THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

ANTI-WHITES STOLE HITLERS GENOCIDE, NOW THEYRE STEALING HIS LEBENSRAUM | 2012-12-10

From the beginning, as I warned people, anti-whites would avoid answering the Mantra by waiting awhile and then declaring, "But we ALREADY answered it!"

Lord Nelson can probably remember when I warned you about THAT one.

Sure enough, a whole slew of new anti-whites are trying that same old gambit, "We debunked the Mantra!"

One person attacks the Mantra and proclaims himself the winner.

Usually when one debates with himself and declares himself the winner they put him somewhere calm and give him stuff.

There are two techniques anti-whites use when they are talking to themselves. Both were practiced by the naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews they label us.

First there is the "Whites DESERVE the genocide we are practicing." This is a series of quotes from Mommy Professor which talks about Whites in EXACTLY the same terms Hitler spoke of Jews: The white man is the root of all evil and has never done anything good.

This panics the TOO types but we just point out that that is the same technique Hitler's speeches used.

The second anti-white technique is also straight out of Mein Kampf. This is the Lebensraum argument. It says that if Whites do not completely fill up their Lebensraum for a generation, it becomes Lebensraum for others.

And it's GOOD for us! All those old age benefits we old folks dumped on ourselves will disappear if WE have to pay for them and leave few descendants to do so.

They don't mention why we must assimilate to give away all that Lebensraum. Assimilation is not giving up Lebensraum. Assimilation is 100% racial.

Assimilation is for ALL white countries and ONLY white countries

THE NADER VOTE | 2000-11-04

Nader presently has five percent of the vote in most polls. That would get the Green Party Federal funding in the next election. If they get Federal funding, they will, like everything else the government funds, become permanent.

There will be people who will want that Federal funding, and that will make it certain that there will be a Green Party next time. The old hippies are alive and well. There are a lot of kids who like the Green Party, but the real base is the 1960s hippies and Hollywood lefties.

The media, which is largely run by these overage hippies, still likes to say the old New Left, now the Green Party, is a Young People's Movement. They still think they're Flower Children. Actually, even in the Sixties, the New Left was largely made up of the children of limousine liberals. All the kids these old time rich leftists saw were leftists, so the media thought all the young people were.

Actually, the World War II generation was much more liberal politically than the actual mass of young people in the 1960's. I saw lots of young people at Wallace rallies, but you never saw A SINGLE ONE in the media.

So the old hippies like Phil Donahue might have a platform from now on. That is worth thinking about. And I don't see how it can be anything but good for us, as it pulls the Democrats to the left and splits liberals.

BUSHITE POLITICS -- GONE WITH THE WIND | 2006-09-25

As nonwhites flow into white countries, each group will get its own spokesmen. Right now all nonwhite minorities are the left's Faithful Colored Companions, like Tonto to the Lone Ranger. Teddy Kennedy has his solid line of colored supporters. The Democratic Party spends tens of millions of dollars each election, "getting out the minority vote," on the solid assumption that one brown skin = one liberal vote.

In Europe, any major leftist demonstration will be heavily colored. Their thugs out on the streets are colored.

But in California, the Hispanics have elected themselves a mayor of Los Angeles. More and more coloreds will demand to take over their OWN politics, with their OWN spokesmen. This process is just beginning. It is a process in which today's white anti-whites will have no place.

Another process is wholly unnoticed by the media. As minorities grow, whites become more and more united. Right now they vote solidly Republican. Never before has the white population been so solidly united behind a single party. Simple arithmetic tells you that, since the colored population is incrasing geometrically and it votes solidly Democratic, the fact that the Republicans have a national majority -- they were a minority before the increase in nonwhite population -- whites must be united soliudly behind the Republicans.

We have an exact historical parallel in the Whig Party. The Whigs held onto a Southern vote that favored the EXPANSION of slavery, just as Bush holds onto his dream of a huge Hispanic vote.

The Whigs actually won the election of 1848. By 1856 the Whig Party had disappeared without a trace. But while it existed, the Whig Party contained the only hard-core group which opposed the EXPANSION of slavery into the Western territories. Lincoln was a Whig congressman.

