election.

I have not the slightest doubt that Adolf Hitler did not understand why the United States was having an ELECTION at the high point of a total war, an election in which the president could have been removed from office.

Us Americans didn't consider it odd at all.

Liberals say we should now consider it odd to go ahead with our domestic processes regardless of the attitudes of foreign dictators. And, of course, if liberals take this seriously, respectable conservatives do, too. So everybody is seriously saying that maybe we shouldn't have had an impeachment if Saddam wouldn't understand it the way we do.

Certainly Europe would agree with the Saddamites. Unlike America, they suspend elections in wartime. Under Britain's parliamentary system, all elections were suspended for the duration of World War II, from 1939 to 1945. This was despite the fact that elections had not been held for years before 1939, and the fact that the British Constitution requires elections within five years of the last election.

Britain and France suspended elections during World War I, too.

In other words, the United States held the 1942 and 1944 elections in the teeth of the disapproval of Hitler, Churchill, the Emperor Hirohito, Joseph Stalin, Mussolini, Charles DeGaulle, the Pope and maybe even popular opinion in Liechtenstein.

So who cares?

You can get whiplash trying to keep up with what opponents of impeachment say. First, they say congress should not remove the president "because we don't have a parliamentary system in America." Under the parliamentary system, as in Britain, the prime minister who heads the executive branch is elected and removed by the legislative branch.

Liberals say we don't do that here. So we don't do it the British way here. OK so far. But now they say there should have been no impeachment because there is a war on.

In other words, we should follow the parliamentary system's precedent of suspending the system because of the fighting, as Britain did between 1939 and 1945.

What is frustrating is that we all know that respectable conservatives will bring none of these contradictions up when liberals throw up their next new and conflicting argument.

A real opposition to liberalism could take this country over. It could rule this country, even as liberals win and hold offices. But we could do all that if only we had a real, determined, intelligent antiliberal leadership in this country.

As I explain in the next article, the only way to save American is to get rid of the conservative respectables and replace them with a serious opposition.

But the liberals are not going to let unrespectable people unseat the respectable conservatives. In the United States, the combination of liberals, respectable conservatives, and shrieks of "anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews!!" is too powerful to allow the formation of serious rightist opposition.

Secession is probably the only hope for both North and South.