In 1848 people were debating the Whig platform with the breathless enthusiasm that we see people talking about Bush on Stormfront today. The last Whig to be elected president was a slaveholder who more or less opposed the EXPANSION of slavery, Zachary Taylor. By 1856 anyone who discussed Whig politics would have been put into a lunatic asylum.

So the transition will not be gradual. The American political system is a natural two-party system. Only in 1856 were there three powerful national parties, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the now-forgotten American Party, now called the "Know-Nothings." BY 1860 there was only a fractured Democratic Party which could not take a united stand on the slavery EXPANSION issue and a united Republican Party, which did. The Republicans elected Lincoln with 40% of the vote.

And the Whigs? The Bush Party of 1848?

Gone with the wind.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT ASKS: WHAT USE ARE AMERICAN LIVES? | 1999-04-24

Bruce Herschensohn pointed out that "Republicans want a big military, but they don't want it to go anywhere. Liberals want a small military, but they want it to go everywhere." In other words, liberals always want to cut back the armed forces and spend all the government's money on social programs. At the same time, they want to use American forces to run the affairs of every country in the world. For humanitarian reasons, of course.

That is how "The Best and the Brightest" got us into Vietnam. This was the Harvard crowd around John Kennedy in the early 1960s. Kennedy went through with the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, but the minute it got serious, he pulled out all American air support for it. The Cubans he had promised to support were slaughtered.

So when things got rough in South Vietnam, Kennedy's advisors wanted a small-scale response. They sent in military advisors, expanding the war a bit. In short, they did what Clinton is doing today. They started small-scale and then expanded, step by step. Under liberal policy, the other side got more serious with each step, so the liberals responded by sending in more troops. And so it went, just as it is going today in Serbia.

This process was described by David Halberstam in his book, "The Best and the Brightest." He was a Kennedy liberal, and he knew those people personally. He watched them get us into Vietnam, step by step. Liberals want American troops everywhere. They don't want them to stay out and they don't want them to win.

Some time back, General Colin Powell was discussing the size and excellent armament of American armed forces. While Powell was proud of the size and strength of American forces, he consistently opposed the State Department's proposals to use those troops for action in the Balkans and other areas. This prompted Secretary of State Albright to ask, "What good are those forces if we can't USE them."

Historically, the reason one wanted large armed forces was so that one would NOT have to use them. Sweden and Switzerland have spent more per capita on their armed forces in this century than any other countries in Europe. Germany spent a lot on armed forces during the two world wars, but Sweden and Switzerland have maintained huge military establishments during every single year of this century.

The result has been that neither Sweden nor Switzerland has spent a single day at war during this century. That is the ideal use of military expenditures: to keep your military large enough so that no one wants to attack you.

Usually it is the Defense Department that tends to be militant in foreign policy, and the State Department has tended to lean more toward diplomacy. But President Clinton has now stated that the enemy today is not Nazism or Communism, but Hate. America's power is to be used around the world to crush Hate.

Translation: America's forces around the world are to be used to crush what America DEFINES as Hate. This gives a green light to liberals. Liberals do all the defining for America. Liberals propose, conservatives oppose. But conservatives never do the defining.

The State Department has been a stronghold of the political left since Franklin Roosevelt took over, so the State Department is straining at the leash to enforce this new "anti-Hate" policy for which American power is to be used.

This explains why Secretary Albright would ask, "What good are these forces if we can't USE them."

The question Albright asked could only have been asked by a liberal in our own time. In any other time, it would be assumed that no one would ask such a question unless he was a fascist. It is a very, very cold-blooded question, after all: "Why do we have all these people in uniform if we don't put them in harm's way?"

Who would ask that?

Think about it. What would a liberal have said in 1980 if Reagan had asked, "Why do we have all these soldiers if we don't USE them." There would have been a shriek from the media that could be heard in Europe by the naked ear.

But when Albright asked it, it was not even considered odd. And no respectable conservative is going to question it.

That includes the war hero who worries so much about the welfare of American troops, Senator John McCain of Arizona, the liberal's favorite conservative.